Marty Posted July 7, 2022 Share Posted July 7, 2022 (edited) One thing that strikes me as weird are the lack of prominent human-like glutes, as we should expect to see them on a Primate that's closer to us than a Chimp, but we really don't and that tells me it's some Bear in a really odd position. More than happy to be wrong though Edited July 7, 2022 by Marty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryzfoot Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 It's sirprising this is even still being debated. You have a bunch of bears around a bear feeding station in Pennsylvania. A chimp? LOL..... Bears sharing food with a potentially aggressive primate is really unlikely. And all the posing analogies have shown a black bear more than capable of doing the pose in question. It's a bear, people..... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubfingers Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 Just now, Larryzfoot said: It's sirprising this is even still being debated. You have a bunch of bears around a bear feeding station in Pennsylvania. A chimp? LOL..... Bears sharing food with a potentially aggressive primate is really unlikely. And all the posing analogies have shown a black bear more than capable of doing the pose in question. It's a bear, people..... I don’t think it was a bear it also had deer and Sasquatch hanging around that area if you watch the eye witnesses put it on the map right next to this creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubfingers Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 18 hours ago, Marty said: One thing that strikes me as weird are the lack of prominent human-like glutes, as we should expect to see them on a Primate that's closer to us than a Chimp, but we really don't and that tells me it's some Bear in a really odd position. More than happy to be wrong though Investigators followed the body lines with close examinations they found interesting features and one is glutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubfingers Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 2 hours ago, Larryzfoot said: You have a bunch of bears around a bear feeding station in Pennsylvania. A chimp? LOL..... Bears sharing food with a potentially aggressive primate is really unlikely. http://vimeo.com/6367515 Listen to the timeline above the creature wasn’t sharing anything it showed up long after the bear were gone. It was a deer hunter using deer bait not a bear feeding station. The camera was set on a 30 second delay then it was gone and nothing came back to the feeder. It seems more like it scared every animal out of the area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 This is an ink blot test. When we take a blurry black and white blob we can draw lines around it to make it look a bit like anything. We can even strain to draw a pic to make it seem to fit some ape-like thing bending forward. It's more likely if you look at the actual pic one is seeing a blurry pic of the butt end of a bear or some two bears where the crossing of their blurry bodies make it look like we are seeing a 'thing'. The most likely explanation is the animals which were there seconds or minutes before has another or the same animals still there at or near the same time and that is what we are seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubfingers Posted July 8, 2022 Author Share Posted July 8, 2022 It’s not really blurry when you look at the entire photo on the BFRO. You have to look closely at all the details in the evidence. Obviously if it looked like a bear it wouldn’t have received any attention. The line in the back has to be the spine that shows it had very broad shoulders unlike a bear. The cubs were darker and smaller. They were half hour before not seconds and never came back. The Sagittal Crest shape of the head is not bear like. The head on the ground it’s obviously part of the creature it’s not as dark as the bear cubs? Nobody in 15 years could find or take a bear picture like that because this was not a bear! They had to use clay to replicate the position. In fact both photos are of something obviously very contorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted July 8, 2022 Share Posted July 8, 2022 ^^^ I don't pretend to know what I am looking at on this film and have spent very little time on it. There is just nothing about it that looks impressive to me. Again, just like the clay model above, I don't know why such an animal needs to be playing a game of twister. Is it a mama bear to the Cubs? Is it a dog? What is it? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 8 hours ago, Grubfingers said: It’s not really blurry when you look at the entire photo on the BFRO. You have to look closely at all the details in the evidence. Obviously if it looked like a bear it wouldn’t have received any attention. The line in the back has to be the spine that shows it had very broad shoulders unlike a bear. The cubs were darker and smaller. They were half hour before not seconds and never came back. The Sagittal Crest shape of the head is not bear like. The head on the ground it’s obviously part of the creature it’s not as dark as the bear cubs? Nobody in 15 years could find or take a bear picture like that because this was not a bear! They had to use clay to replicate the position. In fact both photos are of something obviously very contorted. The lines on the Jacob's creature are wrong. In the photo, the creatures right rear leg is extend back and the left rear leg is forward. The lines the investigators drew are the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 Where is the bears head? The creatures head is hidden by its shoulders. A bear has NO shoulders! There is no way a bear can hide its head behind its shoulders. No more so that a feline or a canid could! To me this is just silly…. Skinny bear or no? This skeletal fact remains. There are a bunch of other red flags. No tail. The arm and leg proportions are all wrong. It has a full coat of hair….not mange. Im not saying this is a Bigfoot. I’m saying this is not a Bear. If you were observing these two from behind? Which head would be most obstructed by the shoulders? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubfingers Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 Look at the shape of the entire body and yes that is a head on the ground according to the top bear biologist Jerry Feaser. It’s a different lighter color/shade than the cubs when compared. Now prove me wrong go search anywhere you want and find me a picture of a bear in that position. IT CANNOT BE DONE, IT’S NOT BEEN DONE IN 15 YEARS, IT’S NOT A BEAR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted July 9, 2022 Share Posted July 9, 2022 21 hours ago, Backdoc said: .......I don't pretend to know what I am looking at on this film and have spent very little time on it. There is just nothing about it that looks impressive to me........ That's pretty much how I feel about it, with this addition: It could be the Man on the Moon, for all I care. It moves the ball......into the stands for it to be batted around by every drunk Bozo who went to the game. But it in no way whatsoever leads to any conclusion regarding sasquatchery. In the case of the PG film, there are three possibilities, and three possibilities only: 1) It is a man in a suit 2) It is an uncatalogued creature 3) It is an extraterrestrial entity (which, really, is included in Possibility #2) That's it. Period. End of discussion........if it's possible to end any discussion among people, which of course, it's not. In this case? Pfft. It's a waste of time, and this post is my contribution to that waste. 12 hours ago, norseman said: ........Im not saying this is a Bigfoot. I’m saying this is not a Bear. Sorry, Dude.......I'm pretty sure that's a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grubfingers Posted July 9, 2022 Author Share Posted July 9, 2022 I’m saying it’s the first good look at a juvenile Sasquatch with eye witnesses that seen it when they put it on the map. That totally added to the legitimacy of this sighting but don’t take my word for it watch them on this video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 9, 2022 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2022 3 hours ago, Grubfingers said: IT’S NOT A BEAR! I'm inclined to agree with you. Irrelevant. It is not clear what it is. The picture is simply not good enough. Not being a bear does not mean that it is a bigfoot. Bottom line .. the Jacobs photo is a curiosity, one of many, but it does not stand as evidence of **anything**. Not this, not that, not anything. Relentless discussion of ambiguous photos is a waste of time. It won't sway anyone. MIB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted July 10, 2022 Share Posted July 10, 2022 If the fact that there are those who saw sasquatches in the area proves that it is a sasquatch in Jacob's photo, then using that same logic, since bears were seen in the area and at the site it proves it to be a bear. Sightings in the area prove nothing as to what is in the pics. I truly believe that it is not a sasquatch and not a bear. What I do believe is that it is even more unbelievably a chimp. Everything except for sightings in the area, show it to be a chimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts