That ain't no bear.
:shrug::shrug:
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bigfoot_in_pa;_ylt=ArcQsmD5sH3kt_kYKiylXU6s0NU E

You are correct. That is a human dressed up as some sort of creature. To

bad, again, the photographer can't get a good close up of the thing isn't it?

The bears are in focus though, what happened when he took the so called

picture of "big foot"?

It's sort of part of the unwritten rules that these things have to be fuzzy and indistinct.

Looks pretty clear to me.

Its a hoax... If it is the same footage that is over 10 years old, it is definately a hoax.

Looks pretty clear to me.
No, this is clear:

http://www.americanbear.org/shared/images/homepage/black-bear.jpg

I'd be interested to see any comparable photos of bigfoot. Anything anywhere near this unambiguous. Same goes for UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc.

Why do these people always have such shit cameras. I mean, you'd think just one of them would once...

Ah, never mind.

My belief is the the myth of bigfoot orginated in a real giant ape that existed concurrently with people about 10,000 years ago which was about twice a big as the largest modern gorilla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

"long ago as five million years to as recently as 100 thousand years ago in what today are China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as early hominids such as Homo erectus."

Not only is the timing off, but so is the location.
When did man start arriving in North America?

Orleander, the honest answer that few will give, is they really have no fucking clue.

has a Gigantopithecus fossil ever been found in North America? has anything even remotely looking like it could be a bigfoot remains ever been found?
Heck, sounds like Bigfoot could be God,don't need proof, just faith that it exists.

Its a bear with mange. Same as the chupacabra they caught was a coyote with mange. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307576,00.html)

Same as the chupacabra they caught was a coyote with mange. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307576,00.html)
Ooh. Feverishly debated on Sciforums as the news broke, and then... nothing. Thanks for the update. http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Looks pretty clear to me.

Looked like a bear to me.

I think it was a mangy bear.

The first picture looked like bears...so did the third (though "background bear" was scratching the top of its head against the ground). It's only the second one that looks odd to me, and I chalk that up to a very thin bear and a very blurry photo.

Still nothing at all unusual about the first picture to me

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/1_bear_cubs_med.jpg

Feet don't look that big. Not even scaled up, if it was a baby.

Isn't the Eastern one supposed to be the Jersey Pine Devil, or something? That would explain the small feet.

If it's not a bear what's it doing, um, hanging about with bears? Are they just best friends or something?

If it's not a bear what's it doing, um, hanging about with bears? Are they just best friends or something?

Excellent point. Wonder what mama bear would do to anything around her cubs. Bears are protective aren't they?;)

My belief is the the myth of bigfoot orginated in a real giant ape that existed concurrently with people about 10,000 years ago which was about twice a big as the largest modern gorilla.

Actually the myth started in 1905. Two towns in western Sask. were competing for the R.R. that was headed west. A newspaper in one town filed a story about an "ape boy" being found and the R.R. headed that way.
Also the word "sasquatch" is not an native American word. It was made up at the same time.
Article in SCEPTIC about three years ago. Sorry, I don't have the issue at hand.

It's sort of part of the unwritten rules that these things have to be fuzzy and indistinct.

To be fair, in this instance the camera was a Bushnell trail cam. A model with lousy auto focus and the company is not known for decent optics. This time there really is an excuse. All the other fuzzy, blurry, junky photos,, well hoaxers need 'em and the gullible buy 'em.

How can the last two photos be a bear? The legs look like they're too long.

The legs are about right, little long but not out of line.
The thing that strikes me is the glow of the eyes. Even with reflected flash they seem too bright and too gold.

After rereading the article I notice that the flash was infrared. There should have been no reflected light at all.

Sorry crew!
It was me.
Yes, I'm big black and hairy and my size 15 Islander( never worn shoes) feet( I call 'em my flippers) make a splash wherever I go and you know me, egged on by a few northern brews, I couldn't resist that constitutional thing " it's ar'right to bear arms" or however your sacred thingy goes. Well, I was chargin' my legendary hirsuteness and massive flippers made a pisser of a sight! the locals were doubled over, the guy with his shitbox camera couldn't keep still, shit he was nearly as pissed as me! No wonder he couldn't focus.
Shit, I never thought the little shenanigannery and Tomfoolery would get so far out of hand.

Lucky they didn't post the pic of me urinating on the tree, they'd be running for the taxonomic charts ( new species folks)... Now what shall I call myself Homo gigantophallusus, Sasquatchia spudemperorius?...

How can the last two photos be a bear? The legs look like they're too long.

Exactly the legs are to long to be a bear. The upper torso is very big and the belly is non existant. The bear cubs make a great comparison to the BIGFOOT and rule out that it is a bear.:shrug:

The only time most of you have seen a bear was when it had all its hair and was healthy. A bear with mange is not healthy. Mange = NO HAIR! Ever seen a big fluffy cat soaking wet? It looks a lot skinnier, right? Same with a hairless bear.

Actually spud those cameras are mounted on trees and things with screws

Exactly the legs are to long to be a bear. The upper torso is very big and the belly is non existant. The bear cubs make a great comparison to the BIGFOOT and rule out that it is a bear.:shrug:

That's just silly. Exactly how many bears have you ever seen with no hair? I saw one that was captured in North Carolina with a bad case of mange - no hair at all. It looked almost exactly like a largish dog (except with a blunter head) with longer than normal legs.

This is the best topic since it was suggested that ancient Sumerians were six fingered giants. :wallbang:

Actually spud those cameras are mounted on trees and things with screws

O.K so you don't believe it was me. Fine!

Here's a tip or two for the good folk of Bigfoot research or whatever they call themselves: If you go to the trouble of screwing your camera to a tree( as opposed to ...umm..you know..setting it on a tripod( strange tripedal device specifically designed for keeping a camera steady for the purpose of PHOTOGRAPHY!), make sure it's a good camera,with a decent lens, set up a couple of flashes at differing angles which are preset to coordinate with the preset focal point of the camera and its preset aperture and have a motion sensor or trip beam to capture the animal remotely ( i.e, no-one even needs to be there night after night to get the image.)

Anyway, without getting any more facetious, these are standard nocturnal wildlife photography practices and the people who do it, can do it really well.

Absolutely no excuse for totally crap images. This is actually the technological age!

And as for my species name, I now like Spuddus bigflipperii.

And as for my species name, I now like Spuddus bigflipperii.

Any advance on Sebago gigantopedalus?

SInce the first encounter with Bigfoot and with every subsequent contact since then I find it totally amazing that not one hunter or one photographer, anyone of them equipped with the most modern technology of the day in guns and cameras, were unable to get a decent shot.

This is an indictment against all manufacturers of guns and cameras but quite possibly a ringing endorsement for the distilling industry.

SInce the first encounter with Bigfoot and with every subsequent contact since then I find it totally amazing that not one hunter or one photographer, anyone of them equipped with the most modern technology of the day in guns and cameras, were unable to get a decent shot.

This is an indictment against all manufacturers of guns and cameras but quite possibly a ringing endorsement for the distilling industry.

They are actually an endangered species in my state and it is a felony to shoot one:rolleyes:

Here's a tip or two for the good folk of Bigfoot research or whatever they call themselves: If you go to the trouble of screwing your camera to a tree( as opposed to ...umm..you know..setting it on a tripod( strange tripedal device specifically designed for keeping a camera steady for the purpose of PHOTOGRAPHY!), make sure it's a good camera,with a decent lens, set up a couple of flashes at differing angles which are preset to coordinate with the preset focal point of the camera and its preset aperture and have a motion sensor or trip beam to capture the animal remotely ( i.e, no-one even needs to be there night after night to get the image.)



Trail cams are mounted to something and left over night. The shutter is operated by a motion sensor. There wasn't a guy there at the time of exposure.

Another factor in the image is how digital cameras distort the image of a moving object, especially in low light. Digital cameras don't write the whole image to memory in the same instant. If you haven't noticed this effect before, try photographing a moving object with a stationary low-end digital camera and see for yourself. I suspect the lankiest-appearing figure is a normally-proportioned bear cub that happened to be in faster motion than others in that frame. You can easily make out the bear cub's characteristic snout- it's just distorted by motion.http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/3_creature_med.jpg

Another factor in the image is how digital cameras distort the image of a moving object, especially in low light. Digital cameras don't write the whole image to memory in the same instant. If you haven't noticed this effect before, try photographing a moving object with a stationary low-end digital camera and see for yourself. I suspect the lankiest-appearing figure is a normally-proportioned bear cub that happened to be in faster motion than others in that frame. You can easily make out the bear cub's characteristic snout- it's just distorted by motion.http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/3_creature_med.jpg

Yeah, that's a black bear.

Negative this is a black bear! Huge difference here.:shrug::shrug:

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos_bear_cubs.asp

deleted out of shame ;)

How can the last two photos be a bear? The legs look like they're too long.

Exactly the legs are to long to be a bear. The upper torso is very big and the belly is non existant. The bear cubs make a great comparison to the BIGFOOT and rule out that it is a bear.:shrug:

The legs only appear too long because the bear is very skinny. Same explanation for the torso (appears bigger in relation) and the obviously the belly.

The legs are about right, little long but not out of line.
The thing that strikes me is the glow of the eyes. Even with reflected flash they seem too bright and too gold.

After rereading the article I notice that the flash was infrared. There should have been no reflected light at all.

The light reflected is of course infrared light and the camera, being an infrared camera, picks that up fine.

No way. In your example: his/her front feet are pointed backwards. His/Her legs would have to be broken for that to happen.

No way. In your example: his/her front feet are pointed backwards. His/Her legs would have to be broken for that to happen.

No, it's behind the other paw, in a ditch, behind some grass or it's facing straight towards the camera.

Look at the lines I've drawn and then look at the picture without the lines, I think you will see the bears head now.. bearhead-shaped. ;)
P.S. I have made a slight error, the bears head is actually a bit longer then the white lines indicate.

You got his head on the wrong end and his feet are pointed backwards. I'm going with you can't even see the head on the other side of its body. This thing is bent over showing its butt to us and his head is not even shown. His two hind legs and front left arm is showing. His right arm you can't see.

You got his head on the wrong end and his feet are pointed backwards. I'm going with you can't even see the head on the other side of its body. This thing is bent over showing its butt to us and his head is not even shown. His two hind legs and front left arm is showing. His right arm you can't see.

Ow, now I feel stupid :o
You are right... I still think it's bear though.

.. I still think it's bear though.

and I think a large portion of the Bigfoot believing community is now as well. The brew-ha-ha has died down a lot about it.

and I think a large portion of the Bigfoot believing community is now as well. The brew-ha-ha has died down a lot about it.

Hey Orleander ! :)
Yeah Bigfoot..pfft.. lol

In this image his head is protruding from his left shoulder with his left arm touching the ground. His head is huge.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos_creature_image_1.asp

so cat, what would it take to make you believe its a bear?

In this image his head is protruding from his left shoulder with his left arm touching the ground. His head is huge.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos_creature_image_1.asp

He is talking about the long legs:

That's an illusion fomented by the skeleton. The shoulder blades are entirely internal and don't add length to the limbs outside the body. The hind leg, however, start more or less right at the hip.

Here's a quick mock-up of the external limb length drawn on top of your skeleton:
http://101squadron.com/legs.jpg
(I knew that year of paleontology would come in handy one day!)

http://www.agw.bombs-away.net/showthread.php?p=930143

so cat, what would it take to make you believe its a bear?

I have seen many bears and I have seen Bigfoot EYE TO EYE and he looks just like the Jacobs photos.

Ah, I understand now. Nothing further to say I think.

I don't care what anyone thinks I know what I saw.

I have seen many bears and I have seen Bigfoot EYE TO EYE and he looks just like the Jacobs photos.

Oh, really??? Well, your credibility around here just dropped into extreme negative numbers!:bugeye:

I don't care what anyone thinks I know what I saw.

I don't care what anyone thinks I know what I saw.

Maybe that was a mangy bear too ? :shrug:

P.S. Are you serious ?

No mangy bear. It was between 8-9 feet tall and can run a deer down. Quick as a Cheeta or even quicker.

No mangy bear. It was between 8-9 feet tall and can run a deer down. Quick as a Cheeta or even quicker.

Did you see it run ? A cheetah can run over 100 km/h..
A normal bear can outrun a deer to you know..
And a bear standing up can reach 8-9 feet.

Yes I saw it run. Quickest thing I ever saw. Its fur is about 2 inches long at most it is so black it was irredesent blue when the sun shines on it.

Yes I saw it run. Quickest thing I ever saw. Its fur is about 2 inches long at most it is so black it was irredesent blue when the sun shines on it.

OK - and what color were the walls of your bedroom when you woke up?

Yes I saw it run. Quickest thing I ever saw. Its fur is about 2 inches long at most it is so black it was irredesent blue when the sun shines on it.

I would advise not eating anymore "magic mushrooms". ;)

I find it funny when people don't believe what I saw. Anyways, this one is not fully grown.

I find it funny when people don't believe what I saw. Anyways, this one is not fully grown.

And many of us find it amusing when someone believes what they didn't see.

Yes I saw it run. Quickest thing I ever saw. Its fur is about 2 inches long at most it is so black it was irredesent blue when the sun shines on it.

Did you see it run ? A cheetah can run over 100 km/h..
A normal bear can outrun a deer too you know..
And a bear standing up can reach 8-9 feet.

Can you please address the other points I made ?

Anyhow, couldn't there be a tiny possibility that you misjudged the speed and height ?
If Bigfoot lives in the forest it most probably is not capable of speeds like that, it's evolutionary nonsense to run over 100 km/h in the forest.
Heights are misjudged readily, especially without a proper reference.

Of course I didn't have a radar gun to measure his speed nor did I have ruler to measure his height. However, the 16X20 inch window he was looking at me through was 7 feet feet off the ground at he bottom and he was bending over slightly to look through it at me.

Of course I didn't have a radar gun to measure his speed nor did I have ruler to measure his height. However, the 16X20 inch window he was looking at me through was 7 feet feet off the ground at he bottom and he was bending over slightly to look through it at me.

Was that your bedroom window ?

No bathroom window right above the toilet.

No bathroom window right above the toilet.

So you got out of bed to take a leak, and there it was.. looking through the bathroom window ?

Yep very early at sunrise before going to high school in 1977. It is a very curious creature.

Yep very early at sunrise before going to high school in 1977.

And you were still very sleepy, right ?

Nope. I yelled for my dad.

Nope. I yelled for my dad.

Can your dad corroborate your story ?

At one time he could but he has passed away now but the neighbor can. He seen him too.

At one time he could but he has passed away now but the neighbor can. He seen him too.

Did your father and the neighbor both believe it was indeed Bigfoot, or did they think it was just some large animals they couldn't place ?

Yes they SAID it was BIGFOOT.

Yes they SAID it was BIGFOOT.

And you believed them ?

And you believed them ?

I be they played a prank on you. :D

Our neighbor at the time is nowhere near 7 foot tall neither was my my dad nor could they break two 4-6 inch diameter pine trees in half as they ran away through the woods.

Our neighbor at the time is nowhere near 7 foot tall neither was my my dad nor could they break two 4-6 inch diameter pine trees in half as they ran away through the woods.

I think you were just s wittle sleepy :o

Nope wide awake along with dad.

This might be of interest to you (notice it is a Bigfoot forum):
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20768

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/ThePlaidLemur/creaturebearbones.jpg

Also, see this National Geographic article on balding bears.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0110_030114_bearnaked.html

Where do you live ?

I used to live in South Dade county Florida for 40 years where the sighting occured. They call him the "Skunk Ape" down there. I live in Alabama now.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/ThePlaidLemur/creaturebearbones.jpg

Good call, that's how I "saw" the pic.

I used to live in South Dade county Florida for 40 years where the sighting occured. They call him the "Skunk Ape" down there. I live in Alabama now.

Where in Alabama ?

Oxford

Good call, that's how I "saw" the pic.

Negative you have the front left foot a foot off the ground. In the picture it is on the ground.

Negative you have the front left foot a foot off the ground. In the picture it is on the ground.

No it isn't..

Just face it, it's a mangy black bear.
What do you think the bearcups are doing there ?

Yes it is!

No it is not a bear it matchs what I saw in 1977 in the Redlands in South Dade County Florida.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/2_creature_med.jpg

No, it isn't. You can see the curve where the paw starts. It's kind of standing on it's toes with that foot. Probably leaning on the other limb.

No it is not a bear it matchs what I saw in 1977 in the Redlands in South Dade County Florida.

Then that was a bear too, did you read that article ?

Negative it is firmly on the ground. You can't see all of it because he is standing on a slope that goes downward to the left.He would topple over if he had no pressure on it.

Negative it is firmly on the ground. You can't see all of it because he is standing on a slope that goes downward to the left.He would topple over if he had no pressure on it.

It could be leaning on it's toes. Anyway it's not like he stood like that for an hour.. it's a picture man. He was only in the position for a fraction of a second.
And for all we know he did topple over lol.. ;)

This might be of interest to you (notice it is a Bigfoot forum):
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20768

Also, see this National Geographic article on balding bears.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0110_030114_bearnaked.html

Just face it, it's a mangy black bear.
What do you think the bearcups are doing there ?

Could you kindly respond to these posts ?

Yeah he could have toppled over. Who knows what Jacobs was feeding him??:m::m:

Yeah he could have toppled over. Who knows what Jacobs was feeding him??:m::m:

Do you live next to the forest, are you looking at it when you look through your bathroom window ?

Were those trees about that diameter ?
http://www.totalcarcrashes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/crash208.jpg

It was a wooded area with pines and palmetto bushes in a rual area and next to large avocado grove. Yes it was looking at me through the window but the window was up and I saw its breath come through the screen when it grunted at me.His head took up almost all the space of the window I was scared out of my skin. I called for my dad. Then I went outside to get a better look at him as my dad went to get the gun. Dad thought it was a prowler.

It was a wooded area with pines and palmetto bushes in a rual area and next to large avocado grove. Yes it was looking at me through the window but the window was up and I saw its breath come through the screen when it grunted at me.His head took up almost all the space of the window I was scared out of my skin. I called for my dad. Then I went outside to get a better look at him as my dad went to get the gun. Dad thought it was a prowler.

You were scared shitless and yet you went outside on your own... ??
So what happened after that ?

About half that diameter

About half that diameter

Are you certain ? I would say the diameter of the tree in the picture is barely 4 inches.

You were scared shitless and yet you went outside on your own... ??
So what happened after that ?

Yes I was that scared when I ran around the corner outside and saw a full frontal of him then I stopped dead in my tracks as we both looked each other eye to eye.:shrug:

Yes I was that scared when I ran around the corner outside and saw a full frontal of him then I stopped dead in my tracks as we both looked each other eye to eye.:shrug:

Why did you run right to him if you were that scared ? And what happened next ?

You were scared shitless and yet you went outside on your own... ??
So what happened after that ?

Yes I was that scared when I ran around the corner outside and saw a full frontal of him then I stopped dead in my tracks as we both looked each other eye to eye.:shrug:

Yes I was that scared when I ran around the corner outside and saw a full frontal of him then I stopped dead in my tracks as we both looked each other eye to eye.:shrug:

You already posted that :bugeye:

Why did you run right to him if you were that scared ? And what happened next ?

He looked at the woods about 30 feet away then looked at me eye to eye again then in two steps he was gone in the woods breaking the pines over as he bolted through the woods. My dad was right behind me gun in hand but he got there a second to late but he heard it scampering away.:shrug:

He looked at the woods about 30 feet away then looked at me eye to eye again then in two steps he was gone in the woods breaking the pines over as he bolted through the woods. My dad was right behind me gun in hand but he got there a second to late but he heard it scampering away.:shrug:

So your dad never actually saw it ?
Anyway, I have to get up early tomorrow.. have a good remainder of the evening :)

He was still looking in the window as I turned the corner and I stopped dead in my tracks. Then he turned to me. I didn't run right up to him. I was closer to him in the bathroom about six inches away when he grunted at me. I moved very close to the screen to try and get a better look because I didn't think a head could be that large and I grunted first this aggravated him very much.That is when he grunted at me.

So your dad never actually saw it ?
Anyway, I have to get up early tomorrow.. have a good remainder of the evening :)

No but our neighbor did later that day and sent his two weimaramer dogs after it while he had his gun drawn. Dad drove me home from school and we both saw our neighbor in our front yard gun drawn. Then dad started to believe my story.:shrug:

My Neighbors name was Hugo Vihlen. I think he is still alive. Pretty neat guy. He sailed across the Atlantic ocean in a 5 foot 4 inch sail boat. He can validate my story.

Did it once then he did it again to regain his record.

http://www.latc.com/2004/09/08/community/community13.html

Did your father and the neighbor both believe it was indeed Bigfoot, or did they think it was just some large animals they couldn't place ?

Yes they SAID it was BIGFOOT.

..Dad thought it was a prowler.

..My dad was right behind me gun in hand but he got there a second to late but he heard it scampering away.:shrug:

So your dad never actually saw it ?

No but our neighbor did later that day and sent his two weimaramer dogs after it while he had his gun drawn. Dad drove me home from school and we both saw our neighbor in our front yard gun drawn. Then dad started to believe my story.:shrug:

So we have two conflicting story lines here.
First you suggest your dad and neighbor saw the animal, then you say your dad didn't actually see it.
The neighbor, well, how close was he to the animal ? How well did he see it ?
Wasn't he under the impression he was chasing off a bear ?
And as you saw the neighbor standing there gun drawn, did you or your dad look what he was pointing the gun at ?

And, ofcourse we have this:

Our neighbor at the time is nowhere near 7 foot tall neither was my my dad nor could they break two 4-6 inch diameter pine trees in half as they ran away through the woods.

Were those trees about that diameter ?
http://www.totalcarcrashes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/crash208.jpg

About half that diameter

Are you certain ? I would say the diameter of the tree in the picture is barely 4 inches.

So what diameter were the trees, 2 inch or 4-6 inch ?
Seems to me you aren't very good at judging dimensions.
Did you wear glasses at the time, or maybe now ? How well is your eyesight ?

No way. The tree in that picture where it meets the car has a diameter of at least a foot, the length of a license tag. My vision is still greater than 20/20. Four inches is a poor guess.

No way. The tree in that picture where it meets the car has a diameter of at least a foot, the leangth of a license tag. My vision is still greater than 20/20. Four inches is a poor quess.

You think ?
What about the other questions I asked ?

Which ones?

So we have two conflicting story lines here.
First you suggest your dad and neighbor saw the animal, then you say your dad didn't actually see it.
The neighbor, well, how close was he to the animal ? How well did he see it ?
Wasn't he under the impression he was chasing off a bear ?
And as you saw the neighbor standing there gun drawn, did you or your dad look what he was pointing the gun at ?

And, ofcourse we have this:
So what diameter were the trees, 2 inch or 4-6 inch ?
Seems to me you aren't very good at judging dimensions.
Did you wear glasses at the time, or maybe now ? How well is your eyesight ?

These..

Never suggested dad saw it. The neighbor saw it good enough to send his two dogs after it and he called it a bigfooot not a bear. Never said he was pointing the gun. He had the gun drawn. Already answered the tree question for you.

:shrug:
What about the bear cups, why do you think they were there (photos).

Bigfoot arrived about 28 min. after the cubs.Perhaps, Bigfoot chased the cubs and mother away from the food.

So what's in the lower half of the picture ?

Food box.

Well, that at least clears up one thing..
I don't know what to say Cat. You have made up your mind and I just see a mangy bear.. Without further material we aren't going to agree I'm afraid :shrug:

I am working on further material I am trying to contact my old neihgbor after 30 years. Hopefully, he is still alive and well and can remember.

Cat, do you recognize any of this ?
The hypnagogic experience occurs between being awake and asleep, while the hypnopompic experience occurs as one is waking up; both experiences occur within the time period between sleep and waking (or vice versa). Experienced qualities vary, and include fear, awareness of a "presence," chest or back pressure, and an inability to breathe (hence the folkloric notion of mara-like creatures tormenting sleepers), a falling sensation or a feeling of tripping, but sometimes also joy.

During the hypnagogic state, an individual may appear to be fully awake, but has brain waves indicating that the individual is technically sleeping. Also, the individual may be completely aware of their state, which enables lucid dreamers to enter the dream state consciously directly from the waking state (see wake-initiated lucid dream technique).

The hypnagogic state is sometimes proposed as an explanation of experiences such as alien abduction, apparitions, or visions.

It looks like a bear with a severe case of mange to me. The presence of small cubs tends to indicate that it is soon after bears awaken from hibernation which could explain the skinny condition of the bear in picture number two. A bear with no hair and no fat would look like that.

There is no way that thing is a bear, I don’t care if he is hairless and starving the legs are just too long compared to the body. There are bears and deer in the woods there presence means nothing; it was half an hour before this thing showed up.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/2_creature_med.jpg
.

looks like a bear scratching/rubbing itself against a tree, perhaps its stretching while it rubs against the tree...

That picture doesn't look anything like a bear, maybe an ape.

They are mangy bears, starved.

I don't buy it, mangy bears have a bald look when they start to get thin this looks to me like it has thick hair all over and it looks muscular in the upper body.

I don't buy it, mangy bears have a bald look when they start to get thin this looks to me like it has thick hair all over and it looks muscular in the upper body.

Uhm.. but they have "bald" spots where their fur is really thin.. :shrug:
Armpit and hip for example (the one in the back).

and so do apes.

and so do apes.

Do you think apes are a more probable explanation ? I mean seriously ?

Jim Jones made that happen.
He, Bush and Mick Jagger had a threeway.
Thats why the cover up.

Do you think apes are a more probable explanation ?

No not an ape, seriously this was the latest slip up of an unwary Juvenile Sasquatch. The last mistake was the Patterson film they caught that one red handed crossing an open field. These things are out there and they are getting closer to finally proving it.

Do you think apes are a more probable explanation ?

No not an ape, seriously this was the latest slip up of an unwary Juvenile Sasquatch. The last mistake was the Patterson film they caught that one red handed crossing an open field. These things are out there and they are getting closer to finally proving it.

Ok, so you're saying that those actually are Bigfoots ?

Ok, so you're saying that those actually are Bigfoots ?

No, that would be Littlefoots not Bigfoots or would it be Bigfeet and Littlefeet or maybe Bigfeets or Littlefeets. No it's a Juvenile Sasquatch and there is only 1 or maybe 2 or maybe there are more behind the tree.

Ok, so you're saying that those actually are Bigfoots ?

No, that would be Littlefoots not Bigfoots or would it be Bigfeet and Littlefeet or maybe Bigfeets or Littlefeets. No it's a Juvenile Sasquatch and there is only 1 or maybe 2 or maybe there are more behind the tree.

Hmm ok.. what kind of mammal (assuming Sasquatch is a mammal) do you think Sasquatch is ?

Hmm ok.. what kind of mammal (assuming Sasquatch is a mammal) do you think Sasquatch is ?

Emmos I get the impression you are fishing for an argument and not just making friendly conversation. I am not here to fuel your compulsions to seek relief from some obsession-related anxiety.

Hmm ok.. what kind of mammal (assuming Sasquatch is a mammal) do you think Sasquatch is ?

Emmos I get the impression you are fishing for an argument and not just making friendly conversation. I am not here to fuel your compulsions to seek relief from some obsession-related anxiety.

No, I am interested in what sort of animal you think it is :shrug:
Not that you are going to convince me though, admittedly.

It's obviously unmistakabley a bear, the way it's rubbing itself on the scent is classic bear behaviour, primates don't do that, even a hypothetical primate we've not encountered would still have basic primate behaviour and not classic bear behaviour. Scent isn't overly important to primates, they certainly don't rub themselves on deer piss.

No, I am interested in what sort of animal you think it is :shrug:
Not that you are going to convince me though, admittedly.
Dr Lou Natic
06-28-08, 07:37 PM
It's obviously unmistakabley a bear, the way it's rubbing itself on the scent is classic bear behaviour, primates don't do that, even a hypothetical primate we've not encountered would still have basic primate behaviour and not classic bear behaviour. Scent isn't overly important to primates, they certainly don't rub themselves on deer piss.

:shrug: Your not going to convince me, it's obviously a Juvenile Sasquatch it isn't rubbing itself on anything. It is away from the tree and there is a root on the ground. Your seeing things that are not there, smelling deer piss that isn't there? I read it was a fruity bait.

I'm talking about this photo of the animal-
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/3_creature_med.jpg
That is very clearly a photo of a bear rubbing itself on a scent, it's unmistakable to anyone who is at all familiar with bears.
Might be a fruity scent, might be deer piss, whatever, that's a bear rubbing itself on whatever it is. Not an ape, apes don't do that. The only other animals that do that are dogs/wolves. If you want to claim the sasquatch isn't an ape but rather a relative of the bear or dog with superficial ape like features, fine, but that animal is not an ape.
You being convinced or not is of no consequence to anyone. Who cares? All most of us cared about is what that animal was, turns out it's a bear, end of story.

:shrug: Your not going to convince me, it's obviously a Juvenile Sasquatch it isn't rubbing itself on anything. It is away from the tree and there is a root on the ground. Your seeing things that are not there, smelling deer piss that isn't there? I read it was a fruity bait.

How do you know ?
Do you have an example image of a Sasquatch that we can compare the photograph to ?

That is very clearly a photo of a bear rubbing itself on a scent, it's unmistakable to anyone who is at all familiar with bears.

I agree, that's obviously bear ass..

No way is that a bears ass it looks just like an ape ass.

Why O why does the poor emaciated beast have such small feet?

How big is a Juvenile Sasquatch foot? There is no record of such a measurement and there is no way you can determine the actual size of the feet in question with just those 2 photos. I have seen some photos where they look rather large and others that are blurry both of which you cannot see exactly where they end. This type of infrared image sensors are inherently sensitive to infrared light, which would interfere with the normal photography by confusing the auto focus calculations or softening the image (because infrared light is focused differently than visible light), or over saturating the red channel. Some parts of a photo become transparent in the infrared.

No way is that a bears ass it looks just like an ape ass.

What about my other post, right above the one you replied to ?

Why O why does the poor emaciated beast have such small feet?

Oh sure! Make him self conscious about that as well as being bald. :mad: Obviously small feet mean.....poor poor guy

Do you have an example image of a Sasquatch that we can compare the photograph to ?

I wish now that would be the 1 million dollar prize a certified Sasquatch photo we could use for comparison.

Do you have an example image of a Sasquatch that we can compare the photograph to ?

I wish now that would be the 1 million dollar prize a certified Sasquatch photo we could use for comparison.

Then how do you know the animals in the picture are Sasquatches ?

From the pictures I have seen and storys I have heard I see a Sasquatch when I look at it, not a bear it is what it is a Sasquatch.

From the pictures I have seen and storys I have heard I see a Sasquatch when I look at it, not a bear it is what it is a Sasquatch.

That's a little shaky to say the least.
By the way, I thought you said you didn't have an image of Sasquatch ?
Can you please post one you think is representative of your mental image of Sasquatch ? (or post a link since you don't have 20 posts yet..)

Enmos
06-29-08, 08:00 PM
From the pictures I have seen

By the way, I thought you said you didn't have an image of Sasquatch ?

Seen and have do you not understand the difference? You have seen Sasquatch pictures long arms, long legs, a pointy looking head, short neck kind of like a skinny ape. I'm not going to play go fetch.

I am not going to try to entertain you with answers to your sarcastic remarks I have no reason to. With your 15000+ posts you are not going away so I will. Do you ever feel some obsession has manifested?

Enmos
06-29-08, 08:00 PM
From the pictures I have seen

By the way, I thought you said you didn't have an image of Sasquatch ?

Seen and have do you not understand the difference? You have seen Sasquatch pictures long arms, long legs, a pointy looking head, short neck kind of like a skinny ape. I'm not going to play go fetch.

I am not going to try to entertain you with answers to your sarcastic remarks I have no reason to. With your 15000+ posts you are not going away so I will. Do you ever feel some obsession has manifested?

Sarcastic remarks ? :confused:
I believe that is your department.

Anyway, you base your argument on third party drawings and hearsay stories..
You do realize that's not a very strong argument, right ?

Tim.. what did you mean by "With your 15000+ posts you are not going away so I will" ?
Away from this tread, or away from this site ?

You'll find I'm a reasonable guy.. if you want me to stop replying to you in this thread just ask me to :)

....You'll find I'm a reasonable guy.. if you want me to stop replying to you in this thread just ask me to :)

LMAO! Oh sure you will. :p Does 'get out' sound familiar? Liar liar, plants for hire!

Why is it that all of the pictures of bigfoot are out of focus?! Shouldn't there be at least one decent photo of the primape?

Yea, the sketchy footage and the sketchy pictures will never be enough to convince everyone that big foot is real. People need solid evidence and proof. They need a dead body or bones or something.

LMAO! Oh sure you will. :p Does 'get out' sound familiar? Liar liar, plants for hire!

If someone behaves normal towards me I will react normal.
If he asks me to leave him alone in this thread in a respectable fashion I will.

You on the other hand are a special case.. all thanks to yourself I might add.
Where do these mood swings of yours come from Orleander ?

You'll find I'm a reasonable guy.. if you want me to stop replying to you in this thread just ask me to :)

Not necessary just give my response some credit and don't assume I am an imbecile because I believe the missing link is Sasquatch.

You'll find I'm a reasonable guy.. if you want me to stop replying to you in this thread just ask me to :)

Not necessary just give my response some credit and don't assume I am an imbecile because I believe the missing link is Sasquatch.

I don't think you're an imbecile. It's just amazing to me that people actually believe that, I have trouble understanding how you reach your conclusions.
My questions are aimed to understand your position and to get you to maybe see things from another angle.
I am not going to hide that I think you're wrong though.

Fine a recent pole on AOL shows 45% of 34688 people believe Sasquatch is real so I am not alone. People from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and weirdos.

Fine a recent pole on AOL shows 45% of 34688 people believe Sasquatch is real so I am not alone. People from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and weirdos.

If a renowned biologist would say he saw Sasquatch I would be more inclined to believe it than if it was a brilliant mathematician.
But even then I would need some evidence.

Edit: what country was the poll taken in ?

Anyone with the internet could vote so that would be anywhere in the world. It is on going so you may want to visit and put in your two cents.

As for Scientists how about Kurt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum they spent five days with a video and audio crew at a cabin in Snelgrove Lake, pulling DNA samples from a bear trap and exploring the forest. Blood, tissue and hair discovered later on the trap outside the cabin was tested. The hair did not match any known North American bear or animal and tests showed an uncanny similarity to human DNA with one exception: the irregular DNA matched that of a primate.

Anyone with the internet could vote so that would be anywhere in the world. It is on going so you may want to visit and put in your two cents.

As for Scientists how about Kurt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum they spent five days with a video and audio crew at a cabin in Snelgrove Lake, pulling DNA samples from a bear trap and exploring the forest. Blood, tissue and hair discovered later on the trap outside the cabin was tested. The hair did not match any known North American bear or animal and tests showed an uncanny similarity to human DNA with one exception: the irregular DNA matched that of a primate.

Interesting, but couldn't it just have been deteriorated DNA from a human ?
Do you have a link to an article about this ?

That ain't no bear.
:shrug::shrug:
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_fe_st/odd_bigfoot_in_pa;_ylt=ArcQsmD5sH3kt_kYKiylXU6s0NU E


Nice fotos .......it might very well be an ursus photoshoppicus ......at last we have the final proof !!!!!!!

Emmos
Do you have a link to an article about this ?

I watched it on the History channel.

Emmos
Do you have a link to an article about this ?

I watched it on the History channel.

Oh ok, too bad.
I might look into those names tomorrow, got to catch some sleep now first :)

Emmos
Interesting, but couldn't it just have been deteriorated DNA from a human ?

How would human blood be on the trap without them knowing it. DNA in dried stains is remarkably resilient to degradation and can be detected many years later. If I remember correctly the trap was protected from rain the DNA breaks down if the stains are wet . However, the profiling techniques have become more and more sensitive and now even a few copies of degraded DNA can be amplified by PCR (polymerase chain reaction).

Interesting, but couldn't it just have been deteriorated DNA from a human ?
Do you have a link to an article about this ?

I did a Google search on:
Kurt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum bigfoot

I'm not allowed to post links here yet but click on the one labeled: DNA of American Bigfoot

Kinda interesting