Posts Tagged ‘bears’

UC Berkeley

November 7, 2007

Note – on Nov 5, I contacted Dr. Chris Conroy
at the UC Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. He is a mammalologist. Bears and primates are mammals. At no time whatever
did I ask him about Bigfoot, since I was sure he would shy away from the subject, and we did not discuss Bigfoot. He did not endorse
Bigfoot, since, Bigfoot is not proven to exist. That said,  we discussed the photos taken by Rick Jacobs 9/16 in PA with a game-cam,
above.  He said he and some people on his staff, had been discussing these. I asked him whether, ON BALANCE, the 2nd and 3rd
images were of a bear (carnivore) or a primate (in general.)  He mentioned, and I agree, that the last image showed ischial
callosities (calluses) on the buttocks, which bears do not  have, but primates often do have. We also discussed the leg structure
of chimps, and he said that on balance, he would choose a primate (such as a chimp) for the photos, rather than a bear.
I feel he is right. We discussed the thinner legs, the longer legs and how the forelimbs were longer than the rear limbs,
as in primates.  —  on 10/6, I got a recorded message indicating distress on his part over this, and I can only surmise he
has pressure from his boss at UC Berkeley, about making statements about BIGFOOT.  He made NO statements about
Bigfoot. Only about the issue of bear vs primate.  It is too bad he cannot follow the steps of DR JANE GOODALL AND
DR. GEORGE SHALLER , who have indicated an interest in the possibility of Bigfoot. As for his boss, the director of the
Museum, shame on you sir.

Advertisements

UC Berkeley scientist chooses primate over bear for strange Penna photos

November 6, 2007

Dr Chris Conroy, head of dept of Mammals at the UC Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology says that

if he had to choose between a bear and a primate, for the Rick Jacobs photo, that he would opt for primate, because it has

calluses on the buttocks. Bears do not have that.


He also noted the long legs, and that the forelimbs are longer than the hind limbs. It all adds up to not a bear.

What kind of primate he does not know, but it is similar to a chimp.


Released by the International Cryptozoological Society, Berkeley,CA

925-385-0422 Jon-Erik Beckjord, director

Photos see http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/

JACOBS PENNA BIGFOOT PHOTOS VALID AFTER ALL. NOT BEAR.

November 3, 2007

I have been doing some work with these photos and no matter how you change contrast or brightness, negative or positive imaging, or use a solarizing filter, the creature in questions fur / coat never resembles the two black bear cubs in the same photo series in any way. I am attatching a .zip file of 3 pics I have been working with for your observation…they have not been manipulated in any way, I simply enlarged, and then used a solarizing filter…very interesting to say the least.Thanks as always…
KG

Thanks to this reader, we now find the real salt lick, which is a cube, and note that the

sphere in photo no. 3 by Jacobs camera-trap has the same texture as the entire creature, and does NOT match the rocks nor trees,etc. Looking at bear anatomy, the legs are way,way too long and limber, and the forelimbs are much longer tha the backlimbs. The lack of a heel matches some of the frames of the Patterson-Gimlim Film, and thus is no big deal.

See image of creature (upside-down) Head of OOBE BIgfoot

Jacobs has something — perhaps a tulpa, a dream manifestation that thinks it needs to hang around where bears used to be. There is a humanoid face on the large sphere-cranium in photo no. 3, which is best viewed upsidedown.

See also photo at http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/

Bravo Rick Jacobs, Johnsonburg,PA

Jon-Erik Beckjord 925-385-0422

Note the image is upside-down on purpose, and it is not a horse’s head, which from a distance  it may appear. It is a primate, with a circle around its head, flipped upside-dpwn for viewing.