Eagleeye - welcome to the forums!

Just so you don't waste anymore of your time, it is a bear in mange. And the poor,scrawny thing is probably dead by now. Like this topic should be. (No offense)

Aw, come on folks!
You're all wrong.
Someone rented a chimp and let him loose in front of the camera...and told him not to show his face.
He's a good chimp, and did what he was told...

1 Bigfoot never eat deer bait
2 Bigfoot always carry their young
3 Bigfoot never cross in front of game cameras
4 Bigfoot never leave their young unattended

It does have hair not mange the best reason for this would be the following scenario:

I know that bears have a tendency to dig in old garbage piles and eat large amounts of everything in sight. If this is one, it must have been into some chemicals or radiation that have caused its brain to swell. This would explain the pointed shape of its head. This in turn would place pressure at the base of its brain on the pituitary gland. In turn this would cause it to have abnormally long limbs.

I wouldn't bet my life on it as a bear or a Sasquatch.

Yeehaw!

haha Unlikely Dan. Bears can smell the chemicals from two miles away. Plus my theory is, he would only get bigger (using The Incredible Hulk as a model). Anything is possible but I think mange is more likely.
What if a comet hit a tree which fell on the dumpster and pinned the bears skull against a wall placing pressure at the base of its brain on the pituitary gland? Hmmm I'm going to think on that for a while.

Two words to avoid: "Never" and "Always".

Two of those... well ......

It's a ******* llama!

Hello Folks,

For your viewing pleasure taken by a trail camera. Almost the same pose as the Jacob's photo, only during the day. It's a bear.

See ... now you're just talking all crazy. That is the Jacob's creature. It still has no head.

Hey, what ever happened to that video of a bigfoot that you claimed to have?

Hi

See ... now you're just talking all crazy. That is the Jacob's creature. It still has no head.




Peace
Tim

Here is a non enhanced/edited photo of a REAL sasquatch for comparison.

Click to view attachment

The Jacobs creature is at more of a side view but still has longer legs and a shorter torso. Whatever it was it is the all time king of limb length. Only comparable to primates like in this picture from the BFRO forum.

Click to view attachment

And YET, no one ever stops to ask "Why?" a sasquatch would walk around on all 4's when it's not 'apparently' built in the first place to do that. "Coz... the BFRO SAID they do."

Jeez no wonder you go by eagleeye.....eagleeye.Nice comparison

Edited because I realized that shooting this down is not nearly as much fun as watching to see how completely off track this can go....
Have fun:)

Hi

Nightwing ~ It's a crazy idea but . . It just might work

Peace
Tim

Tim, I'd originally said "how completely stupid"..but figured "off track" was more PC.
Still...I bet before it's done, we have Mole rats and armadillos posing as bigfoot in the eyes of some..

Naked mole rats do bear an uncanny resemblance to mangy bears.

Click to view attachment

Hey..I think you may be onto something!
That's what squatch start out as....naked mole bears! Then after 10 years or so of living underground, they emerge and become fully fledged adults.
(just wait..this theory will be parroted by someone, somewhere, one day)

I was fortunate enough to see your post before you edited it. It was no surprise to me that you also referred to the Jacob creature as a “challenge”. The comment about “shooting it down” and “watching it go off track” further display the severity of the problem with this forum. Since the beginning it was never about discussing an interesting photo that the entire world was a buzz over. It’s an embarrassment to most Bigfoot enthusiasts on how much time was spent here trying to convince everyone that it was a bear. Effort to explore the possibility in primate comparison was zero to none. Everyone knew Meldrum was interested in the fact that it seems to have the proportions of a primate. Sure he is “almost” certain it was a bear and Rogers said it was a bear. But then later on Rogers said he wasn’t certain. So now this is going to be gospel? Science is almost certain Bigfoot is a perpetually recycled hoax and nobody listens to them.

When someone tries to show what they see they are told to go back and read; then you will be convinced. Brainwashed is more like it when they keep repeating the same things with the same ridiculous pictures of how they figured out the angles on the whole thing from the two pictures, without any actual field investigative work whatsoever. Multiple positions of various body parts and guessing about blurred areas are not accurate interpretations. They have totally ignoring the only real measurements that were taken by professionals in the field. They didn’t make any effort to prove their point by joining in on the important field work.

Why?

If it was really just about a bear it would have been dropped years ago. The oldest and largest Bigfoot Researcher organization the “BFRO” own the picture. Who hasn’t noticed how quick they are here on the BFF to give them a shot? All because the BFF is controlled by namely the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy, with some members that belong to the Alliance Of Independent Bigfoot Researchers and Cryptomundo. They seem to be driven solely by promotion and profit when they act like this. They work as a group to join in on discussions on behalf of or as proxy for each other, with the aim of swaying consensus in the discussion. They don’t fairly represent all the significant views but instead they choose to use their power of control of this website as a weapon to promote their point of view. This is usually followed by picking apart or deleting the arguing posts. (Watch how quickly they act on me). They will always have the last word, then when they start to loose or after they bury the argument in posts of ridicule, they usually remove and block the arguing party. They have zero tolerance for any rude remarks unless they are making them. It is pointless to argue with them because after all they do own the bat and the ball, you will loose.

To Mr. Eagle Eye, there is no need for shame not everyone feels you’re completely stupid. The shame belongs on those that run a forum about an animal that is for the most part completely unsupported by the scientific community and at the same time belittle someone for having there own opinion.

Hi

All because the BFF is controlled by namely the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy, with some members that belong to the Alliance Of Independent Bigfoot Researchers and Cryptomundo.

I don't know were in the world you came up with that info but all the power too ya ! ~ ~ I can honestly say that i am controlled by no one on this forum, I do answer to the rest of the Administrators and Moderators but WE are not directed in any direction by any means by anyone, We are all very different folks from very different backgrounds with many different beliefs, It's all about the rules and guidelines here . . . . The Members input is what keeps the direction of any discussion we have, I have known that well before i was a Moderator, In fact if this Forum was controlled as you say i would not have ever taken the Position. . . Take some time and mail a few folks here and see what they say

Peace
Tim

?? I think that might be Brak's pet. You know how people, err, alien pirates, choose pets that look like themselves. Another possibility to add to the list....

Click to view attachment

You seem to be miising the othe factoid here, it is in reality 99.999999% likely that is a mangy bear. It's gotten way too attention imho.




mangy bear pics notwithstanding, his statement is not totally naive, although I would question any duplicity by the TBRC.

Ah, what the heck.

I know this may be an unpopular opinion here on the BFF, but since we're talking about it...


I still can't figure out how anyone sees a bear in that picture. Especially a mangy one.
There is no sign of mange WHATSOEVER in that photo, and yet the "mangy bear" still gets everyone's nod.
There is way too much wrong with that photo for it to be a bear. And even after reading all of the threads on all of the forums about it, I'm still amazed that folks are convinced it is a bear.

I don't know what it is, but I'm almost certain it's not a bear. Especially a mangy bear.

I also have to agree (in part) with Retired Linda. I think the fact that the BFRO owns the pic sends a lot of people into a knee-jerk reaction of "anti-establishment" mode. Last year when I was doing some fact checking about these photos (namely, what was said and quoted about them), I was immediately barraged by a few from Texas who assumed I was a BFRO croney. I just wanted a simple answer to a simple question, but the guys who addressed me accused me of all manner of crap that dealt with me supposedly being a BFRO member or some sort of pot stirrer. It was shocking, and I was completely taken off-guard by it.
So, I think there is some merit to the idea that this argument has more to do with the "us vs. them" problem between large BF organizations than it does with the actual content of the photos. That's the way I saw it when I tried to dig deeper, and that's still the impression I get when I read these threads about it. And there are some comparison bear pics drifting around the web that are quite obviously (to me) manipulated to extend the limbs. I know this because I work with digital imagery every day and can spot these artifacts, sometimes with the naked eye. Realizing this was happening made me wonder what the real agenda was.

So what's in the pics?
I do not know, but my instincts say chimpanzee. Probably the longest of longshots, huh? But that's what my gut tells me. But I also have no idea what a juvenile BF looks like, and I do know what young, thin bears look like. I've seen plenty of them, one so close I could have spanked his butt. And I'm telling you people,
THAT'S NO BEAR.

I see the possibilities this way:
First, and most likely in my opinion, is the possibility that this pic was set up using a chimp. What better way to get an interesting trailcam photo? Put out some bait, aim the camera, take off the chimp's leash (or open the cage). Simple, and a very convincing photo is taken that will stand up to digital forensic analisys (to determine if the image was altered).
Second, it's an unknown animal out in the wild.

The point I want to emphasize is that we should be very cautious about our opinions. Meaning that jumping on the "mangy bear" theory simply because it's also the "anti-BFRO" theory is a huge mistake.

My thoughts are controlled by TMZ.

Hmmm...I don't know either but I know that I can't for sure say it's NOT a bear. As far as the BFRO, their message board was vehemently BF from the get-go, which IMHO is just as wrong as the for sure bear camp. Personally my tent is in the inconclusive camp.

It's a bear. However, that's besides the point.

As I've repeatedly indicated in this thread, you're welcome to your opinion. I harbored zero expectations that anything said or shown would change the minds of those who want the Jacobs figure to be a primate of any sort.

What I do ask is that you support your contention regarding my "obvious" manipulation of the comparison images I put together in support of the bear hypothesis. I've provided the source for the image in the first post of this thread, but I'll make it easy for you. Click here then go to the bottom left image. Don't just assert your experience or authority on the subject of digital imagery. Prove your point. That's what this thread is supposed to be about, not secret cabals or hidden agendas.


As an aside, if anyone is doing any stretching, it's the BFRO/juvenile sasquatch supporters who continually show the right rear leg length of the bear as including the exposed underside of the foot.

I hope my post wasn’t taken the wrong way, I don’t belong to any of those organizations and I’m not about to jamb a bear down anyone’s throat.

I can’t look at those two pictures compared to anyone’s bear photo and say “OMG, that is a bear” or “OMG, that is a juvenile.” Nor do I believe anyone that says "it is a bear" or "it is a Sasquatch."

If anything I give credit to the Jacobs creature mainly because it wasn’t faked, unfortunately the majority of evidence is. If it was an honest mistake at least this time it wasn’t a lie.

Peregrine nice! haha Definitely made me laught a bit.


For those of you that say it is not a bear, good luck with that. You can keep pulling at straws hoping to arrouse some more argument. The facts show differently. Its a bear, sorry to burst your bubble. There are signs of mange on the animal as well. If you look closely you can see what appear to be lesions or bumps. Also, the chimp theory is out. The bone structure is all wrong for primate. For instance, the hind leg structure is not anything like primate. Note the long tendon reaching from the achilles area past the knee without a break. It is stretched out in the bent over photo and very visible. Primates have a different knee joint structure on their legs than do bears. Also, the bone lengths are very wrong for it to be a "chimp" as noted by spazmo (funny how your opinion changed from the PMs you sent me about this a while ago haha, better keep that bfro face on now that they know who you are :-P) The front legs are too short (note, chimps have very long arms compared to their legs) There are many other things I could point out, but for most people that would be enough.


The only reason this is still talked about is because the BFRO has those photos. Not because the photos have any merit, or deserve any more attention. No wonder the BFRO publishes a bunch of crap reports lately. Looks like their "followers" buy into it. Dont be afraid to rock the boat though, please provide any factual information to prove this as primate, or otherwise. and please... dont expect me to believe some cross over legged manipulated picture where the legs would have to be differing lenghts in order for it to "work" in that theory. Ridiculous.

[quote name='peregrine' date='Jan 9 2009, 04:22 PM' post='511342']
First let me state that I do not want to reopen the discussion regarding the identity of the subject in the Jacobs photos.
Those who think it's a young sasquatch will go to their graves thinking that's what it is. Unfortunately, many with this mind set base their opinions on erroneous information. A certain Public Discussion Forum is full of all kinds of incredible nonsense from posters who have spent many months convincing each other that the Jacobs photos show a young bigfoot, and that's fine. I don't really care what they think. But I do care when blatant distortions are employed to corral thinking.

My bold.

Nice try peregrine, nice try.

Why don't I join in anyways.

Does everyone know that minutes before the "juvenile" or "young bear" shots were taken there were other cub bear photos taken as well? Guess this means that Sasquatch do indeed domesticate bears and use them for hunting and as pets.

Looks like RiverRun beat me to it, nevermind...

Okay, I've had about enough of this particular accusation. Who edited it? Show me the 'before' and 'after', and some tangible evidence that someone altered the photo. Even I've been accused of altering this stupid photograph - where is this crap coming from?



Actually, Rick Jacobs does.





That is some accusation there. I am the chief administrator of BFF. I am neither a member of the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy or the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers. I do personally know some very fine people who are involved in these organisations, but I also know some fine people who are involved with the BFRO - by your logic, the BFRO is also controlling BFF!


Either provide some proof that TBRC and AIBR control this website, or apologise for what is frankly a nasty accusation.

For the record, I rarely even read Cryptomundo. Get your facts straight lady!




I can't believe we are still discussing these stupid photos.

only 38 and 1/2 years to go...


dav

What exactly is this supposed to mean?
My opinion hasn't changed one bit. Prove me wrong.
By the way, it's bad form to bring PM's into the public arena. But feel free to use mine, and quote me.
Show us all how my opinion has changed.

Its supposed to mean its not a chimp ;-) Also, I dont have the pms still nor would I be pasting them if I did. Water under the bridge so to speak. Since this is a discussion about the mangey bear, I'll leave out any other issues regarding bfro commments.


Prove me wrong.

Much like Penn and Tellers Sonoma joke video was touted as the real deal for so long until they admitted the trickery. If not for that ( the admission) we'd probably still be hearing from every BFRO groupie about how it shows a real Sasquatch and not some gut in a suit , even though several of us pointed out early on, that there was a second person involved in the background of the video... Damn skeptics.. why can't we just beleive...

I had enough?
Walking on all fours?
Bunch of crap photos?
Stupid photograph?
Where is this crap coming from?
The front legs are too short?
Prove it’s a primate?
Ridiculous?
BFRO publishes a bunch of crap reports?
Thank you all for proving my point. The truth sometimes makes one angry when it hurts and I knew you all couldn’t just leave it alone. I accused know one of altering a photo, are we feeling guilty?

I like the way you can diagnose skin and see bone structure, knees and tendons from a blurry photo. It almost sound as if you have it lying on a table in front of you. Its messy fur at close up range; everyone knows those low quality digital photos do have spots in close-ups. Where are the action pictures of it walking on all fours? The two I’ve seen are bent over still photos. Reports show the bear photos were half an hour earlier and they never returned. BTW, does the name Alt Higgons TBRC ring a bell?

Umm, I'm pretty sure that your points remain unproven and I don't think that there is any "truth" that has caused any anger.

Instead of trying to "stir the pot" Retired Linda, how about provide any factual information that shows this to be primate or juvenile sasquatch and not a bear. I've already pointed out several things about the images as to why it is indeed a bear. (and can point out more if needed)

Yes. Not to speak for him, But I think it's safe assumption that he's probably tired of the ridiculous claims that he somehow altered the photos ummm. What exactly do you think it's doing then? Bending down, wouldn't it, if it were a primate of some sort bend at the knee as other primates do? Logical question I think . Yes, bunch of crap photos that do nothing but actually hurt the research effort you're trying to espouse on about. You can start with this one calling a bear a Bigfoot and go backwards chronologically if you'd like. From ambiguous blobs to the BFRO getting fooled by the above noted Sonoma footage and refusing to call it anything but real. Much like now. Yes, The BFRO and people like you and yes. it's obvious to anyone who really looks at it. The honus, in science, is upon the claimant to prove otherwise. there for anyone claiming it to be a Bigfoot is under the obligation to provide said proof of statement.
Yes. even the fact that this is being rehashed yet again. Have for awhile now. It's no secret that there's even a discussion section on this forum that details the BFRO reports by direct link. Which are then open for discussion. unless you happen the beleive that every unkonwn sound or shape in the woods is a Bigfoot or Bigfoot related. I don't think anyone is feeling guilty, and a funny thing about that is the leading or accusatory question you just asked. It's not only statements that can be accusatory, it's also questions. Attorneys use them quite frequently last I checked. They aren't meant to elicit a response they are used as a form of accusation when there is no direct evidence of fact. Speaking of angry, I noted already that when you are, your typing or spelling seems to suffer. something you should work on when accusing others of being angry, it gives away your true intent.


No. Not a psychologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.





*Reason for edit* Just so there's no confusion as to why the edit tag is there, I edited this to add the Holiday Inn Express line, because I thought it was funny and I felt like it.


The above for those confused , is an example for sarcasm for those who are sarcasm impaired.

Just wanted to thank jimf before this one closes.

And yes, it was funny...I actually chuckled. And I am not going to explain what "it" is....

Everyone needs to take a chill pill, I'm not about to argue with anyone that can shove bears down everyone's throat. I've seen all the evidence and it doesn't prove it was a bear anymore than they have proved Patterson was a human. Primates can bend forward at the waste and keep their legs straight.

Carolina dog once said:

"Life is much more enjoyable if you lose the hatred towards people who do not believe in the same things as you."

Nothing wrong with this reason for being whatsoever. However, when this thing has been sliced and diced on numerous threads here with obvious conclusions,
and somebody (BFRO plant possibly) shows with two posts and not even 12 hours on the board and causes a rumble, people will respond with everything they have got
to call BS; that is not showing hatred, it is sticking by your conclusions. Show a well formed heel and achilles on said miracle being.

Patterson was quite human. Ask his wife.

Dang, that means no confession then.

You couldn't have said that with a straight face, surely?



Then they're the proud owners of one dandy bear photo. Now THAT'S scientific research at it's BEST!!


edited to add: 'coz it's fun to edit and add... here's a video of a real mama bear and babies I got on a game cam...

Please don't forget that there are other photos that were taken before and after the bear/bigfoot photo.

If I remember correctly the photos immediately before and after the photo in question have not been released. If they have not been released to the public then there must be a reason. Now, I wonder what that reason could be?