45 Responses to “Jacobs Bear Superimposition”

1. scotsman responds: November 5th, 2007 at 7:20 am

   It is an effort. I get the point, and yes, it does seem to correspond all too well!

2. samman58 responds: November 5th, 2007 at 7:58 am

   As another poster stated, the amount of infighting over this is truly amazing. My opinion of both groups has suffered because of this.

   Why not give equal time to the other hypothesis? Once the ‘group’ decided it was a bear, the collective mind slammed shut. I’ll bet if you find a similar pose of a primate, it too would fit rather well. Why not post that too?

   Am I saying it is a primate? Not sure. Am I saying it is a bear? Not sure. What I am saying is not to abandon alternative views until they are rolled over in the hand many, many times.

   This is a good group of people here. Step up and keep this a forward looking/thinking one!

3. Loren Coleman responds: November 5th, 2007 at 8:02 am

   You must have missed my previous post on the bonobo.

4. samman58 responds: November 5th, 2007 at 8:07 am

   I read it, Loren.

5. mystery_man responds: November 5th, 2007 at 10:18 am

   I appreciate the forward thinking approach advocated by samman58 and absolutely infighting gets us nowhere. But is it really more open minded to ignore the overwhelming evidence that these are of a bear and rather say that they are of a primate of some kind? I would give equal time to the sasquatch hypothesis if I saw anything in these pics that warranted it and didn’t fit with a bear so readily. I do think that there is every possibility that sasquatch is out there. I am open minded. Take everything, from the position of the creature in the Jacob’s photos (possible for a bear, really), to the habitat (we KNOW bears live there), to the photos of other bears taken around the same time on the same camera, to the comparative photos of real bears with mange (Similar? Yes very.) Also consider the quadrupedalism shown by the Jacob’s creature, something we know about bears yet have practically no grounds with which to attribute it to sasquatch. These are facts.

   Now what about the evidence for these being a primate of some kind? Is there really anything we know for sure about sasquatch that can over ride the facts of the case that point to bear? So what are we expected to do, give equal consideration to the unknown explanation of sasquatch anyway? Why not just say they are of an alien then? Considering what we know and don’t know, which explanation is more likely? Are we to take the unknown explanation until proven otherwise? This is the very opposite of the scientific method. The only way people can really be open minded is by genuinely looking at the evidence on hand and I really think that points to a bear with these. I am all for forward thinking too, but I have enough love for cryptozoology that I do not want people embracing an unknown explanation without solid grounds for doing so.

6. bigfootsdad responds: November 5th, 2007 at 10:33 am

   I still don’t think it looks like a bear with mange.

7. DWA responds: November 5th, 2007 at 10:36 am

   I think that a broader point is being made in this whole harangue.

   It’s the point about what I call the Footprint Follies, but that also applies to all purported “hard” evidence for the sasquatch.

   There is, clearly, only one thing that will tip the argument either way: a long-term stay in the backcountry, in an area with numerous recent sighting reports, by a team qualified to obtain visual (and of course backup) documentation. And - this is most important - getting the unqualified support of tips from local citizenry. And no media snickering.

   All this niggling over a blurry photo is getting us nowhere. I can see the bear lovers’ point. But I. like samman58, can also see the danger of closed minds. Look what closed minds did to P/G.

   What needs to be done is obvious. And it’s just as obvious that it’s going to take some doing.

   “Ethno-known” animals get discovered, sooner or later. As long as the sasquatch gets the tabloid treatment, it could be twice as big, half as smart, and ten times as numerous. So what? As long as it isn’t “ethno-known” - i.e., people in locales with numerous sightings report them, forthrightly, and aren’t cowed into silence by the treatment of the evidence - science will never document the sasquatch.

   Circuses like this feed on themselves. And the public continues to think “no way,” and live in blissful ignorance of the numerous reasons why a yes, way animal could go unknown - to science - into the 21st century.

8. greenmartian2007 responds: November 5th, 2007 at 11:28 am

   The Kinzua Dam photos are of a bear.

   There were bear cub photos taken within a reasonable length of time before the following ones were. Half an hour? That’s well within reason that the bearcubs were gamboling about, and a Mother Bear of some sort also nearby.

   So there was a bunch of bears nearby. It could be one was ill. And that is the one that was imaged.

   No Sasquatch here.

   There is no evidence, anecdotally or otherwise, that purports to show that Sasquatches even like visiting Salt lick blocks put out by humans. If you can find some, post it here.

   Also, is there any evidence from zoological gardens that they put salt lick blocks in the open pens of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, macaques, babboons, mandrills? I have never seen anything mentioned like that.

   If there is not similar trend in dealing with other primates, why would Sasquatch be different in this behavior? Why would they be attracted to a salt lick block?

   Also, how do primates get their salt quota quotient out in the wild? Could anyone speak to that?

   That’s what I have thought about, in regards to the Kinzua Dam photos.

9. mystery_man responds: November 5th, 2007 at 11:58 am

   DWA- I was thinking about something that you mentioned on another thread that was a good point and that is concerning sightings surrounding these photos. I think if there was a concentration of sasquatch sightings in the area or strange footprints around, that would help build the case for these photos of something strange. I know you are very knowledgeable on sightings reports, so I’m wondering if there were a lot of them in this particular area prior to the photos being taken? Unusual activity leading up to these photos would be interesting. It wouldn’t prove that these are not of a bear, but that may add some possibilities to think about when considering the photos.

   Come to think of it, has any competent analysis of the area been made just in case? Footprints? Scat? Hair? It would have been something worth at least investigating. The other article made vague references to “taking samples” but no other details have been forthcoming. I am leaning towards probable bear on this one, but these are the types of things that could’ve swayed the debate away from that explanation if they pointed towards something other than a bear.

10. fallofrain responds: November 5th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    I’m of the mangy bear persuasion. That sounds disgusting, but I freely admit it. I also believe in Occam’s Razor…that a simple solution is generally better than a complex one. We know there were bears in the area of the camera. We know what a mangy bear looks like. Even though the composite photo is crude, we have an idea of what the mangy bear looks like superimposed on the “juvie bigfoot.” An open mind explores alternatives. Closed minds stay fixed on a belief with no more evidence than a blurry photo and wishful thinking.

    The photos posted are usually not much more than Rorschach tests. We each see what we want to see. Often, no amount of argument will change that. So we have to work with what we’re given. Sorry, but I feel this whole affair has received much more attention than it deserves.

11. DWA responds: November 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    m_m: there’s no rash of recent PA sightings that I’ve seen.

    That is: reported ones.

    And as always with the sas, that’s the rub.

    I’ve said it before. You’d almost have to think, given the animal’s size alone, that most if not all sas sightings are multiple-witness events - with none but one, or in some instances a couple, of them being brave enough or knowledgeable enough to even report it to a site that’s looking for reports. There could be many sightings, at great distances, that the sighter dismisses as a person, despite the nagging thought that it was a pretty unusual person, under pretty unusual circumstances…

    Until serious scientists reassure the public that they aren’t nuts to see one of these, well, do I need to finish that sentence?

12. mystery_man responds: November 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    greenmartian2007-

    How do primates get their salt quotient in the wild? Not from salt licks left out by humans, that’s for sure, although I can’t see why one wouldn’t partake of one if it had the opportunity presented to it. Animals will do some strange things sometimes to satisfy cravings for sodium. For example, the gorillas of the Bwindi Impenetrable National Forest in Uganda are known to suck on wood chips, eat pieces of decayed wood, and lick the bases of tree stumps. This was considered odd behavior until a study conducted on the gorillas showed that it was likely they do it for sodium. This wood eating behavior has been observed in other primates such as chimpanzees and lemurs, and it is reasonable to suspect they do it for the same reason. Like I said, there are odd lengths animals will go to get their sodium intake, so who knows with the sasquatch? Maybe they eat wood too? Anyway, I think these photos show a bear, but the fact that the creature is using a salt lick by itself does not constitute a reason to dismiss it as a sasquatch in my opinion. An animal coming upon a salt lick block might be inclined to use it no matter how they naturally secure those nutrients.

13. SOCALcrypto responds: November 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Something that I have noticed in the second picture of the Jacobs creature that no one has brought up or noticed are the butt pads. Bears do not have them but apes do. What do you all think. This is something that should be talked about. I think the creature in the photos may be a black bear but when I see the butt pads in the second photo it makes me wonder.
    mystery_man, DWA, or anyone else, what do you think?

14. SOCALcrypto responds: November 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pm

    Note:The second pic. of the Jacobs creature is not shown above.

15. Richard888 responds: November 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    The Jacob’s Bear Superimposition looks photoshopped, therefore, I don’t buy it
    I am in agreement with all points expessed but must say that too much leaning towards the Bear Hypothesis has an inherent flaw to it and that is that it tends to close the subject instead of encourage more inquiry.

    More inquiry is needed because no one, here at least, has commented much about the bulbous head of the creature in the 3rd picture. Bigfoot or bear this looks like an anomaly to me but one that if analyzed more might provide some helpful leads.

16. DARHOP responds: November 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Richard888-More inquiry is needed because no one, here at least, has commented much about the bulbous head of the creature in the 3rd picture.

    It you are talking about the round thing between the legs of the 3rd photo. I don’t think it is the head you are seeing. The head is looking right at the camera. I said it before. It’s hard to see because it blends in with the rest of the body. I think what you are seeing is the rump of one of them cubs. I think momma bear is sprawled over the cub. I really didn’t want to have to go here again but, the 3rd photo says it all for me. Momma bear sprawled over the top of one of the cubs. And she is looking directly at the camera. But we all see what we see. I know what I see.

17. DARHOP responds: November 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    fallofrain- We each see what we want to see.

    I have to disagree with this statement.

    I wanted to see BigFoot. Fact when I saw the first post about these photos, I thought kool, maybe we have some good BigFoot photos. I was wanting to see BigFoot in the photos. But that isn’t what I saw. So saying we see what we want to see isn’t really accurate.

18. DWA responds: November 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    SOCALcrypto:

    I don’t see anything, in either photo, diagnostic of either ape or bear.

    Period.

    As I’ve said a number of times now: it’s an inconclusive shot. You really can’t do anything with it other than, well, go around the maypole like we’ve been doing.

19. fallofrain responds: November 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    I have a three-camera “trapline” set up in the Coastal Range of NW Oregon. I plan to add more cameras as I can afford it. I’m also trying to come up with a wildlife cam protocol for trying to snare a bigfoot. Just a few basic suggestions for anyone interested…

    After the camera is set up, take several photos of yourself at different distances. That will provide scale if you catch something unusual. Most digital trail cams can take over a thousand photos, even when set at the highest resolution. So a few photos of yourself won’t make much difference (unless you’re using a film camera).

    If you get something interesting, keep the whole memory card. Don’t erase anything. Be prepared to submit the whole card for any scientific review.

    Use every option available for the data recorded on the frame. Things like barometric pressure may not seem important, but who knows?

    Photoshop is a bad word in cryptozoology, but it’s also a very useful tool for comparing animals. But don’t abuse it. It’s also incredibly expensive. I recommend the less expensive Photoshop Elements.

    Anyway, for what it’s worth, those are just a few suggestions. There are more, but it’s mostly common sense.

    Have fun!

20. SOCALcrypto responds: November 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    DWA, True, I agree.

21. bartlojays responds: November 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    I must say out of all of the laughable attempted bone and picture overlays I’ve seen regarding this particular photograhed subject, this is the worst. How can you match the Jacobs subject with this picture of a mangy bear that- is facing the opposite direction, is at a different distance than the Jacobs subject, is being compared with a subject that is at a different angle and partially concealed, the mangy bear photo shows a mangy bear with inconsistent hair patches, the Jacobs subject ’s hair pattern looks consistent?

    I personally believe the likliest candidate for the Jacob’s creature is that is shows a stangely contorted malnourished (not mangy) urses americanus, although I’m still not even close to 100% sure and truth be told neither should anybody else. Besides the feet which may be at a strange angle and are partially concealed (though appear “bearish”) and what appears to be 2 prominent ischium bumps seen when the subject is bent all the way over in photo 3#.

22. joe levit responds: November 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    I am also of the opinion that the overlay doesn’t work in this scenario. The bear pic is clearly only a couple of feet away, while the Jacobs object is further away and obviously larger.

    I still don’t know what to think of the picture, but I don’t understand anyone who sees a bear facing the camera in the third picture. As I’ve stated before, the left front foot in that scenario would be pointed at a very awkward 90 degrees to the right for some reason. That just makes no sense to me. Can any bear proponent please explain that behavior?

23. Chris Noel responds: November 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Certainly bears and Sasquatch look similar in a general way, that’s why so many witnesses to the latter initially think they’re seeing the former, until they realize that the Sasquatch is operating on two legs, as the Jacobs figure is doing.

24. Drew S. responds: November 5th, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    It’s a bear. The level of denial amongst some is downright frightning.

25. Cryptid Hunt responds: November 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    Interesting. But the photo looks alittle bit odd.

26. bartlojays responds: November 5th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Fallofrain-

    I think your being a little oversensitive towards my comments, many which- although I truthfully am unimpressed with your attempted photo imposition, aren’t even directed at you.

    “Then, apparently, forum users and the general public, whatever they believe, shouldn’t be allowed to express their opinions? Why bother with a forum, then?”

    Hey, I think forums are great and this is a bad question seeing I only meant no one should accept statements or opinions from other forum users as absolute facts without any evidence of their identity and or expert credentials.

    I don’t think anybody commenting in here claims to be 100% certain.

    Really? I’ve seen alot of people (not saying you) comment on these photos here on cryptomundo, bff etc… through various threads/blogs (including this one) and are acting disgusted with people for not accepting their point of view that this is obviously a bear and that’s absolute fact. Hey, they may be absolutely right, but who in the hell are they to tell anybody that they are wrong?-unless of course they are bear experts.

    “My “laughable attempt” at photo imposition was never meant to settle the argument, just make an observation. ”

    Fine, then you shouldn’t be to concerned with my opinion that it absolutely contributes nothing in attempting to identify the photographed subject, right?

    Sorry to have made anyone “sick.” Hope you get better soon.

    Hey your pretty good, I never even said I was battling a little cold, thank you! I’ll be better in a day or so.
    Hey maybe you should read palms instead of playing around with photoshop.

27. Craig Woolheater responds: November 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    Certainly bears and Sasquatch look similar in a general way, that’s why so many witnesses to the latter initially think they’re seeing the former, until they realize that the Sasquatch is operating on two legs, as the Jacobs figure is doing.Chris Noel

    Chris,

    I’m sorry, but to my eye, the Jacobs figure is operating on four legs, not two.

    I thought that was one of the things that the BFRO was stressing:

    These recent images from Pennsylvania are very significant to bigfoot research. They likely show a young juvenile bigfoot (smaller than ~5 feet tall), as they have been described by eyewitnesses over the years. Young juvenile bigfoots are typically described as quadrupedal (walking on four legs), with the ability to climb trees or run very quickly on all fours (See the New York Baby Footage). They are sometimes seen alternating between a quadrupedal posture and an awkward bipedal posture. Whereas the larger bigfoots (5 feet tall and above) are almost never described as walking or running on all fours.

    It was thought for a long time that any legitimate images of an adult bigfoot would likely be dismissed by the public as showing a human in a costume due to the bipedal posture of adult bigfoots, which is so reminiscent of a human posture. In the case of a young juvenile (quadrupedal) bigfoot, by contrast, the scientific debate would not revolve around whether the figure could be a man in a costume. Rather, the debate would revolve around what type of animal it is … an entirely different debate.BFRO

28. Chris Noel responds: November 5th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    Craig, good point. Let me clarify. My sense is that the creature pictured has clearly differentiated “legs” vs. “arms,” unlike a bear. The two images show (to my eye) a creature standing, and leaning down, using its arms more than an adult Sasquatch would (according to hundreds of reports catalogued on the BFRO sightings database).

29. swnoel responds: November 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    It’s amazing the imagination that those that believe in BF have… whether it’s a shadow, a rock formation, shrubs, or other known animals
    they all seem to see a Sasquash.

    There is nothing wrong with believing… but this is clearly a bear.

30. windigo responds: November 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    The creature in the photos has several primate attributes that can’t so easily be explained away, as some would have it. It may simply be a case where these characteristics will never be convincing enough to persuade the most ardent skeptic. I am, however, still very strongly of the opinion that this is not a bear, but is a form of primate.

31. DWA responds: November 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    [sigh]

    “It’s amazing the imagination that those that believe in BF have… There is nothing wrong with believing… but this is clearly a bear. ”

    [sigh]

    “It’s a bear. The level of denial amongst some is downright frightning.”

    [sigh]

    You know, Dr. DWA never, never, ever gets tired of offering Remedial Crypto 001 for those who aren’t getting the right way to proceed with stuff like this. So here goes, again.

    No one, in any post, has noted any characteristics clearly diagnostic of either an ape or a bear. Unless, of course, they were using Photoshop or their imagination to “point it out.”

    I haven’t read any “it’s a bear” posts that are any more convincing than the best “it’s a primate” posts I’ve read. Goes for the Photoshopping and superposition too. And there are many posts on both sides of this, from people who seem to know at least a little bit of what they’re talking about.

    That says one thing, remedial crypto students.

    IT IS INCONCLUSIVE.

    Which means, as evidence, it ain’t worth a damn.

    They call it cryptozoology because sometimes, it’s just, you know, cryptic.

    Photos aren’t proof.

    And sometimes they aren’t even evidence.

    Thos who say “ape” make points that that is a potentially reasonable explanation. Those who say “bear,” Photoshopping and all, have shown how yes, it COULD possibly be a bear.

    Just because we KNOW what P/G is - a bipedal primate, which may or may not be wearing a suit - does not mean we have to know what a couple of still photos are.

    We don’t.

    Regardless of what some here are saying.

    If you can’t toss anything as evidence, you flunk Remedial Crypto 001. Says here.

    [sigh]

32. mystery_man responds: November 5th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

    SOCALcryptid- Regarding your question on the “butt pads”. I think I see what you mean, and they do seem strange, but considering the angle of the shot and the lack of clarity of the photos, I can’t be sure of what we are actually seeing there. I certainly don’t know if we can say they are “butt pads” or not, or make any certain assessment of them. They may just be a camera artifact or a trick of lighting. Interesting, but not enough to me to over ride the general evidence pointing to a bear.

    As far as those who think the subject displays primate characteristics, I will say that bears can look remarkably simian when losing hair like this. A malnourished bear without all of its hair, at an angle, under dark conditions like these could absolutely be mistaken for something simian in appearance. I think the features of a bear can be seen to seem simian under these circumstances, so it is something to keep in mind.

33. zytebac responds: November 5th, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    As Bartlojays pointed out, the hair pattern on the Jacob’s creature just doesn’t corrospond with a ‘mangy’ animal. It appears uniform and well-groomed. Also, has anyone tried over-laying a mangy bear pic over the third Jacob’s pic? I’m no expert on bears, but it just doesn’t seem conceivable that a bear could achieve that sort of pose or posture.
    And like many serious crypto fans, I for one would like to see the different facets of this community coming together and supporting one another. This science is already so un-mainstream that it’s hard to convince the general public, thanks to the tabloid press. So it’s up to us to be the adults here and to give each piece of evidence, no matter the source, an honest and un-biased opinion if we are to get the gen-public on our side.
    If you see bear, then fine, but don’t bash what others might see. And if you see sasquatch, fine, but be open to the idea that it could be a bear.
    But no matter what you might see and think, let’s be supportive of one another because we are all here for the same goal. To prove the existance of unknown animals.
    Just think about what Western and Europeon science thought about the African native’s descriptions of huge, hairy, man-like creatures that inhabited mountainous regions of Western Africa? They dismissed them because they came from uneducated, backwoods tribesmen. And so the educated Westerners and Europeons would not learn about the giant mountain gorillas until only one hundred years ago, an eyeblink in time when one considers the possibilty of another possible primate. One that our own native Americans have been describing for hundreds of years.

34. SOCALcrypto responds: November 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pm

    mystery_man, thanks, I understand what you are saying. I may have been grasping at straws. I’ll settle with the bear theory on this one.

35. Alligator responds: November 5th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    Here’s what I think it is going to take:

    1. A body of a sasquatch.
    2. Extensive photographs or video of “National Geographic quality” with a background that allows for extrapolation of size and potentially the location where the footage was shot.
    3. Conclusive DNA evidence in the form of scat or hair samples or definite markers on a prey item.

    If any of the above is found in conjunction with footprints, all the better.

    Before a cougar sighting is ‘confirmed’, one of the above criteria has to be met. Cougars, bears and wolves are physical animals and eventually, indisputable proof of their presence in an area will be found. Teh same should apply for a BF.

    I’ve been interested in the Bigfoot phenom since I saw the PG film at the local theater as a kid. How many times since then has a photo like the Jacobs photo been touted as the “smoking gun” evidence only to turn out to be inconclusive at best or outright fraud as worst?

    I’ve had two friends that had encounters that left them rattled and to this day, many years later still stick by their stories. So I’m skeptical but open. However, if the BF is out there still awaiting discovery, disregarding poor or inconclusive photos or evidence is not going to retard its discovery. Because there is so much misidentification and even fraud out there, it should be the Cryptozoologists, who are setting the high standards for the ’smoking gun’ proof. Realizing that ‘mainstream science’ is skeptical to openly derisive, that should be further motivation to hold to the high standard of finding the irrefutable proof.

36. mystery_man responds: November 6th, 2007 at 12:47 am

    zytebac- I think you may be misunderstanding a lack of belief that the Jacob’s photos are of a sasquatch with a dismissal of sasquatch in general. A good deal of people who think these are of a bear DO think the sasquatch is out there. Saying that these photos are likely of a bear does not mean that we think sasquatch do not exist, just that these photos do not show one. Nobody is disputing the native claims or the existence of sasquatch. We are talking about this set of photos and what they show.

    As to the posture, it is not something that a bear could not do. Same with the feet. Bears just do not have stiff, inflexible feet. Bears can take up a wide variety of postures and can be quite flexible. On the opposite side, we have no idea what positions a juvenile sasquatch would make. Not to say that a sasquatch could not, but a bear can so I do not see a need to toss the explanation that fits the known paradigm of wildlife in the area and a known holotype in favor of an unknown just yet. As for the hair of the creature, I don’t know if we can really tell with this resolution just how “even” or “well groomed” the coat is.

    A lot of unbiased facts point to this being a bear, so I don’t understand how one could be seen as close minded for thinking that. I will not say with total certainty that it is a bear, as maybe juvenile sasquatch match up very closely with what a mangy bear looks like and we cannot see any of the defining features that would have ended this debate. But a great deal supports these as being a bear, the animal in the photos match up to a known holotype. In order to safely ignore a known animal that matches so many of the circumstances we see in these photos in favor of an unknown, there would have to be more evidence to that effect. Taking a well know paradigm and comparing to that to these photos is not being closed minded or biased, it is something required to do this in a scientific manner. I do see what the others are saying about why these might not be a bear, but nothing really says these cannot be of a bear.

    For me, to say it is a bear is not an absolute certainty. It is a best guess considering what I see, the circumstances of the photos, and what we know about bears versus what we do not know about sasquatch. Anyway, whether these are of a sasquatch or not, it has no direct bearing on the larger question of whether sasquatch exist or not. I really wish that people would not take those who rationally explain their reasons for thinking these are of a bear and paint them wish the broad brush of being Bigfoot denialists of some kind. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Thinking these are not juvenile sasquatch photos and thinking sasquatch do not exist are two very very different things.

37. rayrich responds: November 6th, 2007 at 6:54 am

    I say we come to the conclusion that it’s a mangy bear so everybody will leave this squatch alone. Non believers will keep the population of Sasquatches out of harms way for now. We should thank these people for the sake of this species survival.

38. mystery_man responds: November 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Or do that so that people leave this poor mangy bear alone, rayrich. Believers might keep the bear out of harm’s way for now by accepting it’s a bear. Take your pick. In the meantime, I’d like to see if we can find actually scientifically useful evidence in the discussion on bigfoot’s existence. Some just cannot let a piece of inconclusive evidence be put aside without distorting that into some talk of “non believing”. I would take some evidence that is critically examined and found to still be intriguing over some zealously embraced inconclusive evidence any day of the week. Once again, thinking that these photos are of a bear and “believing” in sasquatch have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The thought that someone who thinks Bigfoot is out there has to defend every piece of supposed evidence that comes up is a bit ridiculous. Think Loren and Meldrum also thinking this is a bear. Each piece of evidence on its own merit. Let’s not make broad assumptions about people’s openness to the existence of Bigfoot based on their appraisals of these photos.

39. ithilien responds: November 6th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    as an artist trained in digital photography i always cringe when someone says “it’s a fraud!! it’s been photoshopped!” this is an application that allows the user to enhance or alter an image, but that is not necessarily to say that the resulting image is therefore fraudulent.

    the image of the bear has been digitally manipulated…turned to face the same direction as the mystery creature probably resized and superimposed i.e. layered over it at a reduced opacity so that both images are visible. The face of the bear has been selected and layered over the dark spot in the jacobs photo to show that the head of a bear could actually fit the shadowed area that exists there on the original photo.

    so this is photoshopped image shows that the structure and posture of the bear could indeed fit the structure and posture of animal x.

    Using this program we have been able to make some pretty convincing comparisons.

40. zytebac responds: November 6th, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    Mystery-man, on the contrary, I DO see a bigfoot when I look at these pics. Also, I am a firm believer in the sasquatch phenomonom and am an active participant in doing field research in my local area.
    I’m glad you pointed out the fact that a bear can take the pose the second pic shows, since I have no bears where I live and have not studied them. Although I still have to say that I do not see a bear. And all I was trying to convey is that we should respect each others opinions when it comes to trying to dissect these pictures. I hear and see a lot of bashing going on with regards as to what each of us think and it’s not helping the cause. We should be allowed to post our opinions and forms of evidence without the fear of being ridiculed or villified, (although I’m not sure how to handle the hoaxers when it comes to evidence.) And maybe you are right, maybe we need to take these pictures for what they are, inconclusive, and move on.
    As to what rayrich says about seeing a bear just to get people to leave the sasquatch alone, I think that the opposite is true. The sooner we prove the sasquatch exists, the sooner we can take legislative measures to protect it. And like Alligator points out, that it would likely, and unfortunately, take a body, is sadly the truth.

41. sausage1 responds: November 6th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    I’m sure I read it here , so forgive my repeating it.

    “If you hear hooves in the night, expect horses rather than zebra.”

    Occam and his razor again. Bear it is.

42. DWA responds: November 6th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    sausage1: inappropriate use of Occam’s razor. TWWWWEEEEET! 15 yards!

    You should expect horses, when you live in places where zebras don’t run free. In many areas of Africa, to think horse would be absurd. Zebras would be the simplest explanation: in almost no area of Africa where zebra are native are there sizable numbers of horses.

    Once again we see the General Implausibility Theorem (GIT) at work. There’s only one reason that a sas wouldn’t be as simple an explanation as a bear: they, well, they, they, they….they DON’T EXIST!

    Well, what if they do? Then they’ve been a simple alternative explanation all along.

    Right?

    “Simple” does not mean “slightly more likely” or even “much more likely” on a percentage basis given population size. Simple means simple. If the shot clearly shows an okapi, then that the shot was taken in PA has no relevance. Okapi is a simple explanation. I mean, there it is.

    It could be a bear.

    Or it could be something else.

    Whether we know the something else to exist or not has no impact.

43. fallofrain responds: November 6th, 2007 at 10:43 pm

    I wonder if the universe ends if you overcomplicate Occam’s Razor?

44. mystery_man responds: November 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    zytebach- It’s my pleasure to offer any information which I am able, for example about the ability for bears to take certain positions. Hope it is informative for anybody who may not be aware of it. Anyway, I understand what you were trying to say and I certainly do not want to “bash” what other people are seeing in the photos. I agree that it is a good thing for us to all respect each other’s opinions even when we don’t agree. Anyway, I wish you luck with your field research! Maybe you will be the one to bring in the irrefutable photos we all want to see.

45. DWA responds: November 7th, 2007 at 9:50 am

    fallofrain: exactly my point.

    Don’t overcomplicate Occam’s Razor.

    Two simple explanations.

    Bear.

    Or something else.

    The “overcomplication” comes in complicating a simple explanation. NEVER do that.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|