Just came in from yard work and started cruising through youtube and came across this new video http://www.youtube.com/user/Jeepgoup. I like the music

I have not been a fan of the jacob photos and have leaned towards mangy bear. However, I will admit that the video makes some good points and the animation helps me to see a bf in the pictures where before they simply did not make any sense.

I wonder if jacobs has taken any additional pictures and photographed any mangy bears.

I don't know who put that video together but they did a nice job on the animation of the "mangy bear" or whatever it is. Good question, I don't know if he has taken anymore pictures.

Hi

Rob Zombie ( Dragula ) Good Tune

The Vid has some points i think, But i am still Pro Bear

Peace
Tim

This looks like the new dance craze.

They would have more credibility if they knew the difference between "there" and "their". Or should I say they wood have more credibility...

I didn't say I liked their spelling... they're, there, their...

A product of "No Child Left Behind"!

I wasn't blaming you wildwoman, the video itself was humorous. There certainly are worse on youtube.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...dm4AQ&hl=en

I like this video.

Hi

That has a lot of good old 50's Monsters and Godzilla

Peace
Tim

Yeah man I love that song. I love 50's horror.

Bigfoot Boogie!

To be perfectly honest I feel this evidence was dismissed too soon. Back when it started I jumped on the bear wagon, I thought I could see a bears ear sticking up too. I lost interest with all the arguing. Now that the smoke has cleared I decided to revisit. In the aftermath I found some very clear close-up photos. Then I found out the photos most everyone, myself included, looked at on the internet were actually snapped with a cell phone from cheap print outs! I’m not sure what it was but I’m convinced it wasn’t a bear.

You are not alone in this thought.
cell phone? print outs?
I still like the music...

sigh How long will the Jacobs bear topic continue to raise its ... rear?

I hope nobody mistakes that video (somebody has way too much time on their hands) for evidence in support of a primate argument for the Jacobs photos.

In my opinion, there was no undue hastiness in the deliberations regarding the identity of the animal as a black bear. There is nothing to compare with the photo to establish that it could be a juvenile sasquatch, but there are photos of juvenile black bears that compare favorably. Since that is the case, that is, since the Jacobs subject looks like a bear, it makes sense to say that it is a bear. None of the scientists or experts promised by the BFRO have gone public with an opinion supporting the primate interpretation, but there have been primatologists/anthropologists/biologists who have gone on record with their considered opinion that the animal is a black bear. (They're circumspect in their opinion that there is a bear in the photos.)

I don't know what picture was used for comparison that was taken with a cell phone camera, or what difference that would make, for that matter. However, the comparison photo I used was not from a cell phone. This link to an overlay series illustrates the uniformity of body morphology and proportions between the Jacobs subject and a juvenile black bear. The photo below shows a side by side comparison of the hindquarters.

Click to view attachment

In spite of the fact that this issue seems clear to me, I'm resigned to the reality that those who are "convinced" the Jacobs photos show a sasquatch won't be changing their minds anytime soon.

That's all I needed to see Peregrine. Those two butts are way too close in appearance to be anything but a black bear.

I completely agree.

That's an excellent photo comparison, Perigrine. How anybody can still say it "might" be a sasquatch after viewing that is beyond my comprehension.

Hi

Perfectly good post, Has good spelling, All the dots and coma stuff seems to be good ,Has some talk about close up pictures, But some how it still don't make sence at all,

Peace
Tim

I've said this before the picture is one of the Chicago 7, probably Jerry Rubin! The fur matches.
Click to view attachment

I’m glad to see you checked my spelling but to say I don’t make sense at all is kind of rude. As far as those rears are concerned they don’t mean anything. If you show the rest of that picture it was used to prove it wasn’t a bear the legs are far from a match and any rear end in that position covered with hair is going to look the same. That is including some of the many Bigfoot photos.

The many what?

Maybe I should re-phrase that as the many Bigfoot looking photos of how Bigfoot may really look from eye witness accounts.

???? Where to start?

Any rear end is going to look the same? Whatever.


I presume you're referring to the patently ridiculous "proof" offered at the BFRO forum. Here's a suggestion: take the "analysis" provided at the BFRO forum where they talk about proportions and all that, along with the comparisons that I've provided for your consideration, and take them to a mammalogist or a primatologist or wildlife biologist or a vertebrate anatomy expert, or whoever you can find that falls within that realm, and ask them what they think. As soon as you find someone like that who agrees that it's a primate, make sure and notify the BFRO. They still haven't been able to find someone willing to agree with their assessment.


?? Are you referring to individual frames from the Patterson/Gimlin film? Bigfoot photos are rarer than hen's teeth.

Okay, let's go a little further up the picture and note the basic anatomical differences in the ribcage and scapula structures of a bear versus a primate.

Click to view attachment
*Based on Apeman's original observations.

The arm is clearly reaching at the bait causing his back to be rounded, I just looked in the mirror reached forward and rounded my back like a bear but it doesn’t make me one. I don’t want to sound like I’m pushing my beliefs onto anyone but I still say it’s not a bear from what I interpret to be true. I don’t want to push my beliefs onto anyone especially on a subject such as Bigfoot, because there is no solid proof and may never be.

Reaching? It's arm is directly below it's body apparently supporting it's weight.

Click to view attachment


I guess that's where we differ, your mind is closed by belief, mine is open to look at the facts. Which clearly points to it being a bear.

I see that this subject still elicites the same amount of fervor now as it did in the beginning. It really doesn't matter what any of us believe the picture to be, bear, Sas or Jerry.
I imagine that the Jacob guy who took the picture and gave it to a group for the world to see, is now lamenting his decision.

I see the arm is bent slightly and not supporting anything. My mind is open to facts I just see this differently than you. I’ve seen all the photos on both sides of the story, at first I thought bear but but after I came back and looked things over I feel like I was misled from what I now see as a misinterpretation of the 2 pictures. Facts to you are not facts to me. If everyone thought the same life would be very boring.

I said ::::::::::::Perfectly good post, Has good spelling, All the dots and coma stuff seems to be good ,Has some talk about close up pictures, >>>>>>>>But some how it still don't make sence at all <<<<<<<<<







Can i ask were is the rude part here ??? Just cause it don't make sense to me is not being rude at all, Bear in mind that i was giving ya credit for spelling and some really really good pictures,,,,, That i have already seen and talked about here many times, I was going to put you in the raffle for a few encyclopedia of known animals, But i can't see that happening now, I am just to upset

Peace
Tim

?? Now who's being rude?

You've certainly been misled, but it's not taken place in these forums.

I think you have some nerve to accuse basically the entire bigfooting world, wildlife biologists who have offered opinions, and the many scientists and others in this forum who have evaluated the images, of misleading the public and somehow misrepresenting the images.

The fact that you supposedly now find the laughable attempts at analysis shown at the BFRO site to be convincing tells me that you are the one who has misrepresented yourself. I don't believe that you ever thought the images were anything but a sasquatch. Good luck trying to find a single qualified scientist who will agree with you.

From day one I have seen nothing in the Jacobs pics that in any way contradicts the bear theory, but plenty has me struggling to call it a juvenile BF. At the very least, the foot that is visible in Image 3 of the series does not look to me like one possible of leaving a footprint anything like those we currently credit to BF. It appears far too short to my eye, though I do concede that the image is too fuzzy to be a smoking gun. It doesn't support the BF theory anyways, at least not to me.

Now seeing the image overlays that Peregrine posted, I feel even more comfortable with my initial bear conclusion.

Regardless of all that, even if this were a juvenile BF, the fact that it looks like a bear to so many (including wildlife experts), effectively rules it out as a piece of viable evidence for BF's existence. For any photographic evidence of BF to have real value in the quest to have the species recognised, it needs to be blindingly obvious and rise above any ambiguity with respect to possible mundane species misidentification.

I'd love it to be otherwise, but it isn't.

Nice work on your video Patmet. I applaud your investigative efforts, but I think in this instance you are wasting them on an image that can at best only ever be considered inconclusive, and at worst, be written off simply as a known species.

Click to view attachment
Touche
This case should be closed and filed without further debate.


Rob

It is still all about "winning" isn't it? The debate on any picture of a Sasquatch will continue here and elsewhere...

My question to all of you is this, If you had a clear (as in undeniably clear) picture of a Sasquatch would you post it for everyone to see? What would be the pros or cons to posting in your opinion?

Aw now Rob, where's the fun in that?


I agree that the overlays that Peregrine posted can't be denied nor disputed. But hey, that's just my opinion.









It's still a bear.

I don’t understand why I am getting credit for the video. But hey I’ll take a pat on the back even if I don’t deserve it. At least I know what it feels like to be improperly analyzed.
From where I come from when someone tells you that you don’t make any sense that is rude. I have to apologize if I misunderstood. There are several very clear close-ups from what I understand they didn’t come from the BFRO posted pictures, but were zoomed in from some of the original copies someone put on the internet. I looked closely and the clarity shows. Yes, I am not an expert but I do know how to compare.
I feel all the Bigfoot teams do a good job until the testosterone fueled better than you at analyzing Bigfoot kicks in. From what I hear the so called wildlife experts can’t tell a cat from a mountain lion. My opinion will change if I see some real proof it was a bear. The facts I see are:
Fact: Limbs are longer than his body.
Fact: Pictures of mangy bears have a tail that is very prominent.
Fact: You can see his anus there is no tail
Fact: there was no face on his side.
Fact: He has no ears sticking up.
Fact: You can see part of a face.

Never mind, I understand why I am getting credit for the video. Now I see the problem here you’re over analyzing everything. You took my copy/paste/delete mistaken double BUT and thought it matched the computer whiz kids double BUT. Very good Sherlock BUT this time I have some proof for you. I can’t even post pictures or I would have showed you a few I have copied that would explain what I see. Can I create a computer movie? Not a chance. BUT now I see why you think a Bigfoot but matches a Bears.
I will take credit for that movie if you like. I joined this forum because it is where I discovered it.

Computer "whiz" kid's double?

You really need to know who Peregrine is. Relax and read some posts, get to know who folks on the forum are.

Hi

Thats ok, Not everyone is good at using a computer, Maybe you should get the Wiz kid to join the BFF forum, That way you can get those pictures posted of what you are seeing, Don't forget about the created computer movie, We want to hear about how that was made TOO

Peace
Tim

This is excellent, Ty.

Patmet, you are in the member's group on the forum so there is no reason that you can't post pictures. Go for it.


Please, join in the conversation without the sarcastic remarks and we'll all be just fine. Thanks

I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but I’m glad it happened it was the perfect example of analyzing a seemingly obvious comparison that you felt confident about the similarities and were totally wrong at the same time. It shows the easiest most obvious answer is not always the correct one.

This is just my opinion but honestly there is only a slight chance Bigfoot is real in my mind. Maybe I’m not up to speed but these pictures are as credible as any other piece of evidence I have seen. I would say it is some kind of ape but it doesn’t have bowed legs. I don’t believe it was a bear, so if it was not a young Bigfoot it was 2 separate fake homemade statues and that type of fraudulent deceit should be investigated by the authorities. If it was I hope it carries a healthy fine.

My bad. I got that impression reading over the first page and the comments regarding spelling, which I took to refer to the video clip. Apologies for the mistake.

I don't observe the same "facts" that you do when looking at the pictures. I guess that's where we differ. No probs. I'm comfortable with the conclusion I have reached. That you disagree doesn't concern me really. Good luck with your analysis regardless and hey, maybe you'll find a smoking gun piece of evidence that will change minds, including mine. I guess it's your time to spend.

The same anatomical Scapula structures as a monkey. This one I found in the BFRO. Hey I figured the image thing out.
Click to view attachment

I had to sign up to this forum because I just can’t take it anymore. These pictures real or fake are not going to disappear. They’re going to be around forever just like the rest. Let’s face it they are still creating quite a stir. A year later and they’re still being talked about all over the internet. I believe Bigfoot is real and somebody needs to get some proof that everyone can agree on. We need to move forward and put these 2 on the shelf with the rest!

LOL Welcome to the forum Phillip.

Patmet, how exactly does the picture of the monkey have anything to do with the Jacobs photo? I agree they're both apes. I don't see a scapula on either animal in the photos. You know the scapulae are the shoulder blades, right?

Interesting. I don't know enough about anatomy to speak with authority on this myself, but just this morning I listened to an interview with Dr Meldrum (who certainly does) in which he said the scapula evident in the pictures does not match those of an ape but does look very much like a bear's. In his esteem, while there were interesting things in the pics, that was one feature in particular which pointed to a bear. I credit that guy with knowing what he is talking about when it comes to primate anatomy.

The scapulae of a bear and those of a primate (including the monkey posted above) are most certainly NOT oriented in the same plane--as demonstrated numerous times previously in the many, many threads about these photos. This animal's left scapula (and thus presumably its right as well) is sitting much closer to the sagittal plane (running front to back). If it were primate, regardless of the position of the arms, they would be positioned in the frontal plane (side to side), which this thing's clearly are not.

This is NOT a primate, and anyone remotely familiar with primate anatomy will tell you that. It is unbelievable that people still want to believe this thing is anything other than a bear.