International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 20th, 2007

The BFRO is displaying photographs on their website purported to be of a juvenile Sasquatch.

The photographs are reported to have been taken on 9/16/07 by a Bushnell game camera in Northwest Pennsylvania by someone by the name of R. Jacobs.

Are the photographs legitimate?

According to the text from the website page with the photos, anthropologists at Idaho State University in Pocatello are analyzing the photographs.

Idaho State University is also the university that Jeff Meldrum teaches at. Coincidence?

Because of the issues in the past between Cryptomundo and the BFRO, the images will not be shown here. I won’t even provide a link. I’m sure that most of the readers here at Cryptomundo can find the images on their website.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

128 Responses to “Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?”

  1. forsakenfuture responds:

    Boy, I really don’t know what to think of these pics. It looks like a real creature I just cant tell whats going on in the last pic.

    However, it is getting close to Halloween.

  2. elsanto responds:

    A bear with mange?

    Couldn’t resist.

    Interesting photos to be sure, and reasonably clear; but I don’t see how that can be a sasquatch, unless it’s club-footed, and lacks fingers…

    Just my two cents.

  3. joe levit responds:

    I think that second picture looks more intriguing. If the thing in the picture has its hind legs to the right, then the arm touching the ground to the left is awfully long for a human. I do appreciate the fact that either way this is not the typical blobsquatch. There is no doubt something tangible there. It has seemed to me that this type of wildlife camera option is a good one for trying to obtain photos of sasquatch. Even pics of normal wildlife is interesting with this technique.

  4. joe levit responds:


    I don’t see hands or feet as a problem in these pictures. The second picture very clearly shows feet with toes, and the hands can easily be splayed on the ground, making their profile difficult to determine.

  5. deejay responds:

    Wow, I’ve never seen anything like that before. Too bad it wasn’t a motion video camera (do those exist?). Very exciting if its not a hoax.

  6. easternbigfoot2 responds:

    I honestly feel it is a legit photo. However, the heel is weird looking. Remember, bears have snouts and big ears, however that is some awkward pose it’s in. I’m gonna sit on the fence with this.

  7. Remobec responds:

    What’s up with the juvenile sasquatches being quadrupeds? I’d never heard that one before.

  8. robtastic responds:

    It looks like a chimp. I think sombody may have brought a chimp there and try to pass it off as a sasquatch.

  9. Cryptid Hunt responds:

    right when I saw those photos I just got a bloodrush to my head and all the way down to my body. This is the most compelling bigfoot photo I have ever seen. You can cleary see the ape-like characteristics the long arms, legs, the body with the fur. In my opinion its just as good and compelling as the Patterson film.

  10. bill green responds:

    hey craig everyone loren , wow this is a very interesting new article about new photos of a juvenile sasquatch, i hope these new photos are researched studyed & enhanced etc more. please keep me updated ok. thank you bill green :)

  11. Logan5 responds:

    Wow! The photos are sure interesting… the subject is very simian, very Chimpanzee like. It almost looks like a chimp playing around in front of the camera. That leads to the question: what would a chimp be doing in NW Pa.?

    I don’t have any answers… just observations

  12. Ceroill responds:

    Interesting. The second photo is intriguing, with not enough detail to be certain what it is. I think it’s fairly clearly not a bear. It has at least superficial resemblance to a primate of some kind. Beyond that, I can’t say. As to # 3, I agree it’s a very odd position and the heel does look strange to me. Again, don’t think it’s a bear, but can’t say just what it is. It is interesting.

  13. SharkFisher responds:

    I honestly do not know what I’m looking at in the third image. What some of you refer to as a heel may just be an arm pivoted backwards and bent at the rest. In this scenario the head would be located between the shoulders and looking down and backwards at what appears to be the feed bowl underneath it. What ever this creature is liked that concoction.

    But I also feel a need for caution around Halloween. This could just be a cirque style performer. I think the biggest question is whose camera was taking these pictures. Is it an research organization or just an individual?

  14. Richard888 responds:

    I am amazed.

    These pictures might give the impetus needed to mobilize the scientific community.

    I didn’t know juvenile bigfoots are known to move on all fours.

    joe levit, I don’t see fingers and toes.

  15. Kainan responds:

    Well, the first photo got my adrenaline going a bit. It’s clearly not a suit, and patches of skin can be seen through the hair. The limbs look long and thin and I could imagine it as a young sasquatch bent over away from the camera.

    The second photo, however, reveals the real identity of the creature.

    The proportions of the upper and lower hind legs to each other and the rest of the body, the way the skin extends from the rear thigh to the calf, and the complete lack of a heel on the hind foot, have me convinced that this is a bear. Albeit a very thin and sickly bear that I predict has seen its last spring.

    Damn! I was excited there for a minute.!

  16. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    My first thought is MY GOD.

    These are by far the most outstanding and important pictures I have seen. Am I 100% that these are a squatch? No, but I am 100% these are not a guy in a costume.

    The leg shape is obviously a bipedal and human like in the areas of muscle and form. The arms are long. Too long for a bear. You also see skin through hair that is very different than costumes.

    This is most probably an animal.

    Although a bear is skeletally close to a human, the proportions are wrong. The long arms would tend to delete a bear as would the torso and legs. If the bear cubs were in the pic in a prior couple minutes then I would also consider bear.

    This said the rear foot bends in an odd place. Could this be a mid tarsal break?

    If I know Matt, he has something in reserve especially after the Penn and Teller incident and knowing his huge feelings against releasing evidence.

    I’m very optimistic. These are not a costume nor the blurry or distant blobsquatch fare of the past.

  17. Alton Higgins responds:

    Rick Noll and others, including at least one professional primate expert, have presented compelling arguments at regarding the probability that the photos show a black bear and not a primate.

    Their comments and image enhancements are worth checking out, IMO.

  18. aletaaa responds:

    After staring at the pictures for a long time it seems to be a malnourished mother bear. The pelvis tilt in the third picture doesn’t seem to be of an upright animal.
    The skin being loose on the back of the leg (in the second pic) implies the leg is mostly used in a knee bent position. The second pic seems to show ears. The hump on the back in the second pic is also suspect.

  19. sschaper responds:

    Wow. I can see why especially the 2nd image (the one right after the two bear cubs) strikes people as looking simian. The hind legs are too long for a chimp, though, it seems to me. bigfootforms had an image posted of a gorilla on all fours, and the feet are similar, but the rear legs are much smaller on the gorilla.

    Odds are it is one wormy black bear.

    The shoulder blades seem to bear that up fairly strongly.

    But without better enhancement in the head area, or the other 5 pictures, that could be wrong. I’d be very surprised if that were somebody in a suit.

  20. showme responds:

    I agree with aletaaa.

    Malnurished, sick bear.

    Looking for tracks, saliva, hair samples, etc. at the scene
    would help.

  21. H_Wrabbit responds:

    Those sure are a couple of strange shots. The fact that the suspected images were taken so nearly after the black bears is enough to give it away to me that it is another black bear. Not impossible, just less likely.

  22. shovethenos responds:

    The hind legs look too long and gracile for a black bear. If that were a black bear in that position I think it would be more apparent.

    That said I don’t know what it is. I don’t think a hoax can be ruled out. And the limbs are so long in proportion to the torso I don’t see the figure being able to move very efficiently as a quadraped.

  23. Ken responds:

    I just posted to the BFRO forum (after over 24 hours trying to get a name and password) that the final picture might show a hiding posture intended to make the juvie-squatch resemble a tree stump. I figured it might have heard the camera or seen the infera-red flash.

    Any ideas?

  24. Daryl Colyer responds:

    Ursus americanus.

    I think somebody’s being way too quick on the trigger to publicly state that the photos are “likely of a juvenile sasquatch.”

    I’ve seen dozens of black bear photos from camera traps; they do some really weird things in front of the camera, and look quite bizarre in a number of poses.

  25. Richard888 responds:

    If that professional primate expert really believes these images show a wormy bear and not a primate then perhaps he’s not an expert afterall. Although experts are fine, commons sense doesn’t hurt either.

  26. joe levit responds:


    I said the fingers may be obscured by being flat on the ground. The third pic still looks like something bent over facing to the left, to me, so it looks like a foot with toes. I don’t know what to think. Wish there were more pictures. I did go looking for some black bear images since I didn’t think the legs could look like that. Here is a link to one image (bottom of the three on this page) that seems to show long limbs that could look similar. But, I can just as easily see what Ken says about trying to shift a profile to appear stationary so people won’t know what they are seeing.

    Where on the bigfootforums site can you find the compelling arguments for the black bear?

  27. olejason responds:

    Black Bear.

  28. mooselove responds:

    A bear with mange would not have that small of bone structure I don’t think? I may be wrong.

    Also, the time between the bear cubs and juvenile sas isn’t too long. In my experiences with trail cameras, it’s usually quite a long time between animal visits, especially ones of another species.

    Also it walking on all fours must indicate it’s of homo sapien origin. I mean, even baby chimps walk on all fours at first then move up to walking on its hind legs.

  29. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    joe levit said;
    “where on the bigfootforums site can you find the compelling arguments for the black bear? ”

    richard888 said;
    “If that professional primate expert really believes these images show a wormy bear and not a primate then perhaps he’s not an expert ”

    The other possibility is he is an expert and you and I have overinflated views of our mental abilities and anatomical readings.

  30. john5 responds:

    My original reaction to seeing the first picture, apart from the smaller cubs, was a bit of an energy burst. It looked like this first picture was the juvenile reaching down to pick up something from the ground or to grab at something.

    The second picture looked as if it was smelling at something on the ground close to its feet. The extreme flexibility seemed to fit the nature of a juvenile Sasquatch and I somewhat had to chuckle.

    Coming back here and reading the posts about a emaciated and mangy bear I had to go back and look further. The pictures look somewhat like that too although the shins or lower hind legs look rather long for a bear. However unless my eyes or screen are deceiving me there appears to be more of a ‘bum crack cleavage’ (my apology for lack of a more common anatomical term!) than what is seen on a bear! Is this what happens to a bears’ morphology when its starved?


  31. MadM2000 responds:

    As a Photoshop “student” I think the photos show the same black bear cubs but brush “smeared”to add length to their limps. The back legs clearly are not the same length in both photos. And that white branch on the foreground has a very clear dark outline that can be seen on the tree trunk which means that it has been “pasted”on for added effect maybe ( very obvious in photo #3) .

    Thanks for not publishing the “fake”photos here.

  32. Scarfe responds:

    Even from the angles given, if the subject of this photo were a hominid of some kind, the feet should show longer toes and a heel. From the photos provided, the feet look fairly paw-like.

    My first reaction to the second photo was that I was looking at something primate-like in structure, but upon reconsideration based on visual information from the second photo, it seems more likely that the subject is a bear.

    I think the people on the Bigfoot forums have put forth enough persuasive evidence to seriously consider that this “Jacobs creature,” as the BFRO is proud to name it, is actually a bear. It may turn out to be otherwise, but logic dictates that “bear” would be the most likely identification.

  33. planettom responds:

    IMHO I think it is a bear. Bad angles in the pics, but I can’t see anything that resembles a primate. The hind feet look too much like a bear.

  34. AtomicMrEMonster responds:

    I think MadM2000 is on the right track. Photoshop needs to be ruled out before we assume that an animal actually adopted the positions that we see in the pictures (Although I’d be lying if I didn’t say that those pictures are giving me “Mt. Hood Mystery Photo” flashbacks).

  35. BadState responds:

    Clearly not a bear in the second and third pics. Looks very much like a chimp. Of course, I’m not 100% convinced. The extremely bent over position of pic 3 looks kind of unnatural. My conclusion at this point is that this is either legit, or an articulated model–maybe a child-sized mannequin in a fur suit.

  36. olejason responds:

    I just wonder how many ‘bear photos’ like this are taken on a regular basis by people with no interest in bigfoot. I think most people would be surprised how thin some bears are in the wild, especially when feeding two cubs.

  37. movieman100 responds:

    I don’t know much about bears, but I think I have to agree with MadM2000, in that these look like manipulated images to me. There are several inconsistencies in both the length and thickness of the legs. Also, while there is a 36 second time difference between the 2nd and 3rd photos, the object in the forground, which I would assume to be a bear cub, appears to be in exactly the same position. I find this unlikely given that there is a bigfoot moving around right behind it. Good attempt, but I am pretty sure that these are a hoax.

  38. stooge75 responds:

    I believe the “clear dark outline” being referred to may be/is a result of the depth of field of the camera itself. This camera has been set to infinity focus more than likely, so objects in the foreground may have a blurred edge. So I’m not so sure about it being photoshopped.

    The dark object in the bottom right appears to be, as someone else pointed out, the bowl leaning against the salt lick.

    This is a very strange stance. I’m inclined to believe that it’s smelling the mixture used as bait, maybe licking it even.

    The part that gets me is the parts of the body that have a lack of hair. I am to understand that mangy, wormy, malnourished bears are only missing hair in spots that homonids typically have less hair. The way the coat is shiny is also interesting.

    I believe it’s possible for it to be a juvenile in a “hide” position.

    If it’s not a hoax, I just hope more cameras are being set up. Different angle(s) would help for sure. We’ll have to wait and see.
    I’m also wondering how many reported sightings this area has a year.

  39. DWA responds:

    Well, I’m encouraged.

    Not TOO many knee-jerk “fakes.” Or knee-jerk “known animals.” And, as I would expect from these, a lot more “intriguings.”

    That’s almost certainly not a bear. The limb proportions, and the limb-to-body proportions, are totally wrong for a bear. And you are talking to someone who has seen A LOT of bears in the wild.

    Not in the same league as Patterson. I can’t truly tell what this is. It could well be manipulated images. (Do time stamps show up THAT clearly on the Bushnell?) Patterson, it’s clear: a bipedal animal, a new species if it isn’t a bipedal animal in a suit.

    But after repeated viewings I am NOT thinking bear. And the list of things it could be is short, “human in suit” even less likely with this one than with P/G.

    So here’s my list of intriguing potential sas shots: P/G. The Peguis, Manitoba video early this year. OK, I can add Myakka; still not sure what the heck those are.

    And these.

    Short list.

  40. DWA responds:

    movieman100: the object in the foreground is NOT a bear cub. It’s the box that the mineral lick is sitting in in the first photo. (The BFRO page has full details.)

    Besides, in a world where wild polar bears come out of the white to play with chained huskies, I wouldn’t make any predictions about how an unknown species interacts with ones we know about.

  41. greenmartian2007 responds:

    Well, well…

    Being Sunday morning and all.

    I think we need more of the photographic sequence before I say anything of an opinion on these photographs.

    However, since I do live in “Northwestern PA,” I think I can say some things about this “Jacobs critter” event, at least about the area. Either this was in Mercer county (where I currently exist), or Crawford, or Erie counties. Only in those three.

    Currently, in Mercer county, we do have black bears, especially up near the Hermitage area (not far from Greenville, place of some earlier alleged Sasquatch sightings, as listed on BFRO). They raid bird feeders, as they stock up on food prior to retiring for the winter. There have been news stories on the local TV stations that if you run into a black bear, to back away, and let them alone. Mercer county has a lot of State Game Lands abutting right up on residential areas (very rural).

    Three Sundays ago, in the local Sharon Herald newspaper (yes, Sharon and Hermitage are right next to each other), they had a feature about Sasquatches, using a lot of data from the BFRO site (but if memory serves, they emphasized a lot more of the Ohio stuff–the Ohio state line is quite near Hermitage, like a few miles away at most). They talked about “Hell’s Hollow,” a local area with dense thickets. Well, in truth, the picture in the paper that they showed of this Holow looks exactly like the roads near where I live, with trees overhanging the road. It is very common around here to have that type of scenario. So yes, there are a lot of heavily forested areas, with corn fields and lots of open fields that are fallow (like I have out the back 40 right here). So the awareness factor is here. I recall nearly a decade ago of sighting an albino buck quite nearby, with a decent rack. So there are some unusual things running about here.

    A neighbor who goes bow-hunting for deer came back to where I am at I think last week to go down in the back 40, and I told him that he was in Sasquatch country, and told him about the newspaper article. He laughed nervously, and said he had better get more arrows. He comes down at dusk, and stays until about 8 PM, then comes back out and leaves. But there is a lot of deer sign around.

    Within the last two weeks, we have had a lot of fog (obscures everything, comes right up to the house) at night through the early hours (not this week, but in the recent past). On two separate nights, durin these fog episodes, around 1:30 AM and 2 AM, there was some distinctive, non-human whistling going on outside of the abode where I am, off to the one side. I didn’t hear this, but two close relatives did, and described it as not human, but not that great kind of whistling. Not long whistles, but short “pop” type whistles, perhaps of 2-3 seconds only. Medium pitch. Whatever it was, it wasn’t very good at whistling at length. (Neighbors are over several hundred yards away, at the minimum, with moderate to heavy forestation inbetween proprerties.)

    Right next to the house, is an orchard that I had helped to set up back in the 1980s. The deer frequent it in the autumn, as they eat the apples off the ground. So it may be that others who follow the deer, also checked out the apples. (I have read in “Search for the Grassman” that allegedly Sasquatches do follow the deer migrations.)

    A special afterword: There is a fenceline around the orchard, one of those kind with heavy gauge wire up to the 4.5 foot mark, and higher up, a wooden board spanning inbetween the post segments. On one side of this fenceline, on the far side of the orchard, in two specific segments I saw some unusual things–it appeared that something had gone over the fence in one place (there had been a place outside of the fence where the grass had been pretty much flattened, as if a 5-6 foot something was trying to put itself over the fence), and squashed the fence down some (downward compression); and in another place, where one of the boards had been dis-attached on one side from one of the fence posts, had been rotated outwards away from the rest of the fenceline into the unfenced area; the fence post itself had also been rotated to have that happen. That, a person could not do, I don’t think. Its condition is still like that as I write this. And I still scratch my head when I look at that.

    I looked for footprints, but found none (outside of the aforementioned trampled grass down on the one side of the fence that was facing out, I saw no evidence of ground evidence). The ground is fairly hard here. I looked for hair on the fence, but found none.

    Interesting story from the (I suppose) land of the “Jacobs critter.”

  42. deejay responds:

    It looks as if the face was blurred out, especially in the last photo.

  43. DWA responds:

    Another note I should add:

    Some sighting reports do include quadrupedal movement in the sasquatch; I’ve read at least one such for an adult, and a couple for juveniles.

    And the first possibility outside of known animals that I would lay on this one – other than manipulated image, of course – is “juvenile sas.” I’ve read a number of reports that describe an animal of this size and stature. One on the BFRO site, from New York, includes detailed drawings by the eyewitness that – well, no other way to put it – are quite like what we see here in terms of the animal’s build.

  44. Loren Coleman responds:

    We depreciate bears. But grandly they blend with their native mountains….They are not companions of men, but children of God, and His charity is broad enough for bears.John Muir, Wilderness World of John Muir, pg. 313.

  45. CryptoGoji responds:

    I have to agree with MadM2000, we need to rule out photoshop trickery before we go any further with this debate. If, once that factor has been taken out, we have a very interesting photo series. I have seen photos of bear cubs walking away like that, raised up on all fours with the joints locked, so it would not be far fetched to think that something spooked that little bear and made it flinch. The third photo in the series, sorry to say this, looks like a scene from Winnie the Pooh, you all know the one, where he gets his head stuck in a honey jar. The last two photos seem off to me somehow, but I don’t know what or why just yet. But what doesn’t surprise me a bit is the following statement from BFRO:

    “These images have been registered with the U.S. Copyright office by the lawyer for R. Jacobs. The images are available to be licensed for re-publishing. To inquire about licensing only, please send an email to jacobs_photos@BFRO.netBFRO

    Why copyright possible, mythbreaking photos like these. Another thing to consider that my wife just pointed out was that the bear cubs in the first photo looked smallish for Sept. and maybe that the camera date/time stamp had be reset, which is easily done for digital cameras. She suggested that the last two photos showed a mama bear coming out of hibernation, as it looked a bit thin around the ribs. I’m not saying that is the case here, but that is another possibility that should be explored. Also, as with any photoshop trickery, the date can be easily changed as well.

    I say bear, a malnourished bear, but nothing spectacular in the photos.

    Have a great Sunday all!

  46. Artist responds:

    Thank God there aren’t MORE Bigfoot Expeditioners and hikers with cameras and camcorders and automatic motion-sensitive infrared trail cameras, all getting blurry snapshots and fast-pan mini-videos and anonymous, darkly ambiguous night shots – or we’d be spending ALL our time at these Blog debates, not just the entire weekend!

  47. JRufus responds:

    MadM2000 is correct about the photos being manipulated. Comparing the ground where “stubbyfoot” rest his “head” and left “hand” in image 3 with the other 2 images clearly indicate image manipulation that can be seen even without pixel enhancement. Much of the area in front of the cub sniffing the ground is artificial in all 3 images. I don’t feel compelled to articulate more on the actual images themselves because they will undoubtedly be torn apart by the “experts”.

    I’m so tired of all the B.S, hoaxers, and fake images, if this keeps up much longer I’m gonna go out and get me a Bigfoot and shove it right up someone’s…

    Sorry, I’ll go get up on the other side of the bed now.

  48. fallofrain responds:

    I’m reserving judgment on the photos, but would like to make some comments about the wildlife cameras. They’re amazing tools. The prices are reasonable…usually not more (some are less) than a good digital point and shoot. Many will take infrared, normal color, or up to about a minute of video (though not all at once). They are waterproof. I believe all have the time, date, and other information on the photos. The one I have can stay set up in the woods for as much as 150 days before the batteries run down. A 2 gig memory stick can hold thousands of photos. So come on, armchair cryptozooligists…if you can afford a couple hundred dollar camera, set one up in the woods near you. You may not snare a ‘squatch, but you may be surprised at what does live in your woods.

  49. Pentastar responds:

    It is for sure a Ursus Americana.

    I went through plenty of pictures of black bears that I found on altavista and they have rather long legs and look a bit “funny” when they are skinny. In the third picture on bfro’s site the ears can be seen. The bear is looking slightly to the right of the camera and it is possible to make out the face and even the eyes.

    I wonder why the bfro people could not see this?

  50. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I am not very well versed in photoshop trickery, but it is something I do think needs to be ruled out before proceeding in this day and age. I recently read an article that was concerning photo manipulation, and it included a wide array of examples of doctored photos compared side by side with the originals. I was aghast at how far we have come towards being able to convincingly alter photos. I came away from that article more convinced than ever that photographic evidence has lost some of its original weight. From what I saw there, I’d say that it is absolutely possible to manipulate a photo to get what we see with the ones on the BFRO website. Is there any way to provide a smoking gun and prove that these were doctored in any way?

    One thing that bothers me is that any time an anomalous photo of something odd in the woods is taken, it is quick to be branded as a sasquatch. I think these are very intriguing if they are not photoshopped, but not to the point that I feel we can just jump to “juvenile sasquatch” over any other possibility. When I see these photos, all I can say is “what IS that?”. Maybe it IS a sasquatch as claimed, but I think there is some merit to weighing other ideas too, such as the possibility it is a bear. I don’t think we can say at this point that a juvenile sasquatch is a much more rational or likely explanation than a sick bear or photo manipulation. I just wish the ones who took this photo would take an unbiased approach and let us think for ourselves. I would have liked to have seen them forgo any classification or conclusions such as labeling it “juvenile sasquatch”, and rather say “Hey, this is a series of odd photos. What IS that? What do you all think?”. I think these pics are definitely unusual, but not able to be conclusively labeled as this or that just yet.

  51. movieman100 responds:

    DWA, your points taken and heeded. I should have read a bit more on the BRFO page, but I still think that this is either a skinny bear or a manipulated photo of a skinny bear. My money is on the former. I feel positive these things are out there. I for one totally believe in the PG footage as real. I’m sorry I don’t feel the same way about these shots.

  52. Mothmanfan responds:

    Why don’t they ever take more pictures of these things, or film it? Geez!!

  53. greenmartian2007 responds:

    Out of curiosity, I looked up “R. Jacobs” in the local phone book.

    There is such a person, and they live in Grove City, PA…which is just a few short miles from Mercer county’s county seat, which is….yes, you guessed it….Mercer. And which is about 35-45 minutes (on a day without too much traffic) from Greenville, and from Hermitage.

    Thought you might like to know. Whether this is the person who submitted the images, I don’t know. But the potential connection is intriguing.

    As to the discussion about photoshopping, let’s see more of the imagery sequence. I would like to see that first. Patterns of tampering are much more in evidence across a whole series of images in a sequence, rather than in say, two images that are currently extant on the BFRO site.

    Let’s see if they post more imagery. I hope that they do.

  54. rayrich responds:

    Very familiar with the area. I had an interesting and frightful encounter of my own about an hour east in the endless mountain region. Don’t think it’s a bear.

  55. DWA responds:

    movieman100: remember, now, I’m not saying what this thing is.

    Unlike P/G (either an incredible suit, or an unlisted primate, probably an ape from everything else we know about apes), this is a…well, sheesh, someone tell me. I’m just not thinking bear. Those proportions are simply not in the most lanky and skinny bear links people have put in here, nor in any other photo, nor sighting, I’ve seen or been party to of bears.

    Could it be manipulated? I’d be the last one to call myself a Photoshop expert, but what one can do with a photo in Shop is pretty unsettling. And date stamps aren’t even sacred anymore. :-) And something about what would otherwise have to be the head in the second photo just seems a bit, well, at least potentially off. It could just be motion blur, it might not be. After having seen a Shop ‘expert’ use her expertise to label as false a photo I knew to be real, I’m really leery about the ‘expertise’ of Shop ‘experts’ who don’t get outside much.

    I’m not as upset about the copyright as CryptoGoji is. Fake technology like this, I’d want to copyright, pronto.


    But seriously, folks. such is the nature of this beast – lit and fig – that if I were ever inclined to make a photo like this of my own public, I might do it too.

    And this about malnourished mom bears: if that’s the mom, she has NO cubs by the time this pic is taken, period. If she makes it that badly, they don’t, at all.

    My bottom line on this vs. P/G:

    1. The latter is so good that if it’s a fake, there has never, in any field of fakery, been a better one done. Nor, really, one anywhere near as good.

    2. This? It’s not a blobsquatch by any means. But I do not know what it is.

    Any time you have a thread like this – sorry, Roger – you don’t have proof, for sure.

  56. shumway10973 responds:

    The way it was walking, I would have to say an orangutan of sorts. I have seen footage of known primate juveniles doing contortions like in the last pic.

  57. DWA responds:


    An orangutan “of sorts”? Pongo pygmaeus, or not? There’s only one orangutan (two subspecies).

    No known ape. Legs too long. Period. Orangs are almost totally adapted to life in the canopy; it’s almost as awkward for them to walk bipedally as it is for bears. This figure has arms and legs almost equally long; an orang’s arms relate to its legs almost as a bat’s do. Bit of an exaggeration. But not too much. (I said “arms,” not “fingers.” :-D)

  58. sasquatch responds:

    I agree with Deejay; The last shot is the bear facing the camera, and it’s face (AND EARS) have been obscured digitally. This bear is very sick. It has mange, worms or whatever. The heels are only visible in the first shot of it. The second shot is after it has turned around and is looking at the camera. I think Mr. Jacobs has the vital clues to solve this in the other pictures but they would wreck the fun. Anyway, this is my heart felt suspicion. I’d love to be wrong, I believe in Sasquatch and am 99% sure Patterson’s film is of a real one.

  59. jayman responds:

    My advice is, don’t be too quick to reject the message just because you don’t like the messenger.

    That being said, I don’t know if this is a juvenile BF or not, but it certainly deserves further study, and U of Idaho may have the best expertise.

    Interestingly enough, some recent studies indicate that some extinct early hominids may have been quadrupeds or semi-quadrupeds as juveniles.

  60. HominidWA responds:


  61. GeorgiaBigfoot responds:

    This may be the strongest argument yet.

    FWIW I say bear.

  62. Benjamin Radford responds:

    FINALLY! Definitive proof of Bigfoot from the BFRO! Been a long time coming…

  63. Alton Higgins responds:

    No need to speculate about Photoshopping. The figure is perfectly consistent with a black bear explanation. Again, check the previously referenced discussion and analysis at bigfootforums.

  64. Gary the Cat responds:

    Well, I’m going to say real animal rather than man-in-a-suit.

    Just FEELS real as opposed to a lot of posted stuff.

    What it is is another question.

    Looks quite chimplike to me.

  65. swnoel responds:

    Let’s see here …3 photos …1 at 20:04:23, 20:32:05, and 20:32:41 all the same date and the first clearly of 2 bear cubs…

    I agree with all that see a bear, albeit a sickly one at that.

    Like I’ve stated in the past, if Sasquash does exist ,will see it in the lens of a game camera within a short time. There are literally thousands out there just waiting.

  66. Kathy Strain responds:

    I completely agree with Alton Higgins. There is no reason to suspect photoshop when the image already fits with a bear.

    I am very startled by the BFRO statement that “Juvenile bigfoots are typically described as quadrupedal (walking on four legs), with the ability to climb trees or run very quickly on all fours.” They are? I’ve investigated hundreds of sightings and in the very few that mentioned quad movement, the animal was clearly an adult. Juveniles may very well move in this manner but there isn’t any evidence currently to suggest it.

  67. stevencrawley78 responds:

    I just spent 30mins studying the second and third as I truly believed it was a bigfoot.

    But I have come to the conclusion that it is a bear with mange. The third photo proves it. Look at the shortness of its hindlegs and then the roundness of its backside.

    After enlarging it you can clearly see the “stump tail of a bear” and no where can you see the “hairless bum” of a chimp or primate.

  68. i am sasquatch responds:

    At first glance I thought it was a juvenile sasquatch. It looks a lot like the sasquatch in the photos taken from Las Vegas, New Mexico. But after searching ”black bear with mange” on Google, my view of the creature changed substantially. I’m still hoping it turns out to be a sasquatch, but we will just have to wait for the Idaho state scientists to analyze the creature and compare the outline to a black bear’s skeleton.

  69. Cloud responds:

    In the first picture of the animal it clearly has a dome shaped head. You can see it better if you invert the colors on the picture. Also if you zoom in you can almost make out an eye socket and what looks like a lighter skinned face.

  70. jrenn responds:

    I have to agree with many of the comments above. This picture is that of a black bear. Having seen many bears over the years I can attest that they can do some pretty trippy hominid looking things. The set of the body, the hind quarters, the hind foot, all say young/small bear. Although, I wouldn’t give up on NW PA for future sightings there are alot of out of the way places lots of good cover and ample food sources to support a large, bipedal omnivore.

  71. Artist responds:

    Lontra canadensis

  72. windigo responds:

    First, it’s not a bear (even a sickly one), but it is a living, breathing primate (so throw out the animal suit theory). Second, nothing leaps out at me to indicate that the photos were altered in any way. However, I would appreciate further analysis from someone who is an expert in this field. This leads me to believe that it is either a chimp or a legitimate Sasquatch. Many people who wonder how a chimp could wind up in a forest in PA. forget how many people own exotic pets, or operate wildlife rehabilitation farms across this country. It could be a well concocted hoax.

  73. giantchaser responds:

    personally it looked to me like a big ol’ black dog but *shrug* it also looked like a lil’ bear

  74. mystery_man responds:

    I agree with Kathy Strain that there isn’t very strong evidence to support the assertion that young sasquatch travel about on all fours. I think it is a little early to say with certainty much of anything for certain about sasquatch behavior and stages of development. That being said, even if juvenile sasquatch WERE quadrupedal, it does not mean that these are photos of one. It is a logical fallacy claim that because sasquatch are quadrupedal, it follows that that is what we see here, especially when we don’t even know if that is true. If it were known to be true somehow, it still in no way verifies this as being a photo of a juvenile sasquatch. I still think the photos are interesting, but I’m leaning towards bear at this point as there is nothing to me that suggests that this MUST be a sasquatch.

  75. bobbo responds:

    OK I know the guys that got these photos. They are real without a doubt. I am not a bigfoot believer at all. They are not saying it is a bigfoot but like the rest of they would also like to know what it is. I showed the pics that they showed me to my father in law. He was the PA game commissioner until he retired and he does not believe that it is a bear at all due to the structure of it.

  76. DWA responds:

    Lontra canadensis! good one.

    here’s mine: Haliaeetus leucocephalus.

    Sorry. Lontra and I are just trying to stay on the same plane of seriousness as the ones guessing “bear.” ;-p

  77. timdanielson responds:

    I don’t know much about bears, but I do know a bit about Photoshop, and to me this looks like a half-way decent – but imperfect – Photoshop job. I even believe #2 may be the bear in #1 – look at the angle of the bears leg vs. the “squatch’s” arm/leg – almost identical.

    I also lean toward a mangy bear.

    Either way, I feel the BFRO does itself a serious disservice by so eagerly proclaiming these photos as real – or as a real sasquatch.

  78. KenMD responds:

    This is why B. Radford gets a big laugh out of all of this.

    Just google Mange black Bear photo under the image link and you got your answer.

    I’ll make it easy for you.

  79. bill green responds:

    hey craig & loren, i think it would be great if dr.jeff meldrum & mk davis could do serious research study inhandments on these new sasquatch photos just so that way we can finaly have a wonderful nuteral debates about these photos i guess. just my opinion. thanks bill green :)

  80. rayrich responds:

    It may be a chimp that’s gotten loose or a juvenile sasquatch itself, but as one who has studied and tagged some 200 bears including the most sickly of black as well as Grizzly, I will tell you straight up this is no bear I have ever encountered. I am now a screenprinter by trade and am very familiar with photoshop. If this is indeed a photoshop job, amen to this individual. You should be on Madison Ave or at least Hollywood.

  81. Richard888 responds:

    How the “black bear with mange” hypothesists can be debunked:

    Black bears with mange have no fur.

    The creature in pictures 2 and 3 has abundant fur.

    Conclusion. It is not a black bear with mange.

  82. rayrich responds:

    I’ve posted my qualms about BFRO on this site in the past, but having had my own experiences and encounters in this particular area I would be hesitant to call this a ‘hoax’. Pennsylvania has some of the most ‘untouched’ hardwood wilderness areas in all the US and don’t for a second think that Sasquatch couldn’t exist here. I’ve worked in the North Cascades as well as British Columbia and I’ll tell you first hand that Northwest Pa. is a hidden gem. The mountains aren’t nearly as high, but there is more cavernous and rocky terrain than anywhere else in the US. The Endless mountain region spans more than one hundred miles from the NE to the NWern part of the state and is very sparsely populated by man. Much of the hunting and trapping is done in the lower more populated part of the state where farms provide a great food source.

  83. grafikman responds:

    I agree with DWA. There’s far too many people blaming things on Photoshop. How many posters here have actually used, or even seen Photoshop? I use it on a daily basis. It’s an amazing app that can do astounding things, but actual photorealistic creation of something like pics #2 and #3 isn’t what Photoshop is good at.

    When a photo can be so realistically manipulated that it passes for real, then any photo, even if authentic, can be explained away with Photoshop. See the danger?

    I’ve looked at those pics and compared them to “mangy bear” photos that I scoured the web for the past few hours, and sorry, I don’t see a bear. It’s not wishful thinking for me, there’s just no way even a starving bear could have limbs that long (By the way, “starving bear”???? In a prey rich environment like NW Pennsylvania?? Ridiculous!!).

  84. mystery_man responds:

    Grafikman- There are many reasons why a bear may be starving even in a prey rich environment. It could be injured, sick, old or a variety of other reasons. The habitat being rich in prey in and of itself does not discount this photo as being a possible bear. As for manipulation of photos, there have actually been very photorealistic photos created and even slipped into newspapers that went unnoticed at first. I think we really are living in an age where you cannot take every photo at face value and I agree there is a very real danger of photos losing a great deal of credibility in the coming years. I am no expert on photoshop, I admit, but I have seen many examples of photorealistic photographic frauds that could easily be passed off as real. I am not so sure how much we can totally discount photoshopping, especially when other posters here who seem knowledgeable on the matter say it is doable.

    I actually cannot say for sure if this is a manipulated photo or a sick bear, and won’t make any pat assumptions. What I will say is that a bear COULD feasibly be going hungry in this environment and that from what I have seen of convincing doctored photos, it seems at least within the realm of possibility that these could have been altered somehow. these are still avenues of inquiry that are open, to me. I still am wondering what these photos could be, but am far from deciding that must be a baby sasquatch.

  85. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    momma bear momma bear screams the bearly awake peanut gallery.

    i have one problem with momma bear. momma bear with young cubs would look that way in late feb/march/april just after coming out to the world from the long winters nap. these cubs seem the wrong size for having been born last winter/spring.

    also momma would be getting fat. if she is that sickly she may also dump her cubs for her own survival?

    could they be bearly yearlings or 18 month-ers

    ok that was more than one I’m sorry but i can bearly stay awake.

    if I’m wrong tell me as my bear experience totals a couple application for hunts, hunting shows ad researching for hunts and deciding which shade of black i would prefer for my rug. I’m leaning for cinnamon.

  86. greenmartian2007 responds:

    Mountains in Northwestern PA? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…

    Oh Blah.

    I live here, and there ain’t no mountains…

    There is a plateau here geographically wise, and it’s true the temperature cline from Canada dips down into the area, so it’s colder than perhaps over in Ohio a bit of the time…

    The most accurate description one could say would be that there are “foothills” of the Appalachians here, and that is correct…and yes, some of the hills are big…so? Those aren’t mountains.

    I drove over the mountains to visit State College, PA (in the lower middle of the state) for about a four year time span. They are old mountains (more worn down that say, the younger Rockies), but those are real mountains.

    But, no mountains here in the Mercer, Crawford, Erie section of things.

    Yes, there are a lot of trees. and rocky ground (find lots of rocks from the last glacial event in the area, especially when one ploughs the ground).

    There are moutains (the Appalachians) in the area of southwestern PA…like in perhaps Cambria and Somerset counties (where there are also Sasquatch sightings)….

    But not in the upper northwestern part of the state.

    Otherwise, everything is Hunky Dori here.

    Never had such a good laugh as reading these posts.

  87. DWA responds:

    I’m hesitant to raise this, but I will.

    Could it be that friction between the BFRO and others has led to some of the dismissal-as-bear posts?

    I think that one problem science has with Fortean topics in general is getting past unconscious biases. I think cryptos need to guard against it too, as well as guarding against wishful-thinking knee-jerk “no-way” dismissal.

    We can’t blame the critter’s nonexistence on those searching for it. I just want to know what’s in the photos. And my two cents says this: it’s irresponsible to conclude what is in these.

    That is, says me, the weirdest of its kind anywhere on record, if it’s any known species. If you think I’m wrong, my guess is unconscious bias at work there.

    If that’s a bear, it’s done the best job ever of not looking like one.

  88. olejason responds:

    Forget bigfoot, from the posts I’ve read lately it seems like America has a wild chimp invasion on our hands :)

  89. silvereagle responds:

    In the third photo, it looks as if the bear is tucking it’s head down and about to do a summer salt onto the scented area. Which is something that an animal is likely to do and not say a nature person who is not particularly ashamed of how he or she smells. A Bigfoot would have observed the area for some time, prior to investigating. A Bigfoot would have seen both the bears and the infrared flash or white flash. Once seeing the flash, the Bigfoot would have left the area. So night time photographs that occured just prior to the subject photograph, tend to eliminate a Bigfoot as then being foolish enough to enter the flash zone. I have set up night time cameras with no flash required and multiple Bigfoot within 30 yards of the bait just prior to going to sleep in my tent. By morning, still no photograph.

  90. Defactor responds:

    The animal shown does not appear to be either a bear or the typical Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Its entire body size, shape and limb dimensions, coloration and posture match in great detail the descriptions of the other type of unclassified primate (Beta NA-P) in this country. And these animals, including the mature adults, do in fact hunt and travel in both quadrupedal and bipedal fashion. These animals are believed to be more concentrated in the Southeast, but have been reported elsewhere.

    The observations by some that the feet of the animal in the photo do not appear to be like those of a man or a sasquatch/bigfoot may be valid. If it is a Beta NA-P animal its foot would be unique and bearing some resemblance to both an orangutan’s and a chimpanzee’s. And, the animal shown does not appear to be a juvenile.

  91. DARHOP responds:

    Hmmm. At first when I looked at the photos, I thought wow! I didn’t even think bear. The 2nd photo especially didn’t look like a bear. I read some comments and had to look at the photos again. Now it might be just my eyes playing tricks on me, but in the 3rd photo, after looking really really close. I swear I see a bear’s head. If you look at the photo from the perspective of the animal looking right at you. You can see the really long looking leg would actually be the right front leg. Though the other leg the left leg would look twisted funny. If you look right above where the 2 leg’s meat at the v I swear I see a head. I can see the mouth, the eyes and they appear to glow and the ears. Man, the more I look at it, I swear I see this. Just look real close I’m sure I’m not the only one that can be seeing this. Or am I  So I am leaning towards momma bear. (DANG IT) Especially since the cub photos precede the questionable photos. I thought we really had something here at first. What’s weird is the 2nd photo doesn’t look like a bear. But If I’m right in what I am seeing, the 3rd photo tells the story.

  92. Sergio responds:

    It is a bear, people. For Pete’s freaking sake.

  93. richcap responds:

    Interesting photos – here’s my guess at what will happen………
    Nothing. Hype, hype, hype – and then poof, it will be over. This R Jacobs will be pushed and then decide to back out at the last minute or something. Its just the way these things go. Does anyone here think this will actually “go big”? Sadly, I don’t think it will this time….not like this – in this manner. Perhaps someday we will all hear the news a BF was hit by a car…
    Besides, too much silliness has come from the makers of BFRO…and i used to love ’em too.
    In the end – a Chimp, a bear, or doctored image.

  94. JJohnston responds:

    As many have said, this is a bear, especially if you adjust the brightness and contrast on the third picture. Doing this clearly reveals a very malnourished bear facing the camera. As to the “photoshopped” area of the ground, this is the result of the liquid attractant being poured on the ground. The blur of the supposed “head” in the second shot is motion blur, not “cloning” from PS. Having used trail cams myself I’ve seen some bizarre “mutations” of deer, cows, a grey fox, etc. Depending on the settings, the timing of these pictures isn’t all that unusual, and cameras sometimes fail to trip. So, while very intriguing, this is just another case of mistaken identity.

  95. DWA responds:

    The obvious thing I haven’t seen anyone mention yet and that I would sure as hell have done:

    Prints? Hair? Feces? Any other sign at the site? Did anyone look?

    I’m sure that camera’s staying right there, right?

    I share richcap’s admittedly cynical view of what’s going to happen from here. Somebody prove me wrong for a change.

  96. dbard responds:

    Benjamin Radford responds:
    October 21st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
    FINALLY! Definitive proof of Bigfoot from the BFRO! Been a long time coming…

    Well-played, Sir.


  97. bucker responds:

    Thats no bear, I’ve hunted black bear for over 40 years and have killed, skinned, and eaten many including a couple with mange. Probably a monkey but I can’t say for sure, never killed one of them.

  98. bobbo responds:

    Once again I have worked with the Jacobs guys for 12 years and can assure you that these are not doctored pics. I thought it was a bear with mange when they showed me the pics. I showed them to my father in law (retired wild life biologist for the Pa Game commission ) He does not think its a bear. Had to say from the pics. But they are not doctored or photoshopped. I have known them a long time and this is not something they would try pull off. I think they just want to know what it is also.

  99. Mike Smith responds:

    I have to say that this is very strange. I have looked and looked at these pics, at first I thought this is a bear, but now I just do not know. I hope its the real deal.

  100. larrykat responds:

    I don’t get this board, everyone here is dying to get evidence of their favorite creature, and when something fairly convincing comes up, most posters crap on it!

  101. sschaper responds:

    This reminds me that Loren posits that the eastern Nape is not the same animal as the PNW sasquatch. And this more gracile animal is consistant with Loren’s hypothesis. If it isn’t a sick or photoshopped bear.

  102. cryptothekid responds:

    It looks very much like a skinny chimpanzee.

  103. cryptothekid responds:

    The animal in the photo looks nothing like bear. I’m 100% sure it’s a primate. NOT A BEAR!

  104. JRufus responds:

    I have a question regarding the first image of the bear cubs. Does an infared flash normally illuminate the eyes like that?

  105. Scarfe responds:

    Plaidlemur, a member of the Bigfootforums board, came up with what I think is a very convincing image that demonstrates the likelihood that the creature is a bear based on the similarities in bone structure:

    See it here.

  106. greenmartian2007 responds:


    Would you be willing to confirm which county that these pictures were taken in?

    Was it in Mercer county? If not, was it Crawford?


  107. mystery_man responds:

    Scarfe- Yeah, with the picture on the other thread of a bear with mange, and the overlay on the link you posted, I am finding it hard to believe that some are still so certain these pics cannot be of a bear. I am starting to sense a bit of bias towards a “bigfoot explanation”. Sure, it is a sick bear, but there is nothing shown such as an unmistakable primate face, etc, that says it CANNOT be a bear. I think bear is certainly not out of the question as some posters would have us believe. There are some here who are flatly denying that what we are seeing is a possible bear when I feel in reality it seems very reasonable to me considering the compelling visual evidence presented to that effect. This is a dangerous assumption to make. I won’t come out and say that there is no way it is a sasquatch, but it is pretty obvious a bear is a likely explanation.

  108. Patrick Bede responds:

    I think it’s a bear.

  109. DWA responds:

    scarfe: there has been much talk here about Photoshop and image manipulation.

    That’s exactly how I view that “convincing” image. That could be correct placement – and it could be blatant manipulation. Among the things manipulable: the skull image (appears speculatively pasted-on, with no conclusive evidence in the photo that that was done properly); the bone images (nothing cropped? Enhanced? Resized? Unless you’re an expert on bear skeletons, how do you know?) the hipbone image (um, PUT it somewhere, dude, don’t tell me it accounts for a couple bumps in a very ambiguous photo).

    I never consider an image like that good for anything but speculation. It doesn’t convince me of anything, because it doesn’t tell me what is in that picture.

    The safest thing to do with any evidence is evaluate the evidence, just the evidence. Superimposing images on evidence is no better than Photoshop speculation, at least as far as involves proof.

  110. Questor responds:

    I would have to go with the sickly sow bear explanation. It looks pretty freaky though. But so did those coyotes in Texas that were supposed to be chupacabras. When critters start losing their hair, it gives them a unique appearance. And then it looks like this critter is doing the Winnie the Pooh thing when he sticks his head in the hunny jar.

  111. DWA responds:

    m_m: I’m not biasing toward a “bigfoot explanation,” I am biasing away from an explanation, of any kind. THAT’s the dangerous step to be taking here: providing an “explanation for the inexplicable, because, well, that’s what’s in front of you.

    I’ve dealt with the bone issue in another post; a more blatant potential for manipulation I don’t see than that. Snipping pieces off a skeleton, then dropping them where in the image you need to, doesn’t wash with me. The broad – and to many uncomfortable – bodily similarities between bruin and man, pronounced in certain postures, have cropped up too often in the literature for this to be a safe practice, at all. It’s profoundly at odds with the scientific method (particularly the notion of a disconnected hipbone explaining two fuzzy bumps in an ambiguous pic).

    scarfe says the Dubious Overlay shows “similarities in bone structure.” Um, well, what can one say about that except, of course not? You see any bones in that photo, other than the ones that were Shopped on there? (By a bear anatomy expert, I presume?)

    And of course, I don’t care what any wildlife expert saiys, if he/she concludes it is a bear. There I see a bias toward a “bear explanation” – similar to the bias toward a “man in suit explanation” that unfairly, and unscientifically, tainted P/G right out of the blocks.

    Unconscious bias plagues science, on all fronts. It needs to be expunged; and only scientists with open minds can do that.

    There is only one way to reasonably support the notion that that is a bear: show a video, taken at the same time, that shows that.

    These two photos cannot support ANY kind of bias, toward ANY explanation.

    They are inconclusive.


  112. greenmartian2007 responds:

    Update for all.

    I just visited the BFRO’s discussion board a short while ago, and apparently last night (Oct. 22) in the 8 o’clock evening hour the BFRO discussion group Administrator posted the following (and I quote it directly):

    “…..The three images posted on the BFRO site are definitely the best three of all the images taken that night. None of the other photos from that night (or any other night, so far) show the ape-like animal. A few of the others show more of the bear cubs, but they are blurrier, darker, etc. They don’t add anything to the main trio of images….”

    So this is all we’re going to get, folks. No other images in the sequence.

    On Oct. 20th, in the 10 PM hour, another poster in the same thread sequence claimed that R. Jacobs’ brother’s name was Tom. Just some more alleged data out there. I would put more weight though, on the Administrator’s posting than on the other. Locally, in the same area as the R. Jacobs I mentioned previously, there is a Tim Jacobs, but no “Tom.”

    Bobbo, if you could post again in this thread, and let us know which county this happened in.

  113. bobbo responds:

    It was not in Mercer or Crawford county. I will have to ask their permission to see If I can post what county they were taken in. I do not know what their deal is with bfro and do not want to cause a problem. By the way Tom is the brother of R. Jacobs. I just wanted to let you guys know that they are not doctored photos. They would never do anything like that at all. Heck R jacobs probably has never even heard of photoshop. They spend most of their time fishing and hunting when not at work.

  114. rugby411 responds:

    For what it’s worth I am an artist and graphic designer who uses PhotoShop in a professional capacity on a daily basis. I have examined these images in a variety of formats (color, b/w, negative, color seperation, color extrapolation) and find no evidence at all that these images have been manipilated, blured, cloned, or “massaged” in any way (regarding the animals or the environment).

    The time stamp appears to be an organic componant of the original and unmanipulated as well.

    I would like to see the other photographs that were taken as well however for comparison and correlation.

    If anyone has questions please feel free to ask. **Rational** skepticism is important to research and scientific checks and balances. Please keep that element alive in this discussion, but heavyhanded bully tactics get us nowhere.

    Cheers All!

  115. Double Naught Spy responds:

    I don’t understand why the other photos are not available to us. If nothing else, I think the time stamps might be very interesting. As long as the other photos and the information they might hold are kept “secret,” the appearance of the bfro having something to hide will be hard to ignore.

    FWIW, I think it is irresponsible–and pretty childish–to say the two odd looking images are pictures of an “unclassified primate” or whatever the claim is.

  116. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I am not biasing towards anything either and I did not single you out at all as one of those who is leaning towards this being one thing or the other. I am merely saying that we should not assume that these are not pictures of a bear, when the visual evidence I have seen and my own experience says that is not necessarily accurate. I must repeat, I am not CONCLUDING that this is a bear, and I have even clearly stated that I cannot say for a certainty that it is NOT a sasquatch. What I am saying is that it is a dangerous assumption to say that it CAN NOT a bear when there is nothing to discount that line of questioning.

    Let’s consider some of the evidence here and see how likely a bear explanation might be. Bears live in that area, we have comparative photos of a bear with mange that to me bear a striking resemblance these, and there is nothing in the photos (such as definitive contradictory physiology) that suggests that this could not be a bear. On the other hand, we have NO comparative photos of a real juvenile sasquatch, NO proof that they are quadrupedal, and no clear anatomical features that say these photos are definitely of a type of primate or hominid. Considering these things, is it wise to scoff at a bear explanation? We cannot assume that these are not photos of a bear just because they “look strange”. I am being open minded when I consider these things, incidentally.

    Maybe juvenile sasquatch ARE quadrupedal. Maybe they DO look like what we see here. But we KNOW that bears are quadrupedal and that they can look similar to what is shown in these photos. So the idea that this is a bear is completely rational and not something to be avoided. I cannot rule out sasquatch, but it is certainly an incorrect assumption to say that these CAN’T be of a bear.

  117. Giovarist responds:

    People! Please have another look at photo #3. The bear is clearly facing the camera and looking slightly to its left. You can see its eyes, nose and ears. The two legs closest to the camera are its front legs.

  118. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Another thing. Considering some of the points I mentioned above with respect to available evidence, I cannot see how it is somehow more scientific to think this is MORE likely a sasquatch than a bear as some seem to think. Unscientific is not only flatly denying that these could be of a sasquatch, as you say, but also ignoring the evidence that says “hey this could be a bear” while embracing an explanation (sasquatch) that has little to support it at this point. This is not “unconscious bias” necessarily, but rather weighing what we know (that bears are quadrupedal, live in the area, and can look strange due to mange) with what we don’t know (if juvenile sasquatch are quadrupedal, if they look like this, if they even exist) and then going with what the photos could be of. So when someone comes to the conclusion that these are probably of a bear, I don’t feel it is unscientific at all as that is what the evidence tends to point to in this case. Personally, I think these COULD be of a sasquatch, but it would be a bit unscientific to embrace that explanation above all others.

  119. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Let’s also remember that this “juvenile sasquatch” was photographed among other bears. I will admit that there is no way we can say that juvenile sasquatch don’t do this and it is a possible line of scientific inquiry as to whether they do or not. But let’s consider the hard facts. Added to all of the other evidence I mentioned, we know for a fact that bears can be seen with other bears and that especially young bears will be in a group like this. The notion that juvenile sasquatch do so is purely speculation. Period. Considering all of this, there is nothing unscientific about thinking that there is a good chance what we see here is a bear. I would say that the evidence says it is quite possible in light of what we know for a fact. There are no blinders involved with looking at what the facts tell us and reaching a level of certainty based on that.

  120. joe levit responds:


    I can see now what you and others have seen as far as a bear head in the third picture. I just happen to think that is a case of pareidolia more than anything. As someone earlier pointed out, if that is a left front leg of the bear, then it’s a VERY odd thing for it to be pointed sideways to the right. Try to picture what others are seeing (not saying anything is certain), which is an ape-like figure bent over at the waist. In that scenario its left arm reaching out a long way to the ground, and its left leg is oriented in such a way that would make perfect sense for the direction of toes. Someone also pointed out the bare spot along the arm/leg. I have to say that to me that and the way the arm/leg looks hairy rather than with fur reminds me of an ape, particularly an orangutan.

  121. bobbo responds:

    I have been looking at these pics alot since I know who got them. I just noticed something that looks odd to me. I know they are real pics and all but the 3rd pic does look like the head is facing the camera. In pic #2 notice on to log the white blotchy stuff, that was deer feed. In pic #3 above what appers to be a head sniffing the ground notice the white line. It looks like a continuation of the line on the log that starts on the left side of the log. I took a copy of both pics and laid them on top of each other. I then changed the opacity of the top pick 1% at a time and it seems to me that line is there the whole time and never dissapears. Its just not as bright. So where is the neck. I just dont know what kind of animal can stand there with both left side feet pointed the way they are if it is indeed facing the cam. Unless it turned just its head. I dont know just something I noticed. Has anyone else noticed it. If not look and let me know what you think.

  122. greenmartian2007 responds:


    Craig posted a comment by someone else on a newer thread that this was done near the Kinzua Dam.

    That is in Warren County, and the Kinzua is not that far from the New York border. It is inside the Allegheny National Recreational Area (I guess part of the Allegheny National Forest).

    My beef is, Warren county isn’t in “Northwestern PA” really. Western PA is right next door to be sure, but that was a mislabeling by BFRO. North-Central PA is more accurate.

    Here is more about the Kinzua Dam, from Wikipedia.

    It used to be Seneca land.

  123. Giovarist responds:

    Thanks Joe Levit,
    Yes, I initially saw what most others saw; what appears to be a bent over primate. Believe me, I would love it to be just that. Why else would any of us subscribe to this site? But the body dimensions and limb angles, as most seem to agree, look so odd.

    I remember a picture of a very strange looking animal sitting in a field, that was posted on either this or another cryptid website several years ago. I believe the poster declared it to be a chupacabra. On closer inspection, of course, it was simply a red fox. But because of the unusual position the fox was sitting in, many people saw something that in no way resembled a fox, until it was literally pointed out in a post using a diagram overlaid on the original photo; “here is the head…” and so forth. (anyone else remember this?)

    It seems to me this is a similar situation. And now that I’ve seen the bear head in photo #3, I’m afraid that’s all I CAN see.

    And yes, the feet look funny no matter how you look at it.

    Pareidolia. Had to look that up, and glad I did. Thanks again, Joe.

  124. DWA responds:

    m_m: all good points.

    Remember, though, that I was simply saying it’s not possible, based on the evidence provided by the photos alone, to say what, precisely, this is.

    Cheating I am, looking ahead a couple blogs for sure, but Meldrum noted one or two apparent ape similarities in the photos. Despite the fact that he’s apparently coming down bear, that just points out what photos can do.

    Which is: sometimes a lot. Sometimes not much at all.

    Which is why we’ll need photos, and footage, and significant additional evidence to confirm the sasquatch.

  125. YourPTR! responds:

    Very interesting and curious pics. Don’t think it’s a bear, but wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility all together, but to me looks like either a person in a suit or a real sasquatch. Certainly not a very big sasquatch and pretty skinny. Inconclusive but intruiging for sure.

  126. Mock26 responds:

    Warren, PA, is in Northwestern Pennsylvania. I grew up in that neck of the woods and everyone that I knew always said Northwestern when talking about that area of the state. Northcentral PA is further to the east.

  127. Mock26 responds:

    Most people who live in that region classify Erie, Crawford, Warren, Mercer, Venango, and Forest Counties as being part of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Northcentral PA runs from McKean and Elk to Tioga and Lycmoning.

  128. kezliura responds:

    I would like to see the other photographs that were taken as well however for comparison and correlation.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.