|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What is this? |
| A Bigfoot |
|
53% |
[ 8 ] |
| A Bear |
|
33% |
[ 5 ] |
| A human in costume |
|
6% |
[ 1 ] |
| Other (please explain) |
|
6% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
| Author |
Message |
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: Bigfoot or Bear? |
 |
|
Forgive me if I am reposting something that appeared a while back on the yahoo homepage. I would like to see what people think.
http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp
Of course, if you want to explain your vote, please do.
I think this is one of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of these creatures that the world has seen in a long time. Of course, the authorities said it was a mangy bear. Very strange body shape in the middle photo, eh?
The theory that these animals are descendants of an ancient giant ape (documented) which crossed the Arctic Straits land bridge as did the humans seems plausible to me. That they have adapted and existed without much contact or interference also seems quite self-explanatory.
What really interests me is the lengths some people will go to in order to 'explain them away'. As if somehow there aren't enough woods, isn't enough cover of darkness, etc. As if somehow we couldn't fail to kill one, recover a body, or some other physical 'proof'.
Yet, if you read the reports, historical and modern, you will soon find that all these things have indeed occurred. Then comes the biggest argument of all.
'Of course, they have NOT occurred because that would be world shaking news!' Yes, earth and religion and morality shaking news.
The proper question is 'who is willing to believe that news? What kind of news would it take for you to believe that we are not the top monkeys on the planet?'
Finally, what seems quite apparent (especially after looking at the middle photo of the link) is that this phenomenon is quite different from say ghosts, UFOs, etc., by the fact that everyone knows what an ape looks like and can identify one when they see it. Especially a very large one.
Last edited by anyway on Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think bigfoot is blurry. That's why it's so hard to get a good picture of him.
Seriously, the photos aren't really good enough to see anything. Doesn't really look like a bear to me, but it could really be anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Man, this thread sank like a rock. Awwww, c'mon, doesn't anyone want to argue about it. I know, not much to say really... Just wanted a bump. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like bears in the first picture and third picture, and looks reasonably like bears in the second one. If this is the best proof, we might as well all forget about Bigfoot today. I have no reason to believe this bear transformed into a primate and then transformed back into a bear again.
Animals can make strange shapes. When my cats wake up from a nap they arch their backs and yawn, but then they go back to looking like cats. I don't snap pictures and claim they're chupacabra. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Missihippi
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Location: Gwangmyeong
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
Animals can make strange shapes. When my cats wake up from a nap they arch their backs and yawn, but then they go back to looking like cats. I don't snap pictures and claim they're chupacabra. |
It's been said before that Nicole Ritchie looks like a chupacabra.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
Looks like bears in the first picture and third picture, and looks reasonably like bears in the second one. If this is the best proof, we might as well all forget about Bigfoot today. I have no reason to believe this bear transformed into a primate and then transformed back into a bear again.
Animals can make strange shapes. When my cats wake up from a nap they arch their backs and yawn, but then they go back to looking like cats. I don't snap pictures and claim they're chupacabra. |
Thanks for stepping up to the plate.
Justjohn's response that 'it could be anything' wasn't really, uh, very debatable, but it was a very good example of the lengths people will go to in order to explain something away.
I'm glad to know that you don't try to pawn your cats off as chupacabras.
Well, first of all, the time difference between the first and middle picture is around 28 minutes. (Click on a photo. Time stamp in the lower right corner.) The time difference between the middle and third picture is 30 seconds. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that we see the same animal in the middle and right pictures, which COULD BE the same as the animal in the left picture. The presenters of these photos put the picture of the bear in order to provide a point of comparison.
Secondly, if you think it's the same animal in all 3, then I guess you don't see any difference in the size of the animal between the pictures? Using some constant such as the base of the tree to measure, it seems very clear that the animal in the middle picture is much bigger than the one in the left picture, but it is difficult to judge in the right picture due to the strange pose.
The middle photo seems clear enough that we should be able to locate the ears and long snout if it were the bear from the left photo. Ears can be pinned; snouts cannot. Again, the head in the middle picture appears to be much smaller than the head of the bear in the left picture (if you say they are the same animal).
Also, do you think the animal in the right picture is looking toward the camera? Some folks (who think it is a bear) say so, but the lack of eyeshine seems problematic to me, given how much eyeshine there is in the left picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the bear in the middle photograph is arching its back and stretching, quite possibly to look bigger, or maybe just to stretch. Just like my cats do. In the third picture, it looks like the bear is backing away from the other bear, and you can see what very well could be a snout.
There are three possibilities:
1) These are the same bears photographed in the same area.
2) These are different bears in each photo.
3) The creature in one photo is a primate so far unknown to science.
Especially considering that the first two possibilities are quite likely, why do we need to explain away a picture with some grand theory about fantastic new creatures?
Photos are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional images, and they don't always accurately depict the objects in them. People have a natural tendency to use their imagination to fill in the bits that can't be explained perfectly. Look at all the ghost hunters out there posting pictures with "orbs" that are really just particles of dust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
I think the bear in the middle photograph is arching its back and stretching, quite possibly to look bigger, or maybe just to stretch. Just like my cats do. In the third picture, it looks like the bear is backing away from the other bear, and you can see what very well could be a snout.
There are three possibilities:
1) These are the same bears photographed in the same area.
2) These are different bears in each photo.
3) The creature in one photo is a primate so far unknown to science.
Especially considering that the first two possibilities are quite likely, why do we need to explain away a picture with some grand theory about fantastic new creatures?
Photos are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional images, and they don't always accurately depict the objects in them. People have a natural tendency to use their imagination to fill in the bits that can't be explained perfectly. Look at all the ghost hunters out there posting pictures with "orbs" that are really just particles of dust. |
Well, I don't know about these ghost hunters and their orbs OR who proved that they are just particles of dust, I see that you are trying to bring the legitimacy of other debates to bear on this one. I would really just like to focus on the pictures we see in the link.
The likelihood argument is, in fact, why people are always assuming that 'what was seen' was a bear. A bear is the only creature that CAN POSSIBLY meet the common description of people who witness some strange animal in North America (very large, fast, and can 'walk/run' upright/on two feet). It is not only the easiest but the ONLY explanation IF one assumes that bigfoot/sasquatches do not exist. The theory, as I mentioned in the OP, claims that the animal known as sasquatch is known to science as an ancient ape (giganto something, I forget the name).
I would ask why is the mange introduced here? The bear in the left photo doesn't seem to have any discoloration or inconsistencies with its coat which might indicate mange. I believe mange is introduced to explain the unusual appearance of the animal, which is probably the same animal, in the middle and right photos.
I assume that your #3 above refers to the middle picture, the most unique photo?? I also assume that the middle photo causes some doubt because of the humped back among other things. Yes, other animals do stretch their backs. Does that mean that the animal in the middle photo 'could be anything that stretches its back' as justjohn suggested? No, of course not. I guess you're saying 'the bear looks strange because it is stretching its back as many animals are known to do.' Just as 'the bear has mange' explains why the bear might not be clearly identifiable.
Of course, most focus on picture two because it has a striking resemblance to a chimp, especially in the legs. It is also hard to imagine that almost all features of the bear's head are somehow hidden. It seems we cannot say the same for the right picture. In other words, the position of the anatomy is far less clear in the right picture than in the middle picture.
Of course, if you assume that all three pictures are the same bear then
it doesn't matter that we cannot see all features in all pictures. The only reason we might do that is because the animal in the left picture is clearly identifiable as a bear.
So, it seems you are saying - you have located a snout in the right picture, which suggests that it is a bear (possibly same as the left picture), then you can safely assume that a snout is present, although not visible, in the middle picture because we assume middle/right are the same animal (due to the 30 second time difference).
Do you agree with the placement of the head that Mindmetoo has suggested with his photos? Is that where you see a snout?
If so, then I personally have two problems with that posture...
Don't the front two legs of the animal seem to be quite different lengths?
And the foot of the front left leg (our right) seems to be pointing the wrong way. In other words, the foot seems to be twisted 90 degrees (inward, toward the body) instead of pointing directly forward (toward the camera) as the bear would be facing??
Last edited by anyway on Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting. I hadn't seen someone 'see' a bear head in that spot yet. The other bear head theory was based on the two small spots of light which are visible in that photo. The right photo is so confusing that it allows people to find many things.
Ok, again, the picture which 'proves' this is a bear is the right photo. Why can't we see this bear's ears and snout in the middle picture? Is it a simple photo quality issue? Is the snout mostly hidden behind the arm? Are the ears pinned back? A bear might arch its back and pin its ears at the same time if it were threatened. By what?
In my mind, the middle/right photos have equal quality. The main difference between middle and right photos is the posture. Posture in middle photo allows clear reference to anatomy; the right photo does not.
Why can we clearly make out the face, eyes, ears, snout of the bear in the left photo but not in the right, especially if the bear in the right photo is facing more towards the camera than the bear in the left? Is that due to the mange?
More importantly, how about the lack of eyeshine in the right photo compared with the left photo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anyway wrote: |
Do you agree with the placement of the head that Mindmetoo has suggested with his photos? Is that where you see a snout?
|
Yes, absolutely, perfectly.
| anyway wrote: |
If so, then I personally have two problems with that posture...
Don't the front two legs of the animal seem to be quite different lengths?
And the foot of the front left leg (our right) seems to be pointing the wrong way. In other words, the foot seems to be twisted 90 degrees (inward, toward the body) instead of pointing directly forward (toward the camera) as the bear would be facing?? |
The problem here is that you're not an anatomist or a photographer, so you clearly don't understand what's happening in the photos. You're engaging in pareidolia. An image really isn't proof of anything. These pictures might as well be on slices of french toast.
This is an example of what I was talking about with "orbs." People go to a dusty area and take a picture like this using their flash, and then when specks of dust show up they just naturally assume they've photographed ghosts. Ghosts, or dust? Well, we know there's dust there, so the ghosts seem unlikely.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| anyway wrote: |
Ok, again, the picture which 'proves' this is a bear is the right photo. Why can't we see this bear's ears and snout in the middle picture? Is it a simple photo quality issue? |
It's a kinda grainy night photo, no?
I mean it could be a bigfoot or some creature not known yet, but c'mon. It's just as easily explained by an emaciated parasite ridden bear. A park ranger entirely familiar with bears didn't seem to think there was anything much to this, no? Are you aware of any people who study bears coming forward going "no way!"
No one bothered to check the area for hair samples?
Occam's razor rather dictates assume this is a bear until we get evidence it's something unknown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, well, so you're saying that I don't understand because of something you assume about me. Would it be fair to say that there are people out there who might be photographers or whatever who don't suffer from this high-fallutin problem you mentioned?
Again, I would just like to talk about the photos. If you could address the points that I have brought up, that would be nice.
I'm not saying that these photos 'prove' anything. I'm trying to follow the logic that you and others present that these photos are of bears and only bears. I'm of the opinion there are problems with the explanation of these photos being bears. If one can negate the arguments 'for' bears, it would leave the door open, wouldn't it, for another explanation. This is the first step in the debate. To get past the 'must be a bear' arguments.
This is certainly part of the problem. People who go against the 'must be a bear' conclusion are accused of anything and everything. The belief is 'bigfoot does not exist' and so there must be something wrong with the person who says it does.
You're playing your part very well. Thanks. So far, you've argued 'it must be a bear because we know there were bears in the area 30 minutes earlier' (= bears live in north america) to 'people misunderstand photos' (something wrong with me). Wanna continue? Address the questions I've posted if you please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| anyway wrote: |
Ok, again, the picture which 'proves' this is a bear is the right photo. Why can't we see this bear's ears and snout in the middle picture? Is it a simple photo quality issue? |
It's a kinda grainy night photo, no?
I mean it could be a bigfoot or some creature not known yet, but c'mon. It's just as easily explained by an emaciated parasite ridden bear. A park ranger entirely familiar with bears didn't seem to think there was anything much to this, no? Are you aware of any people who study bears coming forward going "no way!"
No one bothered to check the area for hair samples?
Occam's razor rather dictates assume this is a bear until we get evidence it's something unknown. |
Yes, the photos are grainy. I would say they are all equally grainy. Why do we see eyeshine in the left photo but not the right?
So you're willing to base your opinion on the opinion of one park ranger?
Would you believe the opinion of one bear expert who came forward who said 'no way'? Surely, you're aware of the extreme ridicule that people are subjected to by even expressing the belief that it might not be a bear because, in most cases, a bear is the ONLY possible alternative.
Yes, I know you love the razor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
harkens back to a rhyme from childhood:
"Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair."
that is all we ever said. probably more to it but that was all that ever percolated down to us. we sang this whenever some poor boy got a buzz cut from the old man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
