The Jacobs Photos

[Huntster]

43 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

Quote

Other parties visited and analyzed the scene over the subsequent 10 days, also seeing and photographing the footprints. People visit and analyze the site to this day, half a century later.

 

Same thing and witnesses.

 

 

Thanks for that tv news story, but a couple of BFRO comments on the photo are not "witnesses", and nor are they trace evidence (footprint casts). 

 

Please refer to the BFRO website for Elk County, Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_county_reports.asp?state=pa&county=Elk

 

The Jacobs Photo event is one of three sasquatch reports for that county since 1977 (a 45 year period). None include an eyewitness sighting or footprint finds or castings.

 

The surrounding six counties (Warren, McKean, Forest, Cameron, Jefferson, and Clearfield) report a total of 22 reports in the BFRO database since 1921 (99 years). Of those reports, 11 report actual sightings. The rest are sounds. Not a single casted footprint. The Jacobs photo is the only photographic evidence, and that can be very generously described as "inconclusive" at best.

 

I still say that it is most likely a skinny black bear with long legs. I've seen such before.

 

There is no other evidence presented from this site supporting that pic that I know of. Nobody was on site when the photo was taken. No footprints from the site were recovered. I believe I saw pics from that camera snapped minutes before the photo in question depicting cub bears.

 

Please feel free to try again to reference other supporting evidence.

[Grubfingers]

47 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Thanks for that tv news story, but a couple of BFRO comments on the photo are not "witnesses", and nor are they trace evidence (footprint casts). 

 

Please refer to the BFRO website for Elk County, Pennsylvania:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_county_reports.asp?state=pa&county=Elk

 

The Jacobs Photo event is one of three sasquatch reports for that county since 1977 (a 45 year period). None include an eyewitness sighting or footprint finds or castings.

 

The surrounding six counties (Warren, McKean, Forest, Cameron, Jefferson, and Clearfield) report a total of 22 reports in the BFRO database since 1921 (99 years). Of those reports, 11 report actual sightings. The rest are sounds. Not a single casted footprint. The Jacobs photo is the only photographic evidence, and that can be very generously described as "inconclusive" at best.

 

I still say that it is most likely a skinny black bear with long legs. I've seen such before.

 

There is no other evidence presented from this site supporting that pic that I know of. Nobody was on site when the photo was taken. No footprints from the site were recovered. I believe I saw pics from that camera snapped minutes before the photo in question depicting cub bears.

 

Apparently you didn’t watch the entire video? The newest witnesses that spotted Bigfoot at the exact same location support the sighting. It was 30 minutes after the bear were long gone when the creature showed up and it was gone in 30 seconds after the first camera flash and never returned.

[Grubfingers]

Fall leaves prevented tracks that were visible on earlier photos. A scientist published the accurate measurements taken on site and they were not proportioned like a bear. 

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

Apparently you didn’t watch the entire video? The newest witnesses that spotted Bigfoot at the exact same location support the sighting. It was 30 minutes after the bear were long gone when the creature showed up and it was gone in 30 seconds after the first camera flash and never returned.

I did watch the entire video. Then I watched the video you linked again. Looked and sounded like the first time, and again, I heard absolutely nothing about an eyewitness at the Jacobs site. Nothing. Nada. Zip. 
 

Maybe you can cite the minute/second point where that is said?

 

4 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

Fall leaves prevented tracks that were visible on earlier photos. A scientist published the accurate measurements taken on site and they were not proportioned like a bear. 

 

Got a reference to that publication, please?

[Twist]

This has been a slow boat but it’s still getting bites.  🤷.    Huntsters nibbling on an almost bare hook.   

[Huntster]

35 minutes ago, Twist said:

This has been a slow boat but it’s still getting bites.  🤷.    Huntsters nibbling on an almost bare hook.   

There's no hook. Only cheap bait.

[Grubfingers]

30 minutes ago, Huntster said:
I did watch the entire video. Then I watched the video you linked again. Looked and sounded like the first time, and again, I heard absolutely nothing about an eyewitness at the Jacobs site. Nothing. Nada. Zip. 
 

Maybe you can cite the minute/second point where that is said?

 

 

Got a reference to that publication, please?

Why can’t you see it? It’s at 1:03 a town hall meeting it was a fire hall just minutes from the Jacobs site. There were all sorts of witnesses and when they put there sightings on a map it circled the area of the Jacobs photos.

Reference

ISSN 1442-2112 it was a science journal for grade school age students. The creature was accurately measured on location with cameras and a model. They found it had 560mm arms and a 476mm long torso.

[Huntster]

7 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

Why can’t you see it? It’s at 1:03 a town hall meeting it was a fire hall just minutes from the Jacobs site. There were all sorts of witnesses and when they put there sightings on a map it circled the area of the Jacobs photos.........

I saw that. But nowhere did it say (your words):

 

Quote

...... The newest witnesses that spotted Bigfoot at the exact same location support the sighting. It was 30 minutes after the bear were long gone when the creatureshowed up and it was gone in 30 seconds after the first camera flash and never returned........

I provided a link to BFRO's database for that 7 county area. There are 25 total sightings, 3 of which are in the county where the Jacobs photo site is.

 

And none of that validates the pic.

[Grubfingers]

The same general area? The photos taken on the banks of the reservoir. Do you have a map? It’s less than a mile wide? You don’t think that’s close?

[Huntster]

39 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

.........Reference

ISSN 1442-2112 it was a science journal for grade school age students. The creature was accurately measured on location with cameras and a model. They found it had 560mm arms and a 476mm long torso.

 

The ISSN Portal showed no result of that publication #.

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, Grubfingers said:

The same general area? The photos taken on the banks of the reservoir. Do you have a map? It’s less than a mile wide? You don’t think that’s close?

 

Your words:

 

Quote

.......The newest witnesses that spotted Bigfoot at the exact same location support the sighting. It was 30 minutes after the bear were long gone when the creatureshowed up and it was gone in 30 seconds after the first camera flash and never returned........

 

Take a break, Dude. 

[Doug]

Bears were spotted in the EXACT location of the bait site. Using your logic for it has to be a sasquatch, because there was a sasquatch sighting near there. Then, using your logic, it would have to be a bear because bears were seen in the EXACT spot. I think, for me, using logic similar to yours, the measurements you provided superimposed with a chimp and knowing chimp DNA was found 200 miles away, you have proven that it is indeed a chimp.

[Grubfingers]

8 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Take a break, Dude. 

Sharpen your investigative skills. This goes way beyond the BFRO. Just because you can’t find things and can’t explain something doesn’t mean it’s not the truth. I haven’t made anything up.

[Grubfingers]

7 hours ago, Doug said:

I think, for me, using logic similar to yours, the measurements you provided superimposed with a chimp and knowing chimp DNA was found 200 miles away, you have proven that it is indeed a chimp.

You could be right. I’m no scientist but I can say with confidence I have investigated this sighting more than anyone here just by reading the comments. I’ve talked to the Pennsylvania Game Commission about it on July 7. They failed to get a photo like it after 15 years of sick bear photos. They still say it is trying to relieve irritation from the mange mite rubbing its head on the ground when so many bear proponents try to say the face is on the side? That’s why I started this thread to see if somebody could find a bear that looks like the photo on the right. Bear simply have longer torsos.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Grubfingers said:

You could be right. I’m no scientist but I can say with confidence I have investigated this sighting more than anyone here just by reading the comments. I’ve talked to the Pennsylvania Game Commission about it on July 7. They failed to get a photo like it after 15 years of sick bear photos. They still say it is trying to relieve irritation from the mange mite rubbing its head on the ground when so many bear proponents try to say the face is on the side? That’s why I started this thread to see if somebody could find a bear that looks like the photo on the right. Bear simply have longer torsos.

And shorter limbs…