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.

A poster going by "BenR" recently had the temerity to reference the Squatchopedia entry on the "Jacobs Figure" to address the contention that Jeff Meldrum never indicated that the Jacobs photos showed a black bear. That entry cites a quote at Cryptomundo where Meldrum states, "Some of the images posted on the internet appear to confirm the bear identification.” That was a reference to analyses done here at the BFF and to his own opinion regarding the identity of the subject in the Jacobs photos.

A "robday" ridiculed the Squatchopedia, stating, in part, "I'm sure (like me) plenty of readers here would be surprised to find out this was an accurate quote." (Click here, bottom of page, to see referenced comments in full.) That bothered me a little, because I helped a bit with that entry and can testify that the Squatchopedia ideal is for contributors to strive for accuracy and objectivity.

However, what bothered me the most was the following statement by robday:


I've seen this same "manipulation" bald-face lie assertion repeated by others and thought it time to address it.

The photo I used for the overlay comparison was not doctored in any way. The only changes I made to the original yearling black bear photo was to rotate and resize it so that the two images (the yearling photo and the Jacobs photo) could be aligned.

Here is a screen cap of the yearling black bear photo.

Click to view attachment

I don't anticipate that anyone at the BFRO will seek to correct these misrepresentations, but perhaps BenR or somebody else can address this assertion concerning my "comically bad" manipulations. If not, well, at least it's here for those who are interested in the truth as opposed to comically bad logic.

[Edit to add that I think I actually slightly rotated the Jacobs photo, not the yearling bear photo, not that it matters all that much.]

I have personally heard Dr. Meldrum state that that the Jacobs bear is indeed a bear. If he had ever said anything to the contrary, it would be on the front page of the BFRO website.

It is commonly known among hunters sizing up black bears from a distance that long legs/long ears indicate a young bear.

This past spring I took a black bear in Prince William Sound. It was the end of a 5 day hunt, and my partner and I had just anchored, popped open a couple of beers, and sat down to a few games of cribbage. It was after 9 PM and just beginning to get dark.

Almost as soon as we dealt the first hand a bear stepped out on the beach about a quarter mile away and began to graze on beach grass. I immediately put my binocs on it, and saw fairly long legs, and fairly long ears. It was definately a boar, because he had a long neck, but I figured him to be a young, smaller bear.

But this was the second year in a row we'd gone all the way out to Knight Island, and I figured I'd better take a go at this bear or my partner wouldn't take me out there again. So I went for him.

Turns out this boar's hide squared out at 6'8", his scull measured a bit over 19" squared, and his age was estimated at 15 years by the ADFG biologist when he was sealed.

This was no small or young bear.

This is to show that even a seasoned bear hunter can mistake the size of a bear when sizing him up, and that long established considerations like long legs/long ears can be deceiving.

I wonder what qualifications robday has regarding black bears?

Thats a real good pic of a black bear.
Maybe I misunderstood, but are you saying that because of this photo, and Dr Meldrums comments, that the Jacobs photo has to be a black bear?

In my opinion, the Jacobs photos show a black bear, but that's not the point of my post.

It is clear to me that Hunster's post shows a bigfoot, but how he got hold of a rifle is beyond me.

Meldrum's position that the Jacob's Bear Creature is a bear is well documented.

And, YES!, if Meldrum had even hinted while drunk that the Jacob's Bear Creature could even possibly be a sasquatch, the BFRO would have his slurred quote on their main page in bulging, pulsating neon print.

This is a clear case of certain "believers" tunneling at rocket speed to the core of Planet Stupid.

Peregrine that photo shows the undulating back of the bear as well as the long splay of the rear legs, both initial problematic observations I made of the "creature"
now that I have seen the illusion in a real animal picture it is sealed as bear for me, despite my initial inability to figure out the proportions as making sense for anything but a
bipedal.

It (Jacob Pic) looks like a large monkey bending over to me.
YOUR bear pics do resemble the buttocks of the creature shown in the Jacobs photos.
But, the overall pic looks like a large monkey bending over ----to me. It has a waist that looks like a monkey or human ---not a bear.

Here it comes, in 5...4...3...2...

Good for you. Like I said, the point is not to rehash the identity of the subject in the Jacobs photos.

1

bipedalist, here's another (manipulation-free) comparison that might help. It's a side-by-side of the rear ends of the same two animals.

Click to view attachment

What does this post mean?


You cut off half of both of the pics-----
Put that same post up with the entire pics. Then lets have a look.
We can have a discussion then.

Peregrine - great pic. It had already been "sealed" for me, but the back right leg (heck the whole butt and legs) seems to be identical to Jacobs photo. It's a stinkin' bear for goodness sakes.

Here's why I am posting - BenR - I just want you to know that is not me. It suspiciously is my name and the first letter of my last.

Please see posts #8 and #9.

You can see the full comparison here, as provided in the initial post. I'm not interested in a discussion. As I said, I don't care what you think. If you want to the call a young bear a baby sasquatch, that's fine by me. All I was addressing was the claim that I had deceitfully manipulated an image of a yearling bear to make it match the Jacobs photo.

That post meant that Kev was correct. No one on this thread is disputing whether or not its a bear...and it has been mentioned a few times in this thread. In fact, it was the first thing peregrine pointed out.

Although I think I've figured it out now. The back half of the Jacob's creature is a young black bear. The front half is of a juvenile sasquatch. And, yes, they evidently can and do mate.

What? What do you mean Kev was correct? His posts just said see 8 and 9. Which was a countdown.


Additionally--they need to show both pics---side by side WHOLE
not cut off like they were.
Then lets discuss it.

YEP
Manipulated photos.
One looks OBVIOUSLY manipulated and one doesn't.
Thanks.

I am also no longer interested in a discussion with you.
I don't care what you think either.

Okay. It's like this. Somebody said he thought the Jacobs' Thingy was clearly a sasquatch on a thread posted by a guy (peregrine) who stated that he was not interested in reopening that debate. It was his thread, so there's no issue to argue there.

I figured it would not be long until it was pointed out to the sasquatch believer that peregrine was not interested in debating that point.

Hence, 5...4...3...2...

And there was peregrine's post, reiterating the fact that he is not interested in debating the bear/sasquatch argument, right on time.

and then, 1 ...to indicate my pleasure in having been proven right.

"It's like one of them ESPN things..." (Analyze This)

Great job peregrine... I appreciate your hard work...

I clicked on the links you provided and one took me to the BFRO discussion boards...

So... you owe me an ice cold beer for that dirty trick!

Great pic peregrine....how do we send it over to the bfro?......

Truly sad that in this day and age people can not discern a bear from something else. But then again we live in a world where eggs come from styrofoam containers and meat is made in the butcher shop and not from chickens and cows.

I just don't think there's anything positive to be gained by arguing with people who have no intention of changing their minds. If you think you can get away with opening a new thread on reasons why the Jacobs photos show a sasquatch, then be my guest.

Stating that the pictures I've posted are "OBVIOUSLY manipulated" tells me that you are either a troll or you have some other problem.

Click to view attachment


Sorry bro. I guess my warning wasn't too clear.


Remind me the next time you see me!

There's my new sig line! thanks KevinM

Pere
I guess I am completely lost in all of this nonsense.
But
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act...st&id=26148
Aren't these pics manipulated???? Didn't you impose the bear pics over this Jacobs image?
Didn't you impose the bear images over the Jacobs photos so as to show a "young bear"
Maybe I am just new to all of this.

Cursing in the Sig Lines . NICE!
Isnt that against the Forum Rules?
Just asking.

Yes indeed KevinM, it is sentences like that that make for good authors.

And gee, I always thought that the Jacobs photo was of a girl that I dated back in the 70's. I even figured that by now she would have grown the tail.

What the hell did I write?!

YET AGAIN---CURSING
Wow.



Teresa
It's your SIG line--just in case you got confused
The Whooo D***** part.

I think the BFRO may be invested (emotionally? financially?) in those photos so their opinion about them may be slightly biased. Some of the diagrams and anatomy comparisons are kind of funny though

I'm trying to be polite, so I'm going to shut up ;-)

Hi

Those pictures are just plain and simple a perfect match to my eyes,
Peace
Tim

This forum is PG-13, not G...

static-line, why don't you let us do the moderating... kay

No... it was completely clear... I knew what it was before I clicked on it...

Just trying to get in a dig at the Beefrokingdom and a free beer at the same time...

Besides... I wanted to use that really cool emoticon I found...

Here goes again...

It's a BEAR I tell ya'!


I love that thing!

Now somebody else say something... anything... I don't care...

I said I don't care!!!

The claims from the BFRO forum was that I'd stretched the legs. That would constitute manipulation. All I did was superimpose the images then gradually reveal the lower image. That doesn't constitute manipulating or doctoring them. Showing the two rear ends side-by-side isn't changing them, it's comparing them.

Yeah, well it's also making me smoking HOT! Two side-by-side color shots of sweeeeeeet wildlife butts! MMMMMmmmmmm!

All that prime bear tail, without a game warden in sight!

Well Roger Ramjet, this aint the Nickolodean forum. Some cursing is allowed here.

Hi



Peace
Tim

Peregrine,

Only someone with an ax to grind is going to question your integrity.

These comparison pics are old, resurrected from a long-entombed crypt within which lays constrained a terrible force of perturbation and exasperation. No need to send them anywhere.


Oh, wait, I forgot about RB's emoticon.

I SAID, NO NEED TO SEND THEM ANYWHERE!

I MEAN IT!

static, why not use the same user ID here that you use over there?

He paid good money for it.

It wouldn't happen to be a place where an alleged Crippled BF had it's Tracks found, would it ??

What are you talking about?

I just re-read the forum rules. Under the red writing that is under BFF's Golden Rule of Posting , the fourth bullet down
> Do not use foul language of any kind - remember there are minors here too.

Also, under Respect for Other Users;
Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated, either from an instigator -OR- from anyone who feels like they should respond to such instigation.
Does that include Mods? It says anyone

Perhaps we don't consider 'damn' to be foul language.

How about you let us moderate the forum. You're the only one I've seen throwing insults, stirring the pot with your insinuations and you're still here so obviously we're tolerant to a point. Why not just be honest about your motives for being here.

The forum has a PG-13 rating.

I have not thrown insults towards anyone. I have also not insinuated anything. As for my motives for being here, well this is a discussion forum. I was discussing a few things with other members.
You violated the rules ---not me.

Enjoy your vacation

Well, that would be okay if you were the same person. I admire BenR for going against the group think and for referencing the Squatchopedia, which many BFRO supporters appear to dislike because (I'm guessing) the BFRO-related articles attempt to take an even-handed approach rather than showing the BFRO in an exclusively favorable light.