 |
| Skeptic Magazine's podcast Monster Talk dissects the Jacob Bigfoot Photo |
Skeptic Magazine's podcast
Monster TALK has analyzed a "modern classic" in Bigfoot lore; the Jacobs Photo.
Moster talk describes itself as:
MonsterTalk is the science show about monsters—a free audio podcast that critically examines the science behind cryptozoological (and legendary) creatures, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or werewolves. Hosted by Blake Smith, Ben Radford, and Dr. Karen Stollznow, MonsterTalk interviews the scientists and investigators who shine a spotlight on the things that go bump in the night. For once (and unlike mystery-mongering television shows) a monster-themed program gives skepticism more than just a couple minutes of lip service!
To be fair you can read BFRO's analysis of the Jacobs photo
here. On
Monster TALK, in a podcast
titled
What the Bigfoot Market Will Bear, Blake Smith suggests the weird summersault pose that takes place after this above frame is due to a nursing bear cub (see below)
 |
| Nursing Bear Cub? Or Gymnastic Bigfoot? (click to enlarge) |
You can read the episode notes below. We recommend listing to the MP3 podcast too. They also discuss the
allometrics (limb proportions) argument, the copyright threats Blake Smith had to hurdle to do his analysis, and the plain honesty that this is a a very weird looking creature.
DOWNLOAD/LISTEN MP3 PODCAST (this will open a new tab so you can come back to these notes)
Blake Smith’s Analysis of the Photos
At
20:02:16 photo of mother bear and one cub taken. The BFRO website labels this photo as “More of the Bear Cubs” but size analysis shows that the bear closest to the tree is the same size as the so-called “Jacobs Creature.” Of some interest, if you compare the size of the bear in the foreground to the cubs taken at 20:04:23 (below) you will see that the animal in the foreground also has to be an adult bear, not a cub! I didn’t notice this until preparing the notes for this episode.
 |
| Trail Cam photo (right) taken by Rick Jacobs. Additional Analysis material (left) by Blake Smith. Copyright 2007 Rick Jacobs. Click image to enlarge. |
At 20:02:55 the adult bear and two cubs are photographed. According to the BFRO this next photo shows “The ‘Mama Bear’ image, showing “the bear cubs huddling around the mineral lick with a larger bear—likely the mother of the cubs.” They point out that in this color photo, the adult bear does not look mangy. That may be a result of the differences in the night-vision shots vs. the color/flash shots. The adult bear appears to be facing down the hill, away from the salt-lick and cubs. I’ve inset a photo of a similarly posed healthy bear to give an estimate of the pose.
 |
| Trail Cam photo (right) taken by Rick Jacobs. Additional Analysis material (left) by Blake Smith. Copyright 2007 Rick Jacobs. Click image to enlarge. |
At 20:04:23 this is the next photo we’ve been provided in the series. Why didn’t the adult bear and cubs trigger any more photos in the intervening minute and a half? Observe that the salt-lick is still upright in this photo. The photo shows two cubs at play. Note how much smaller the cub closer to the tree is compared to the adult bear in 20:02:16. The so-called Jacobs Creature is the same size as the creature the BFRO is calling the Mama Bear. (Update: Note the cub in the foreground—it is tiny compared to what the BFRO have been calling “more of the cubs” but which now appears to show two adult-sized bears in the 20:02:16 photo.)
 |
| Trail Cam photo (right) taken by Rick Jacobs. Additional Analysis material (left) by Blake Smith. Copyright 2007 Rick Jacobs. Click image to enlarge. |
At
20:32:05 nearly a half an hour has gone by and the salt-lick has been tipped over. Are there no photos existing between these two time-stamps from a camera that takes photos every 30 seconds when motion is sensed? 20:32:05 is the first photo of the two “Jacobs Creature” photos. Several bear biologists agree that while this is a strange looking creature, it is likely an adult bear with mange. This makes the bear look thin due to loss of its thick coat, plus potentially emaciated due to side-effects of the mite infestation. It is likely the same adult bear from 20:02:16—but the other photos which show her do not allow the level of detail needed to observe emaciation; too much of her is hidden in the dark.
 |
| Trail Cam photo (right) taken by Rick Jacobs. Additional Analysis material (left) by Blake Smith. Copyright 2007 Rick Jacobs. Click image to enlarge. |
At
20:32:41 we have the second photo of the “Jacobs Creature.” In the image below I’ve outlined what I think the photo really shows: an adult bear with a cub attempting to nurse underneath it. Note that if this pose is correct, it corresponds to the adult bear in size and orientation from the 20:02:16 photo almost exactly.
|
| Trail Cam photo (right) taken by Rick Jacobs. Additional Analysis material (left) by Blake Smith. Copyright 2007 Rick Jacobs. Click image to enlarge. |
These episode notes are also available at
What The Bigfoot Market Bear
Jacobs photo is NOT a bear.it is so plain to see.I can 100% guarantee that it is a juvenile foot.it is grabbing something off the ground.my dad and me lived in tennesee all our life and have watched hundreds of bear.sorry that isnt a bear.awesome pic of a biggie.
ReplyDeleteThe picture is just another BlobSquatch unless you can see a face. It is a skinny young cub based on the trunk of the tree behind it.
ReplyDeleteA plausible alternative explanation to the BFRO (and other) theories that claim it is a Bigfoot (or Genosgwa if you prefer to use the term the native Americans(Seneca tribe) called the creature). Very convincing, but the placement of the front left paw (animal's perspective) in the fifth comparison image would appear to be turned in at an awkward angle. Additionally, no tail is visible in the fourth comparison image. I think the jury is still out on this one.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL4KFApaWXs
ReplyDeleteI think it was a Squatch.
It was not a bear because:
ReplyDelete1 Hardcore skeptics have said what looks like eyes on a forward facing bear are too wide for a bear.
2 The very same face is on the side of the investigator on his bent over photo (above Anonymous link) standing in the same spot. It must have been moon light shining through the trees that made that effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C74oHF-RCJk
ReplyDeleteEducate yourself before you listen to skeptic propaganda. Blake’s photos compared to the real photos have been proven wrong in the video above. He has tried too hard to make it look like a bear for years now and failed. That’s why he doesn’t allow comments on his skeptic analysis. Think about it when you have to alter the original photos, draw faces, or decipher paradolia to try to make it a bear it doesn’t make it one.
Not only that scientists worked out the size on location with models and found it had 22 inch arm and a 18 inch torso The angles were figured out with the same type game camera. This was published in a magazine for classroom use that was trying to debumk BIgfoot! Those sizes are impossible for a bear.
ReplyDeleteSkeptics say Patterson is fake too but I don't see where they proved Jacobs or Patterson was not a Sasquatch.
ReplyDeleteThe picture that is "a mother bear nursing" is in the oddest most uncomfortable position to stand in for a long period (which nursing requires) and it's paw is obviously facing the wrong way! That is no bear, it is obviously something bi-pedal bending over.
ReplyDelete"Skeptic magazine" That speaks for itself I don't imagine they would think anything is real until they are torn apart by one.
ReplyDeleteI do have trouble making the last two Jacobs photos conform to a bear. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The problem is that it's a horrible quality photo. And if there's one truism skeptics can count on bigfoot believers to make is that they tend to interpret every bad quality, ambiguous, fuzzy, out of focus, blurry, hard to make out photo as "I guaranty it's a bigfoot!" Bigfoot has become the new "god of the gaps". In other words, it's always a bigfoot until we find out what it really is.
ReplyDelete