"Jacobs Creature" Spotted at Bluff Creek
Wow! Jamie S. of the Bluff Creek project recently shared this photograph of what looks a lot like the Jacobs creature from Pennsylvania. This familiar shape of the creature does give some credence to the possibility that the Jacobs creature was probably a bear cub. Here's a close up of the photo above:
 |
| Bear or Bigfoot? |
 |
| We're 99.9999 percent sure it's a bear -- Right? |
Six years ago, Bigfoot researcher Rick Jacobs captured two trail cam photographs of what the BFRO believe is a Bigfoot. Are the following photographs taken by Pennsylvania hunter name Rick Jacobs, a bear or a Bigfoot? The BFRO tells us it's a juvenile Sasquatch, and others say it's a Bigfoot behaving like a bear. So, what is it? Does anyone actually know?
 |
| Jacobs creature (Allegheny National Forest, September 16, 2007) |
 |
| Jacobs creature |
There will be no firsting today!
ReplyDeleteOf course its a Bear! always a Bear!
DeleteBears..
DeleteNegros!
DeleteMore likely a burnt hilly billy baby..Negraz don't inhabit the woods,that's not a jungle...Iggit!
DeleteEven what Justin shot was a bear
DeleteHey Anon 3:35, Boy you don't get out much do you? There's plenty of Negros in the woods, if you know where to look.
DeleteJustin says he has killed "thousands" of bears. And nearly that many shirt sleeves.
DeleteHAHAHAHA!! That never gets old!
DeleteBreaking news
DeleteCdc officials have said that now over 100 people are being monitored for Ebola in Dallas because of contact with the person infected also another confirmed case in Hawaii
AND recent proclamation that the Ebola virus presents a "growing threat to regional and global security," the Obama administration is not recommending any travel restrictions to areas affected by the virus.
DeleteCDC say they have EBOLA under control
SO no WORRIES
Question how long would it take for Ebola to get from Africa to the US?
DeleteAnswer 1 plane ride !!! : (
Fn GAME OVER !!!!
8:32, it's f'ng frightening isn't it?
DeleteNO WORRIES - CDC - got it under control
DeleteWolverine? Badger?
ReplyDeleteBears.
DeleteMick Dodge
DeleteUno
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of fish eyez...lol
DeleteJk, Uno!
BB
I donated to the bluff creek film project and has YET to see a Sasquatch!!!! I WANT MY GODDAMM MONEY BACK!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprise me one bit if ol' fish eyez kept our money! :'(
BB
A fool and his money....
DeleteThat's what you get....
Phuck You! ^
Delete^^ you complete idiot ..you`ve paid for a portion of choco cake at the nearest plush restaurant !!
Deleteloud guffaws all round...sheesh !!
If you donated to the Bluff Creek film project expecting to see a Bigfoot you are an idiot. You see plenty of mountain lions and bears, but that's about it.
DeletePhuck You ^
DeleteGood Morning, you stupid mothaphuckkers!!!!!!!
DeleteWhuts yous meanin stuppid fer
Deletejoe was adamant the jacobs creature was a junior bigfoot..he hasn`t a clue
ReplyDeletehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahaha
you silly boy
"Date: September 16, 2007
DeleteLocation: Northwest Pennsylvania
Camera: Bushnell trail camera (automatic) with infrared (invisible) flash. Camera placed by R. Jacobs.
Time of images: See time stamps on images - click icons above for larger versions.
Figures in images: Bear cubs in first image; Young sasquatch in two subsequent images.
(See link provided by Chuck down below)
Q: How do we know it's a saquatch and not a bear?
A: The distinction between ape anatomy and bear anatomy is most visible in image 2. The figure has its face pressed against the ground to smell some aromatic deer attractant mix (which the Jacobs brothers said they sprinkled at that spot in order to get a centered photo of a deer). Aside from the obvious limb ratio issue, when a "bear" bends down to sniff the ground, it shoud look more or less like large dog sniffing the ground. If you have a large dog then you'll know intuitively that a dog does not get in this position to sniff the ground, or even to press its ear against the ground. Neither does a bear, no matter how mangey it is. Apes, however, do get in this exact posture to smell the ground.
Various newspapers reported that the creature is a "mangey bear". This assertion originated from the spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. See the article debunking the Penn. Game Commission
Several people who have spent a great deal of time with both primates and bears (mainly zoo veterinarians) have consistentaly told us right off the bat, that it "looks much more like a primate than a bear."
And therefore even though we do not have the corpse of the animal to disect, we say with confidence that the Jacobs creature is not a bear."
I think you're a pretty cool dude, Joe, but that's a Bear!
DeleteAnd it could be buddy!
DeleteBut I don't think so.
Delete; )
Oh dear^
DeleteDid you have the accident again?
DeleteYou've never even seen a bear, let alone a bigfoot. You don't know your arse from your elbow, Captain Speculation.
DeleteIrrelavent, drama blog, I can find everything I need on the Internet... And the experts who've spent time analysing the comparitive dimensions certainly have.
DeleteI feel the crampz coming on!!!!!!!!
Delete; )
Deleteliberian bringin in tham ebola thays shure is caws lots of folks diein frum that thar ebola
DeleteJoe is a blog admin troll, pay him no attention
Delete6:05 ..state what you like but the fact is that ALL sources of repute perceive the image as a ...guess what ?
DeleteBEAR !!
Cry all you like, the BFRO source clearly states to the contrary.
DeleteIt is not a "juvenile sasquatch" you imbecile. It is so obviously a bear, I honestly wonder how anyone could believe otherwise. Listen, I know I just fed a troll, but really, haven't you got anything better to do? Plus, if you insist it is a sasquatch, may I see the physical type specimen you compared it to? No, of course not. Fuck, I bet your parents are embarrassed.
DeleteGoe can see the bear looking directly at the camera in the last pic but chooses not to acknowledge it. He's a loser in denial and he also has a tiny pee-pee.
DeleteOh 7:20... Why are you so upset, why are you so threatened? If you learn to disect information from a comment, you'll help yourself so much better. Here's my comment from below;
Delete"An English Professor in Vermont was able to apply some mathematics to the Jacobs photos within months of their release. His results showed a scientific way to study the photos, and strengthened the case that the Jacobs creature is a primate rather than a bear. He focused on the different torso/limb ratios of bears and primates, and the torso/limb ratios seen on the Jacobs creatures. He also referenced the limb ratios of the bear cubs seen in the earlier photo taken by the camera. The glacially slow inertia of the scientific community will, in time, be affected by his analysis. See the YouTube video above for his results."
So you see... The subjects priortuons have been compared to that of primates, that at the very least, show it isn't a bear. Now let's use a little imagination now... If it hasn't got the proportions of a bear, is akin to something more like a primate's...
Hmmmmmmm...
9:28... Go and look at the comparison shots of a bear from the exact trail cam on the exact night;
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp
... And you folk claim we see things that ain't there? You people are seeing bear faces now, as well as zippers, ha ha ha ha!!
Oh, and lastly... If the bear has mange, why is its right arm proportionally longer than it's left?
Deletehttp://s2.excoboard.com/forums/18679/user/331632/519837.jpg
Bob The Builder;
Delete"The most interesting part of the rear leg is this line found by some people examining the original photo.
http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/1867...1632/520362.jpg
It separates the right leg from the body and proves it comes down from the back side. This alone proves this can’t be a bear and that its legs are identical to the chimp I posted earlier."
To access the link in the above comment, access this link and the comment is at the bottom of the page;
Deletehttp://s2.excoboard.com/BFRO/151130/2292434
It appears to work through this site.
Earth to BB,, maybe just maybe , We both got welshed on ie (Stiffted) by UNO
ReplyDeletewho??
12:45,,= not funny Haw!
Delete@ 12:47 am, huh??????
DeleteBB
@ 12:47 am, i was talking about ol' fish eyez from bluff creek who kept our money!
DeleteBB
Sorry BB ,i got distracted,, anyhoo!! not only what you said ,which piss poor,, the main thing that chaps my hide ,is how could someone sell a 5 dollar used book previously owend by Henry May for 75 bucks?? Strange?
DeleteAnd Why is that books pages all stuck together??
Delete12:49 ..maybe not funny..but true ! ..haw haw haw !
DeleteNot funny haha funny queer!
DeleteNot rictor but sling blade
DeleteWait a minute!
DeleteFish Eyez sold a book he purchased for $5 and sold it for $75?!
BB
You own a business to make money, generally anyway.
DeleteGiving anyone money to see Bigfoot is as dumb as it comes.
Deletethays needin it so thays cans gits technicully fer findin tham critters
Delete
ReplyDeleteCliff Barackman eats jacobs creature
Cliff Barackman never even saw a Big foot yet, after 30 years of searching. Boy is he good or what? Plus he plays with puppets!
DeleteWhat's wrong with puppets?
DeleteI like them.
MMG
Obamacare covers you when you get Ebola and the treatment is FREE : )
Delete^does Obamacare cover the Funeral costs....
DeleteProbably a bear cub?...lol
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a bear cub!!
Seems to me it is quite easy to tell that the rear legs are much shorter on this bluff creek bear in proportion to the rest of the body.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Yeah you go ahead and keep seeing what you want to see. It doesn't change the fact that the Jacobs creature is a BEAR.
DeleteFacts? You're very limited on facts bro... You're about as familiar with facts as disinformation can be.
DeleteThat's no bear, the comparison photos of a bear were taken previously to the alleged junior bigfoot photo up top. Go take a look.
Facts... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!
Because it simply is a suffering bear with scab, you silly pathetic idiots. Ever studied biology? No? Shut the fu*k up then.
Deletehttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2740/4076878419_0b64aa58d2.jpg
FACT:
DeleteJACOBS CREATURE IS A BEAR
scab does not change the limb proportions of a bear.
DeleteChuck
6:01... Getting angry? Ha ha ha!! Check out the BFRO link and my extract posted up top.
Delete: p
"Scientists in fields related to biology, zoology and ecology are formally trained to scientificially examine certain types of evidence, but they are not trained to scientifically examine controversial photographs of wildlife ... Therefore they will tend to avoid making conclusions about controversial photographs. They prefer to comment upon physical evidence.
DeleteAfter the Patterson footage was released in 1967, it took many years before scientists became interested, and decades before they figured out ways to study the footage scientifically.
An English Professor in Vermont was able to apply some mathematics to the Jacobs photos within months of their release. His results showed a scientific way to study the photos, and strengthened the case that the Jacobs creature is a primate rather than a bear. He focused on the different torso/limb ratios of bears and primates, and the torso/limb ratios seen on the Jacobs creatures. He also referenced the limb ratios of the bear cubs seen in the earlier photo taken by the camera. The glacially slow inertia of the scientific community will, in time, be affected by his analysis. See the YouTube video above for his results."
You can't extract 3d data from a 2d surface, so any lenght measure and comparison is subject to a significative margin of error, making any assumption inconclusive.
DeletePretty much basic optical stuff bro.
Schooled.
That's your Pate and Blevins arguments out the window then boyo!
Delete; )
I don't know who or what the hell is Pate and this blevins. You just are schooled boyo, that's the only sure thing
DeleteReally? Have you managed to debunk Munns? Have you got a monkey suit?? Do that and I'll be schooled.
DeleteAnd suuuuuuure, you don't know you Pate and Blevins is...
(Pffffft)
Changing arguments is a sign of no arguments left. Hurt much?
DeleteBtw the statement above is the exact same reason for munns' work being forever inconclusive.
You got your dose forma today PJ, now go back to your basement
Woooooooow, that's incredibly audacious considering you brought this up on a Jacob's photo thread. If you aren't aware... Two of the biggest endorsed oppositional arguments against Munn's work is the 2D comparitive scale angle, which means your best arguments are blown out of the water. The reason why Munns' work stands up regardless, is because he's tried applying proportions to a suit mask he put together that proves that a normal humans proportions not only cannot fit that, but in calculating the wider proportions to accommodate shoulder joints, etc, they cannot match up to anything remotely achievable in any costume, because costumes always add and never subtract.
DeleteThis is all very basic stuff bro, if you do a little homework before spouting off and looking silly... I'm here to help you of course.
Exactly. Applying proportions to a suit. That's 3d stuff.
DeletePGF is in 2d and that is what blows munns' argument out of the water.
Deal with it. You have been schooled.
(Sigh)
DeleteNot when the materials Munns is using are 3 dimensional.
(Wow)
...gathering and comparing data from a 2d video.
DeleteSchooled, deal with it.
Oh and 6:24... So you see, this is how it works with the source up top as we have definite data on the proportions of two animals that are being debated. When you can compare the proportions of two animals with well researched and accepted data that's scientifically agreed upon, then you have a means of comparitive scale that rules out traits of one animal; this one being bear.
Delete: p
10:06... The medium being used is 3D (mask), in conjunction with data we know and accept to be that of normal human proportions. Suddenly you have two comparative 3D sources.
DeleteEasy.
... These sources being a wierdly proportioned mask based upon multiple frames, head turns... Against the data of normal human proportions.
DeleteJust to elaborate, Bill made a mask that once calculated against where normal following suit making features should be built, couldn't be physically applied.
Joe is a blog admin troll, pay him no attention
DeleteJoe, touche on your 6:42 comment. Masterful.
DeleteI am going by University studies, in fact more than one were conducted using measurements and limb, torso analysis, etc. All ratios put it in the primate catagory. This photo also looks nothing like the pics from 1/2 hour earlier of the cubs. The bfro spent a good amount of money and time on this years ago sending it out to experts and universities for analysis. I also showed this to some bear handlers on their computer a while back at Oswalds bear ranch, Newberry, MI that I visit for a few hours every other summer. They keep between 25 to 30 bears in all stages of age. The cubs are a blast to watch play by the way. Their opinion was it was no bear they had ever seen.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is getting good evidence shouldn't require that amount of expense or time. Honestly I think picture is so ambiguous that it wouldn't be useful anyway.
Delete^ this is why you're the main man!! Chuck. Of course it's not a bear... I can't agree more!!
Delete5:44... The problem is that good evidence turns up every month and it's largely ignored. And no... There is nothing to the claims that it should be easy. If you have a subject that thinks like us but evaded like an animal, then the frequency of evidence is exactly what would be expected from a largely nocturnal Wild human that buries it's dead.
DeleteJoe, the evidence that I see that is presented isn't just isn't very compelling. I would like to think Bigfoot is possible given the stories, but I just don't see it yet.
DeleteBoth animals and humans make mistakes, regardless of how good they are at avoiding detection.
And Bigfoot make mistakes... That's why we have sightings, tracks, hair, footage... There is evidence and plenty of it, and while it doesn't probe a species, it points to an unknown primate leaving it. You can't keep ignoring consistent data and maintain that something cannot be taken enthusiastically without a body, let's say. It's against the nature of scientific research and if anything is preventing the field progress to the point of major discovery. Supression of evidence.
DeleteI'll be back later.
The problem is that it's consistently bad data. Bigfoot is so ingrained on the popular culture through television and the internet that hoaxing and self deception is prevalent. The only evidence that really matters is what can be tested. Most of the evidence presented now is only of interest to those who already believe. Even the general public largely finds it not compelling.
DeleteThe data is as bad as any falsifiable source that can be presented as evidence in any scientific or judicial arena. There are in fact plenty of facts that people choose to ignore, like the pristine professionalism that has transitioned scientific careers into this field, by methods tried and tested to be legitimate and totally reliable. Like the very best primatologists and conservationists repeatedly telling us that there is nothing in the environment of the US that prohibits the existence of an unknown primate, and in fact... It is likely to be there.
DeleteUFO's were ingrained into pop culture in the 90's, but that also served as a vehicle for people to turn towards forward thinking ideas. Now UFO's are a subject few people can argue with. This is true of this field... And put simply, people wouldn't be seeing this creatures and picking up things like unknown primate hair, and tracks (sometimes in the same instance) if they didnt exist. The frequency of physical evidence totally matches that of the eyewitness data. Which leads me to another point; most of the researchers who are out their attaining this sign are doing so off the back of impartial and unprovoked experiences, who are trying to verify those experiences. One of the main reasons as to why there has been an increase in attention, is because the development of the Internet has linked eyewitnesses and research groups. Sasquatch is free to use for marketing also, it's no wonder people are using it more, whilst hoaxing tends to mimic things in society to convey legitimacy, always has done.
Tracks, unknown primate hair, all have been tested repeatedly by consistent scientific methods and the field has some of the very best scientists in the world endorsing it as an authentic source of study... I would say that there is a mass naivity regarding this very fundemental bit of information. Would this field have the very best geneticists in the world investigating 15 years ago? No... Because a bipedal gorilla has taken up and held back much of the progress up until then. Now we know better and it's because of things such as pop culture, Internet, etc.
Totally agree with you on most things joe. Except the numbers. I think we are dealing with an incredibly rare creature/human. It's numbers in the hundreds. A body would be like a needle in a field of hay stacks. And the evidence is probably mostly faked. Except 1% that's very hard to ignore. Tracks with dermal ridges found hundreds of miles apart that actually are very similar. That would take an extremely warped hoaxer! Plus sighting by law enforcement and military. I would regard very highly. The break through on DNA will come in the next few years . This I am sure of. Have a great day joe. I will email you soon E.
DeleteGreat comment. Feel free to use that email when ever you like buddy.
DeleteSpeak soon.
I cant believe you guys havent caught on to the fact that Joe is a blog admin. He trolls here, b/c its his job you idiots
DeleteI think Joe f does a very good
Deletejob at stating his case, and im am Not kissing his butt, just telling the truth!
^What type of dressing would you like on his word salad?
Deletehttp://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp
ReplyDeleteChuck
BEAR
Deletehttp://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/12/03/28/images/Jacobs-Creature-Analysis-20-32-41-lg.jpg
DeleteChuck,
DeleteYou can't see that bear face looking directly at the game came? I mean, you could open your eyes.
It's not here bro. You're seeing an armpit. You wanna check out the side view of a bear with mange, here;
Deletehttp://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp
Texas bigfoot will go extinct from ebola.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe some of those Illegal Aliens, and some Liberals to!
Deletewes goin backs tos tham meedevil days lack tham ragheards
Deletehi joe .. have ya "helmet rubbed" today yet ?
ReplyDeleteHey!!! STOP STARING AT MY TEETS!!
DeleteTeets?Are they hairy? Cause I love me some big hairy ass teets!
DeletePhotoshop, anyone?
ReplyDeleteNo thank you can't you see I'm on a diet? SHEESH!!
DeleteLet me tell you a story about a man named Jed
ReplyDeletePoor mountaineer barely kept his family fed then one day he was shooting at some food and up from thegground came some bubbling crude
Oil that is black gold
OIL be old way - we in the NEW AGE Solar Power and Wind Power
DeleteFOR YOUR SAFETY
Idiot, batteries are the weak link vs killowatts to longevity.
DeleteRolls Surrette 12 volts..dropped below 60% SOC 6 years
Cheaper batteries less life 5 years
AGM 3 years.
The average home will require $15,000 of batteries every 10 years. Work that out to paying the power companies.
Yeah solar works....NOT!!!!
let's not forget your $30,000 investment in charge controllers, inverters and more......
Deleteoh For your safety, f*cking idiot.
Deleterichns folks gits alls da monies shure do
DeleteUntil you hippies come up with something better than the eternal combustion engine, and you won't, Big Oil rules. Deal with it you smelly dolts.
DeleteNOooo Big Oil #1 contributor to Global Climate Disruption !!!! UN say we got to 2020
DeleteSpeaking of dolts, 2:13 . . . Ah, yes, "the eternal combustion engine," a Freudian slip betraying that one is dreaming of the perpetual motion machine.
DeleteThe eternally-combusting engine, yes, yes, for so long the hallowed dream of design-hungry automotive engineers round the globe.
Shall they ever succeed in creating an engine which eternally combusts?
In the meantime . . .
Sherry on the terrace, anyone? Hippies and dolts welcome, if you behave yourselves.
coleslaw?
DeleteNearly 10k Illegals From Terror-Linked States Apprehended in 2013.
ReplyDeleteTHE NEW NORM
Joe does not live in Wales. He is playing a character for blog hits. Do any of you long time blog readers not find it odd, that he is here 24/7 for years and years on end?? Its b/c he probably is Shawn himself, and at the least he definetly is a blog admin. Ever since the character Joe showed up, blog traffic increased. The reason is because the Joe character is plaid as a bumbling bafoon who is ripe for trolling. And so he gets trolled heavy, and never really offers anything to his defense. Instead he copies and pastes and relies on responses that are lame to say the least. But this encourages more and more comments and arguments.
ReplyDeleteNot only that but it spreads to other sites. The other bigfoot blogs have heard of the character Joe, and tune in here at Bigfoot evidence for no other reason that to see what ridiculous comments Joe posts. Then these people can talk about him at there blogs, or even decide to jump in and troll the character Joe anonymously. This is also why the character Joe never goes to any other sites. Because that will be counterproductive. He wants the traffic on this site, and nowhere else.
Smarten up people, you are all being played by some dude living in the States or possibly in Canada that is pretending to live in Wales. He plays his character well, but it really should be getting obvious to you guys by now. And i find it hard to beleive that Joes normal foes like Dan Campbell havent caught on to this. Its glaring and in your face.
who cares, he pisses off a lot of people and it is hilarious
DeleteI agree.
DeleteI agree with 12:17 is what I meant. But it is funny to watch Joe. No one can be that dumb, he has to be a shill for this blog. Not sure that says about the people that agree with him most of the time though...
DeleteIesu Mawredd!! I've upset some people along the way haven't I?
Delete(Sigh)
You really get your jollies by thinking you upset people? I'm not upset by you, I think you're hilarious to watch. Kind of like the dancing bear at the circus, but less intelligent.
DeleteDon... There's only one reason why you insist on following me around, calling me names, wondering about what I do and where I come from and how I know this and that.
DeleteFor someone so obviously stupid, I sure do take up some of your thinking time. Keep up the good crime fighting bro.
; )
Oh, well dmaker, don't be jealous, just because you headline the circus freakshow line up, rather than the dancing bear division.
DeleteI'll try not to laugh too hard at your comments agreeing with the deluded 12:17.
To wit:
*Joe keeps normal UK time zone hours; he is not commenting 24/7. He comments between 8am and midnight UK time.
*He hasn't been commenting on this blog for years.
*He uses British English.
*He writes sometimes in Welsh, the ancient British tongue.
It's painful sometimes, watching the uneducated twist so helplessly in the wind.
my my homo bob/big jon...more than one year would in fact be years its plural for more than one...idiot
DeleteJoe is a smart guy, but misses key points of arguments.I think he is too intelligent for this to be accidental, he is not interested in a debate he is trolling. Who knows what his reasons are for doing this, increasing blog traffic seems likely.
DeleteBigfoot is real.
I'm sorry, I have to ask... What key arguments have I not addressed? Also... Even though my actions can be interpreted as trolling, wouldn't I have to be attempting to attack the subject matter if I was trolling? Not interested in debate?
DeleteCheck the threads bro.
Excellent points Joe Fitzgerald, When you take the time to research the subject at hand rather than just scoff away at it I found it was not a bear. Bear expert Lynn Rogers finally even admitted he couldn't identify it as a bear because the legs were too long. In 2008 Vanessa Woods a primate expert from Duke University wrote a article where scientists actually went to the location measured a model set at the same angle as the figures using a game camera and found the arm was longer than the body. So it really can't be a bear.
DeleteMy ..how people have been FOOLED...it ought to be called you`ve all been well BLUFFED Creek.
ReplyDeleteBluff Creek,Bear im eagerly awaiting the day when the big guy steps right in front of a trail cam and walla incontrovertible proof,even tho I don't need it im a Firm believer in the existence of this elusive Animal since the age of 8,Love Sasquatch
ReplyDeleteI once went out with a Big footing club, consisting of about 30 members. there plan was to take the established, marked trail, all around a large lake, where "Big foots' have been sighted along it's shores. (In other words a hike around a lake).
ReplyDeleteEverybody was dressed in bright colored clothing, and smelled of Hair spray, Deodorant etc. They all talked constantly, and within minutes of walking, found "Big foot Tracks"! upon my inspection, it was just a horse hoof print! They (the members) didn't believe me. (There were no toes present). A little later, we all heard a screech, They said Big foot, I said Hawk.
All of the members, except me were City Slickers. they were all out of shape, and needed to rest constantly. Later in the day, a splash in the lake was heard. All the members were convinced it was a "Big foot" throwing rocks! What it was, was a "Beaver" slapping it's tail. It's their alarm call.
This lake had a lot of "stumps'. Several times, members called "there's one, everybody grabbing their cameras, and getting excited, over a distant Stump!
Big footing like this is a joke! and it's growing in popularity B/C of all these Monster shows. It's now, 'something" to do!
i'd say 90% of the Videos/researchers shown on this site, is exactly like the members of this Big foot club! At this rate, it will be another 60 years, before anything is found.
Did you guys poop in your jars?
Deletenow that's a real mature response.
DeleteOf course the subject in the Jacobs photographs is a bear......The damn thing is actually looking indirectly at the camera in the very last pic. You fooTARDS seriously couldn't see that bear face looking right effing at you for the last 7 years? FooTARDS.......hahahaha. FooTARDS............HAHAHAHA
ReplyDeleteThat's been debunked as pareidolia (look it up). The so called eyes were too wide and the so called ear was sticks also seen in the background day photo.
DeleteCould Somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of Sasquatch please explain to me why you bother with keeping up with the subject? To me it's like a NFL fan who hates soccer yet reads as much as they can about the Premier League. It's like saying "Believe me when I tell you, I could care less about about Manchester City or soccer for that matter. The people who like soccer are stupid, BUT I think Manchester City will win against Aston Villa because... ".
ReplyDeleteScientists proved the Jacobs figure was not a bear when they went on location using the same game camera, and a model set at the same distance and angle. The arm was 27 inches and the torso was 18 and 3/4. That alone was Impossible for a bear. Educate yourself by reading the article in Scienteriffic 2008.
ReplyDeleteThat animal spotted at Bluff Creek doesn't resemble the Jacobs figure other than being dark. Beside's we know it was a bear vs Jacobs figure we don't know for sure what it was.
ReplyDeleteThe Jacobs figure is what revived the Bigfoot topic back in 2007 according to MSN news, after it was the start of all those Bigfoot television shows.
ReplyDeleteThe Jacobs figure to this day has not been debunked. Many honest people have seen it in the same area the photo was taken. I'm not making this up, see for yourself here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZSu-XwkuFo
ReplyDeleteI don't think the Jacobs photo was a bear or that this photo is the same thing.
ReplyDelete