I chopped off its head and applied it to the photo below for comparison to what I think could be a bear (albeit a scrawny one). Don't get me wrong, when I look at the photo below I do at first glance admit that it looks primate but if you look at what is supposedly its head (click on the pictures to biggerize them)...
If it is a bear I see that it's nose is hiding behind its left forearm as if it were licking the inside of its elbow. Here is a photo that was posted at the BFRO of a mangy old bear. Poor sack of skin and bones. If I didn't know it was a bear I may have thought it was an ill hyena. We have better lighting, clearer photography to help us determine that this is not the case. At another angle, under starker lighting conditions and grainier film, who knows how similar to a primate it could look, especially if the head was out of sight?
The other photo of the creature shows a lump on the ground. Some people have been saying that this is its head. I don't see how this can be the case. Very very odd proportions. Too odd to be correct. So what is it? It wasn't there in the previous photo? I think it's a bear cub. Hey we have photos of bear cubs already. 30 seconds is enough time for an enthusiastic little cub to run up to its mother and start squirming around in the deer phermones. Again, just my opinion. I would love to have proof otherwise but I don't think this is gonna do it.
10 comments:
THe last picture is the most interesting one to me. Now it maybe a baby bear that is the lump...or it may not be. The trick in this picture though is comparing the relative proportions of the animal. Look at the anatomy of a bear, the rear legs are longer than the front legs. Clearly in the picture of the animal bent over, the front apendages are longer than the rear. Another thing I wonder is if a bear can actually bend over like that? Now you say the proportions look odd, yes they look odd if comparing them to a bear, but if you compare them to the proportioons of a Bonobo then not so odd.
I just have to say that there is NO evidence whatsoever that concludes in anyway that this is a bear. Not one individual has adressed the buttocks or butt crack, nor the defined hamstring and calf muscles. I find it insulting that a majority of people find these two pictures to be a bear without discussing what is obvious in the photos.
"I just have to say that there is NO evidence whatsoever that concludes in anyway that this is a bear. Not one individual has adressed the buttocks or butt crack, nor the defined hamstring and calf muscles. I find it insulting that a majority of people find these two pictures to be a bear without discussing what is obvious in the photos."
Just in the same way, there is NO evidence that supports the claim that this is anything but a bear. Plenty of people have addressed the concerns you raise, you just haven't read their opinions. I find it insulting that the BFRO attempts to smear the Pennsylvania Game Commission just because Matt Moneymaker doesn't like their opinion that it is a bear with a severe case of mange. Have you ever seen a bear with a severe case of mange? Have you ever seen a bear? Have you ever seen a bear with it's legs shaved so you can see the defined hamstring or calf muscles? Well have you?
I just have to say that there is NO evidence whatsoever that concludes in anyway that this is a sasquatch. Not one individual has addressed the buttocks or butt crack, nor the defined hamstring and calf muscles. I find it insulting that a majority of people find these two pictures to be a sasquatch without discussing what is obvious in the photos.
Hey, I'm as much a sasquatch believer as the weirdo's out there but these photos DO NOT conclusively prove that it's a sasquatch!! Those who FIRMLY BELIEVE that these are photos of a sasquatch can be linked with people who FIRMLY BELIEVE in Jesus Fucking Christ (who didn't exist- in any shape or form other than on paper as a story).
I've just watched a very good video on YouTube that attempts to prove the Sasquatch side. I found it persuasive. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zsqiK-XJI
Black bears have tails, not large ones, but visible. The Jacobs Creatlure does not.
There is just no way that is a bear, twist bear pictures all you want its just not propotioned like the bear! I think its someones pet monkey on the loose.
The interesting part to me is the foot and ankle, for one there is no ankle structure like that of a biped. It is more of a leg to foot type thing. I'm no anatomist but the foot screams bear to me.
Yet the proportions scream Sasquatch. That was no baby bear underneath I don't care what anyone says.
Yes, look how long the bears torso is compared to the Jacobs creature. Independent scientists and investigators have surveyed the site and determined the size of the Jacobs creature. The limbs in relation to the body were much longer than that of a bears. So there is no telling what it was for sure without more evidence.
Post a Comment