The Jacobs Photos

[Huntster]

If it was a motion film or video and that critter was walking about on two legs on a moist river bed leaving dozens of 15" human looking tracks, and we could see the human-like feet, I'd say, "That clearly isn't a bear".  But this thing is sitting like a bear, has a body like a bear, and has a snout like a bear.  Yeah, we can't see ears, but that doesn't make it s sasquatch or chimp. Even if it's a sasquatch in a bear suit, you'd never prove it.

 

You're free to see whatever you think it is, but I see a bear.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

If it was a motion film or video and that critter was walking about on two legs on a moist river bed leaving dozens of 15" human looking tracks, and we could see the human-like feet, I'd say, "That clearly isn't a bear".  But this thing is sitting like a bear, has a body like a bear, and has a snout like a bear.  Yeah, we can't see ears, but that doesn't make it s sasquatch or chimp. Even if it's a sasquatch in a bear suit, you'd never prove it.

 

You're free to see whatever you think it is, but I see a bear.

Where do you see a bear snout? It exhibits prognathism like an ape. The mouth is protruding. The nose is dished more like an ape instead of a human. There is no hair around the eyes. The skull is cone shaped. There are no visible protruding ears like a Bear.

 

That in no way, shape or form looks like a Bear. This explains a lot with the Jacobs photo.

 

Prove that it’s a Sasquatch in a Bear suit?🤔🤷‍♂️

[Huntster]

17 hours ago, norseman said:

Where do you see a bear snout?.......

 

On the front of his face.

 

Quote

........It exhibits prognathism like an ape. The mouth is protruding. The nose is dished more like an ape instead of a human. There is no hair around the eyes. The skull is cone shaped.........

 

I don't see any of that.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

On the front of his face.

 

 

I don't see any of that.

👍

[Grubfingers]

It still freaks me out because it’s so darn chimp-like and that head on the ground reminds me of something alien related? Honestly I don’t know what we’re dealing with here but I think it has something to do with Bigfoot reproduction.

[OntarioSquatch]

The legs look bearish to me. Kinda like this one

[Marty]

Second one is obviously a baby Bigfoot

On a slightly more serious note, Bears are strikingly human-shaped at certain angles and I'm not at all surprised if that's really just a juvenile Bear, being lanky and young, in a weird position that gives the illusion of a human form.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Marty

[Backdoc]

???

 

[Marty]

16 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

???

 

I....can actually see it

Especially after seeing an IR flash, must've been protecting the cub from the camera flash or something.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Marty

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

???

 

No

[Grubfingers]

Sorry but that head on the ground has no cub features and there is no face on the side just pareidolia. I remember when skeptics were excited to find a bear ear proving a side face but daytime photos had the ear it was just tree branches! This figure like the Patterson film has stood the test of time.

[Grubfingers]

On 12/12/2022 at 9:59 AM, Marty said:

Second one is obviously a baby Bigfoot

On a slightly more serious note, Bears are strikingly human-shaped at certain angles and I'm not at all surprised if that's really just a juvenile Bear, being lanky and young, in a weird position that gives the illusion of a human form.

Please show me just 1 bear doing this.

[gigantor]

4 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

Sorry but that head on the ground has no cub features and there is no face on the side just pareidolia. I remember when skeptics were excited to find a bear ear proving a side face but daytime photos had the ear it was just tree branches! This figure like the Patterson film has stood the test of time.

 

I remain on the fence.

 

It is very interesting because bear hind legs are much shorter and the head much bigger than the figure in that picture.

 

 

 

What do you make of the bear cub next to it?

[hiflier]

I don't particularly care to discuss such things but in this case the controversy never ends so thought I'd toss my two rocks (cents) into the camp. What gets taken for a long left arm or leg is, from my perspective, part shadow from the flash. So what I think I'm looking at is the rear end of a bear with it's head facing toward the tree. It appears then that the the long "left arm"  is half shadow where the bear's left foot is raised from the ground like it's stepping over something underneath it.

 

Seeing it that way allows the left leg to more match the right leg in length. One can sort of make out the back of the left foot if the left leg is more sized with the right. And perhaps the short tail? And with the bear facing the tree one could nearly see the tip of an ear or maybe both ear tips? I think what's been throwing everyone is the long shadow cast of the left leg by the camera's flash which together with the left leg looks like a long arm.

 

That long dark-shadowed left "limb" could also be the second cub under the mom who's raising her foot to step over it as she walks toward the tree. That said it would make the back of her looked tipped to the right with her left foot in the air- and therefore more equal in length with her right. So, not a Sasquatch IMO.

[Doug]

You asked "please show me just one bear doing this." I say, please show me one sasquatch doing this. Since the photo itself can't be used to prove a bear, the photo itself can't be used to prove a sasquatch. 

Therfore, if we need to find another photo of a bear in this position to prove it is a bear, you must do the same to prove a sasquatch. Even then, if we had our photographic proof that a bear and a sasquatch could do this, we still wouldn't know if it was one or the other. We would, however, know that it is either one or the other.

See, it is a useless argument to keep going.