Click to view attachment
Notice the crotch location.

They should have put the bigfoot on the bear way back when they did the overlay why cover up the leg size difference?

...At any rate, I think it's fair to say that I, at least, understand the Joe/BFRO "arguments" as presented. I also think it's accurate to state that the arguments have been addressed, not ignored, by the members of this forum.

Love the irony inherent in this post

If Meldrum was looking here for proof it was a bear I don't believe he found it.

Personally I don't believe any of those photo's have proved anything either way. They look like different opinions of what it is. I can see a difference in leg size, and I don't see a clear view of anything that looks like a tail. I also can't find one post where Joe kept saying that "Meldrum say's it's a Bigfoot." The information he quoted was correct. It was a response to someones comment about Meldrum never saying it was anything other than a bear. If Meldrum was looking here for proof it was a bear I don't believe he found it.

Personally I don't believe any of those photo's have proved anything either way. They look like different opinions of what it is. I can see a difference in leg size, and I don't see a clear view of anything that looks like a tail. I also can't find one post where Joe kept saying that "Meldrum say's it's a Bigfoot." The information he quoted was correct. It was a response to someones comment about Meldrum never saying it was anything other than a bear. If Meldrum was looking here for proof it was a bear I don't believe he found it.

I'm wondering if Joe and Patty are the same person?

I agree.
You gotta call em like you see em.

If Meldrum was looking here for proof it was a bear I don't believe he found it.

Personally I don't believe any of those photo's have proved anything either way. They look like different opinions of what it is. I can see a difference in leg size, and I don't see a clear view of anything that looks like a tail. I also can't find one post where Joe kept saying that "Meldrum say's it's a Bigfoot." The information he quoted was correct. It was a response to someones comment about Meldrum never saying it was anything other than a bear. If Meldrum was looking here for proof it was a bear I don't believe he found it.

?? Did you not see the Meldrum quote I linked to above?

Don't bother answering; it's a rhetorical question.

That is interesting and something I was wondering about. I read it and it just says "quote"
No source mentioned or any information as to when /where Dr Meldrum said this " quote". I asked Teresa in an earlier post about where I could find Dr Meldrum's quotes or posts. She replied and linked an incorrect link that led to nowhwere and later told me she didn't have time to fix the link or post a new one.
Can you or anyone, post a link or show me where to see/hear/view Dr Meldrum's comments that seem to be so widely known here on this forum? I have looked and I can't find any except the ones on here.
No offense intended towards the posters of Dr meldrums words or the BFF, but I wanted to read them from another source.

Very little speculation involved... the image is almost certainly a black bear, yet the photos continue to receive unwarranted attention.

Jeff Meldrum

Posted: January 10th, 2009 02:46 PM Edit Post Delete post Back to top
Statement from Matthew Moneymaker, President of the BFRO:

With all due respect, Dr. Jeff Meldrum is wrong about the Jacobs photos. He has no scientific basis for his position, if it is his position that the figure is a black bear. He is not being scientific.

We've all made mistakes before in our interpretations of images, and it wouldn't be the first time for him either. Unfortunately he is mistaken in this case, and I predict his opinion will revert back to his original, correct impression about the Jacobs images.

Meldrum's initial statements, on record, given to reporter Linda Moulton Howe, indicated that he felt it was a primate. His subsequent wavering about his initial perspective came after receiving flack from an anonymous person who sent him doctored images with doctored overlays of a bear skeleton on the Jacobs figure (which Meldrum did not realize were doctored). The anonymous image-doctorer also implied that he represented the consensus opinion of the amateur "bigfoot research community." He did not, but that deception apparently influenced Meldrum's opinion. It appeared as though Meldrum feared a backlash from his perceived support base among amateur researchers, and this formed the motivation for his subsequent opinion, rather than any kind of reasoned, measured analysis of the evidence.

The mathematical measurements of the figure in the photos, which Meldrum fails to consider, as well as the other images taken by that camera that night, showing a full grown bear along with the cubs (shown on the BFRO site), which looks so anatomically different than the Jacobs figure, clearly shows that the Jacobs figure is not a bear.

Meldrum has to deal with the limb ratios, rather than doctored bear skeleton overlays, before he can claim to be making a scientific statement about the Jacobs photos.

To many of us, it is plainly obvious that the figure is not a bear. A bear simply does not look like that when it bends down to smell the ground. Perhaps Meldrum needs to observe both bears and apes a bit more in order to see what should be obvious to an otherwise professional, scientific primate anatomist.

_____________________________________________

Below posted with permission from RobDay.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM, wrote:

Hello Dr. Meldrum-
My name is Robert Day, of Los Angeles, California. I am writing to you for verification of a quote that was recently attributed to you. Please forgive me for taking up your time on this issue, but it has apparently stirred up some debate and there is a lot of heresay being tossed around. It would be greatly appreciated if you could help, but I also understand that this subject is "touchy", and I will certainly respect any desire you have to comment/not comment on the topic.

The quote in question came from the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Symposium. The subject matter at the time was "the Jacob's Photos". According to one claimant, you were quoted as saying that the animal in the Jacob's photos was "most likely a Black Bear".

I don't want to seem biased in any way. Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated, but a simple "yes or no" as to the validity of this quote will be more than helpful.
If you can elaborate further it would mean a great deal, but again, I understand the nature of this subject and do not wish to take up your time with something that is speculative at best.

Thank you very much for your time,
Robert Day


-----------------------------------


Very little speculation involved... the image is almost certainly a black bear, yet the photos continue to receive unwarranted attention.

Jeff Meldrum

--
Jeff Meldrum, PhD
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007
Pocatello, ID 83209-8007



(Edited by PBYodeler)Bossburg

[b]Good one Joe, but it looks like you were just silenced. I’d call it “baited for dismissal.”

Can you or anyone, post a link or show me where to see/hear/view Dr Meldrum's comments

( This has been an official ~ Red Rat Snake ~ Rambling )

And a damn good one too...

Same length

With the blur the body parts are debatable but the proportional difference stands out as a key piece of evidence. This picture was a big influance but has a false impression. The hip is higher and the feet are lower than the bears. Divided equally the proportional difference is fadded and hidden. It speaks for itself when replaced.

So, I guess you're trying to show that the legs are different? I don't think I ever attempted to indicate that they were exactly the same; the hind legs of the two animals are held at different angles, and the front legs of the Jacobs bear are fairly straight whereas the front legs of the comparison yearling black bear are bent, as should be obvious to anyone looking at the images. In addition, the feet of the comparison bear are obscured by grass, versus the feet of the Jacobs bear (which look, coincidentally enough, like bear feet), which are clearly visible. Still, I think the two images are more than similar enough to indicate correspondence.

However, as I indicated at the beginning of all this, I harbored no illusions that those of you who think the Jacobs photos show a primate would ever change your minds. I see that there are still recent posts at the BFRO forum indicating that trickeration was employed by me in presenting the comparison images for the Jacobs photos, which was the point I attempted to address in this thread. Ah well, such is life. I won't lose any sleep over you and others thinking a chimpanzee is loose in PA.

The odd looking creature in the photos received a lot of attention and it more than warrants the questionable bear theory. The yearling bears’ hind legs are stretched out as straight as an arrow and its obvious where they end in the grass. The creatures left leg looks like the only one that’s bent. It’s not the same animal.

I won't lose any sleep over you and others thinking a chimpanzee is loose in PA.

Even if everyone thinks it was a juvenile it’s not worth loosing sleep over. Regardless, you had professionals like Lynn Rogers, Jeff Meldrum and others admitting it had a unique proportional difference compared to a bear. Lynn Rogers was thinking he’s never seen a bear with legs that long, and then you privately mail him this deceiving picture followed by the presentation of his reply at the Texas conference as factual evidence. In my book that was not cool.

Since then the BFRO has acquired a recent letter in which Lynn stated he couldn’t tell for sure what it was unless he was there when the picture was taken. The only thing you accomplished was to save the Bigfoot skeptics a pile of work. Everyone knows the BFRO secured the rights to the photos so there isn’t anything left for other organizations. This counterproductive research (spending all your time trying to prove it’s a bear) is a clear display of competitive aggression. The agenda you have denounces your organization.

Since then the BFRO has acquired a recent letter in which Lynn stated he couldn’t tell for sure what it was unless he was there when the picture was taken.

The only thing you accomplished was to save the Bigfoot skeptics a pile of work.

Everyone knows the BFRO secured the rights to the photos so there isn’t anything left for other organizations.

This counterproductive research (spending all your time trying to prove it’s a bear) is a clear display of competitive aggression. The agenda you have denounces your organization.

Everyone knows the BFRO secured the rights to the photos so there isn’t anything left for other organizations. This counterproductive research (spending all your time trying to prove it’s a bear) is a clear display of competitive aggression. The agenda you have denounces your organization.

In the second photo, what position do you see the subject in? Where is the head if not positioned where I outlined it?

What do you propose the "thing on the ground" is that appears for that photo only in that position? (2nd photo) Also it would be impossible to "lean over" in that manor without supporting your weight with the front legs. The back/stomach area is nearly flat with the ground.

Try getting in the same position as the first photo with your head below your waist with your arms in front of you without supporting your weight with them. (as in the top photo) The only things drawn in are in blue and blinking by the way.
In the second photo, what position do you see the subject in? Where is the head if not positioned where I outlined it?

I have no idea what that thing on the ground is. It doesn't look like it is completely bent over, and I don't see any problem with a strong creature leaning into that position. The blue blink's? It wouldn't matter what leg is left or right (it's debatable) what you have for a tail can't be because it isn't centered on the body. Ears, snouts, tails I don't see. Dark swirls of hair, dirt, background objects, who knows for sure? I think the head is for the most part out of view on both photos or it would be clear.

Whatever it was it has too many versions and opinions. So that gets me back to the only thing I see clearly are the physical proportions, and they're not of a bear from what evidence I have seen on this sightings investigation and models.