Re: Jacobson photos again: is it a primate (not "Bigfoot" or whatever, just primate)?


"mike3" <mike4ty4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ec68e779-6ff1-4fcc-86e3-17c6e97b0cd8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 22, 9:21 am, "TeaWrecks" <teawre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"mike3" <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:fb52f25c-7438-4782-9d31-5d7dc6c93be8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi.

Maybe the Jacboson photograph is not a BIGFOOT(Tm), but do you think
that it could be something other than a bear? Let's not ask "Is it
BIGFOOT?", let's ask, "Is it a primate?" Why would you think the
object in the photograph cannot be a primate (note again, primate. I
did not say "Bigfoot".)?

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

Dude, to coin a Yogi Berra-ism "You're grasping at strawmen while trying
to
move the goalpost."

The reason the "goalpost was moved" is because my views have changed.
I have changed them myself after more thought about this. Saying,
"AHHH!!! It's either a bear or it's BIGFOOT!!!!" is not rational.
I do not need to believe it is Bigfoot, I just want to know what the
heck is in that picture since it looks so strange!

They are bears with advanced mange. That has been established by many
experts. Do not expect me to be too sympathetic if you cannot manage to
google "mangy bear bigfoot". Because if you did you would have found the
news articles that quote park rangers of the Pennsylvania Game Commission as
saying they see bears with advanced mange fairly frequently and that is what
these very VERY much look like:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21518056/?GT1=10450

On MSNBC fer chrissake... not like it was hidden anywhere.

This WHOLE thing has been one long stubborn argument from incredulity on
your part. Dude, its been like this with you:

YOU: "Dude! Look at those UFO's up there in the sky!"
US: "Ummm... those are clouds..."
YOU: "Those cant be clouds, because that just seems impossible to me! What
else could they be if not UFO's??"
US: "They are not UFO's they're clouds.."
YOU: "Well OK, they're not UFO's - but what could they be?? [wink wink] It's
FANTASTIC!"
US: (tiredly) Yes they are very pretty, but - THEY ARE CLOUDS...
(shows you a book on meteorology with pages and pages of photos of clouds)
YOU: ...primates?
US: (signing off of usenet in disgust)

If we say "OK its a primate" (as if there's any reason too), then you'll
say
"Ah-haaaaaa.... so why isnt BIGFOOT a primate???" Except bigfoot isnt a
primate, because it doesnt exist.


No, I will say, "OK, it's a primate.". Now what kind of primate? I
could not make that judgment rationally, so I wouldn't. Nor would I
automatically believe "Woo! It's Bigfoot! Yeah! PROOF!!!!" or
something like that.
Now if your fear of me doing something
I would not do is biasing your conclusions, then I cannot trust
them as rational. I want a neutral rational honest objective
analysis.

[see the pargagraph marked with a *** below for my position on this]


Anyway:

The reason that *I* dont thint they look like primates?

1) They look like bears. Bears with advanced mange, but still bears.
When I hear hoofbeats I think horse not zebra, and certainly not
unicorns or centaurs...

(From here on, I'm going to number the photos from left to right, with
#1 being the indisputable bear cub.)

One thing that I'm haivng trouble with with the mangy-bear
hypothesis is the feet.

Notice in #3, where what appear to
be the back two feet (the rightmost pair of feet) do not seem
angled up (the heel is flat on the ground -- one cannot see the
heel buge of bear feet that stand on the ball), and instead seem
relatively flat on the ground. Compare the leg anatomy and
posturing with the photo of a skinny mangy bear as seen on
the main page. Note the way the back legs are, and compare
it to the way there are in photo #3. Show me a photo of a bear
bend down and having both back feet with their heels on the ground.

Also, note that in #2, although one foot seems angled up,
which would make sense if it was walking, the other seems
more flat on the ground.

Again ONE HUGE argument from incredulity. Because you cant concieve of a
certain answer then it must not be so? Are you in any way versed in the area
of Ursine mange? How about Ursine morphology, gait and locomotion? That you
cannot recognize a bear without it's hair tells me that you probably are
not. If you are not, you are just spouting armchair blather. You are also
talking as if the photos are crystal clear and unblurred. This is not the
case and you know it.



Now compare it with the way the picture of a primate on the
same main page looks. Look at how the feet are flat on
the ground.

2) They are behaving like bears. *** scratching against a tree
trunk is
very bear-like

*** scratching the tree? I don't see that in the photo.

Well that's what it appears to be doing. In #2 it appears to be scratching
its shoulder on the same tree. I could be wrong (also no bear expert here),
but one would assume that itchiness and scratching go along with mange.


In both
photos the *** is turned away from the perpendicular (line
perp to the direct line-of-sight of the camera) in the direction
of the camera, not the tree. Notice how in #3 you can see the
buttocks easily.

3) Steven Colbert is nowhere to be seen - he HATES bears.
(WHAT? That's no worse than YOUR standard of evidence)


What do you think my standard of evidence is? It's certainly not,
"woo it's not a bear, so it must be BIGFOOT! BIGFOOT!! BIGFOOT!!!!!!!"
If you think that you are attacking a big, big strawman and I'd
like to discuss this from a much more neutral and objective
point of view.

4) They don't look like primates, or 'larval' bigfeets, sasquai,
whatever...


See above.

5) Bear-sized primates are not native to North America. What sort of
primate would you expect that these bears look like? Primates
run
the gamut of size from squirrel-size to mountain gorrilla-size.
So
which one?
Baboon? Chimp? Orang? Mountain Gorrilla? Tarzier?

Or some new as-yet-undiscovered species of primate (IE -
BIGFOOT?)
Hmmmmm....


What is it? I dunno. That's just it. Doesn't mean -- woo! BIGFOOT!
Once again you continue with the strawman that if it's a primate,
it's BIGFOOT.

[*** ]
Yet you keep leaving that as a suspiciously open question... "Well if
they're not bears and ARE some sort of primate, then...?" makes us assume
you have a thinly hidden agenda: It's well known that many bigfoot
researchers believe bigfoot to be some sort of primate, so it is a small
leap indeed (and not really a strawman) to conclude that "Unknown North
American Primate" = Bigfoot in the minds of the credulous. So PLEASE stop
with the primate crap. As has been said before, when I hear hoofbeats, I
think horses, not zebras. So you'll have to pardon me if I say "bigfoot
kook" when I hear your particular hoofbeats, sir.


6) There are no concurrent reports of any great ape missing from any
nearby zoo at the time these photos were taken. However, if you
can produce such a report, I will accede a 1 in 1,000,000 chance
that these MAY be escaped primates in exceptionally bizzarely
blurred photos

(accidentally blurred in such a way as to make them look like
mangy
bears)

Well, I will concede that my great-ape-from-the-zoo hypothesis
has been nuked then.

Indeed it has.




.

Quantcast