Jacobs’ Creature: A Bonobo?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 26th, 2007
Comparison posted on Boing Boing, which referred back to When A Mangy Bear Is Just A Mangy Bear, posted here.
While I consider the “Jacobs’ Creature” seen in the widely publicized photos a mangy bear, speculations have been far afield from the animals that might actually match it. It seems people are using a common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) to make sense of the configuration of the contoured animal. Since there is not even one “juvenile Sasquatch” around for comparison, why haven’t those who want to ignore the bear cubs in the photos merely go straight for the bonobo (Pan paniscus), formerly known as the pygmy chimpanzee (below)?
I expect to be misquoted by tomorrow morning, claiming I have said the “Jacobs’ Creature” is a bonobo, which I have not. I only post this here to show that finding the identity of something is often merely in the eye of the beholder.
For more on the “Jacobs’ Creature”, see the following here on Cryptomundo:
When A Mangy Bear Is Just A Mangy Bear
Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?
More on the Juvenile Bigfoot Photos
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
I DO see the similarities, however, the ears of the bonobo stick out, the creature seen in the Jacobs Photos has no protruding ears, close fit though. I wonder.
We’ll never know what it is… the pictures are not clear enough.
I can tell the picture of the Bonobo is a Bonobo.
And that first picture is a… meh.
Those pictures confirm the existance of Blobsquatch, thats about it.
Trust me, from my first hand experience of working with bonobos, it is not a bonobo.
Referring to the two pictures on top: Not even close!
It may not be a Bonobo, but I’m still confident that it is not a bear, and some form of primate.
I’ve seen online that someone (not me) has posted a blackbear photo with the bear in about as exactly in the same position as the “creature” as one could hope to find. Every feature was identical, the legs in the same position, the hip, back, etc, all in the same position. It was a daylight shot of a black bear with a brown coat. When lined up side by side, if you of course dismiss the terrain features (this bear was in grass, not next to a tree), one could think it was the same photo, a color print and a black-and-white one.
I never thought it was anything other than a bear but I was impressed with whomever it was who found a black bear photo with the subject in the exact same position and direction of the “creature”. If I had even a morsel of doubt that previous pics, bone overlays, and expert opinions didn’t erase, that was the nail in the coffin.
If these pictures had been said to have been taken in Africa, I would say without hesitation the creature was a chimp or bonobo. Location is everything.
Regarding those who insist that the Jacobs subject is a primate, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, I’m reminded of the comment from a member of the Flat Earth Society who, when confronted with photos of Earth from space, replied, “It’s easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye.”
Since the Jacobs animal looks like a bear, that is, there is nothing about it that doesn’t fit with a bear explanation, IMO, it’s best to call it a bear rather than to hold on tenaciously to an untenable interpretation.
halcyonicWV, is this the comparison you were thinking of?
Alton Higgins:
The pictures on top show a Mangy Bear as if it is a mirror image of the Jacobs Creature.
Not only are the knees and elbows out of line but the Jacobs Creature’s back is humped whereas the bear’s is flat, for the same posture.
If the Jacobs Creature was filmed in South America I bet that the pro-bear hypothesists would be telling us that it shows a Sloth.
The effort to distort an unknown creature into a known creature and to discourage further research is unscientific and conceals fear of the unknown.
Just my two cents.
First you had blobsquatches, now you have blobbears. Again, nothing conclusive.
superd,
No blobs. The Jacobs photo shows a real animal, and the young black bear superimposed on it in the link above is a real, readily identifiable, animal.
Thanks for posting this Bonobo photo Loren. The Bonobo here resembles the Jacob’s Creature more than even the mangy bear photo. One outstanding characteristic in comparison to the Jacob’s photos is that the creature is heavier set than the Bonobo in above photo. Both in the legs and the arms as viewed in the first creature photo.
Those seeing a bear head looking at the camera in the second Jacob’s creature pic need to have a close look at the morphology of what they view as the front left leg of the bear and I see as the left leg of a primate. Although bears are often pigeon-toed in their locomotion the foot and leg in the photo of question is turned in towards the torso at an unnatural 90 degree angle if it is a front left leg.
When outlining some feature of interest it is helpful not to cover up excessive area of an original photo with highlights and detail as it can easily skew the observers objective viewing. Case in point, there is a highlighted version of the bent figure photo that is in favour of the bear head theory and uses many wide indicator lines pointing out details supporting a potential bear morphology. A thick line pointing to a potential Bear’s mouth actually edits out the odd-angled foot in question and effectively eliminates the one detail that disproves the theory. Another similar highlighted photo uses more appropriate labelling (less obtrusive) to point out many details but simply ignore the odd-angled front left leg of the bear they are presenting.
The Jacob’s pics now appear more Simian to me than something from the Bear family. The bent over primate could very well be leaning over looking into the container object and could quite possibly be reaching into it with its right hand while supporting its upper body with the left arm.
If this is the case I would be inclined to say it is a largely bipedal primate, as a less bipedal primate such as the Bonobo would likely investigate from a sitting posture rather than a standing position. The flexibility viewed in this bent over posture can also indicate a common posturing position that has likely developed from the endless search and gathering of food from a bipedal stance.
These pictures are becoming more interesting!
Peace
So a bonobo looks like it too, but in light of the evidence, I dare to say so what?
Let’s remember that those “juvenile sasquatch” photos do not exist in a vacuum. There is other evidence besides just the appearance of the animals to consider. Sure, the bonobo looks like what we see in the photo, but so does a mangy bear. While there are curious features, the photos are unclear, and there is nothing that tells us that it CANNOT be a bear. Another fact, bears are KNOWN to inhabit the location where the photos were taken, bonobos are not. You could speculate about escaped pets, but to me that is adding unnecessary complication to the hypothesis considering a bear is a good physical match too and they inhabit this area. Then we have the fact that the subject is seen with other bears. While it’s unlikely, I suppose a bonobo might be seen with bears, but we KNOW that bears are seen with bears. So with two animals that look like the “juvenile sasquatch”, a bear or bonobo, which is the more logical conclusion considering what we know? Nothing about the photos suggests strongly to me that a bear is an impossibility and we should move to the more far fetched notion that it is a bonobo. Occam’s Razor, folks.
Richard88, I disagree. I think what is unscientific and closed minded is trying to fit the animal pictured into an explanation that it is a sasquatch despite the fact that we have no basis for comparison with a sasquatch as well as the surrounding evidence of the photo and it’s resemblance to a mangy bear How is distorting the photo into an unknown explanation more scientific? Saying this is likely a bear is not fear of the unknown, but rather a very rational hypothesis considering the facts. People ARE being scientific when they weigh the surrounding circumstances with what is seen in the photo as well as comparative analysis with a known animal that looks like it, then coming up with the reasonable certainty that we are seeing a mangy bear. There is nothing that we know of juvenile sasquatch or about the situation that allows us to make the scientific jump that those photos show that. I am open to the idea that sasquatch exists, but I am fairly certain that those photos do not show one.
Let me sum it up. We have a creature that looks like a mangy bear, photographed among other bears, in a habitat where bears are known to exist. People can still try stick a square peg into a round hole and say they are of a sasquatch or other primate, but in absence of any other physical evidence to the contrary, the scientific explanation is to say that it is most likely a bear. It’s as simple as that. That IS being scientific. Sure it COULD be something else, but that is the most reliably certain explanation based on what we know.
It might be a bear, but clearly not a bear suffering from mange. Even the pic offered for comparison shows that a bear suffering from mange has almost no hair, while the Jacobs pic shows the animal covered in black hair.
I don’t know why the mange theory is offered at all, we can simply conclude that it’s a bear based on the fact that it appears in the pic with other bears.
A bonobo? pleeeease….
I want to add that the animal in the Jacob’s pic doesn’t appear to have a pronounced gluteus maximus or equivalent muscle which I understand is crucial to bipedalism.
The animal looks to have a hump because it’s neck is reaching down, I think it’s just the animal’s shoulder blades pronounced in the posture it was in when the pic was taken.
Never let what you wish for drive your thinking; stay skeptical. Use simple logic. This is a bear, as Loren and other surmise. The other recent photos of other “mangy” bears shows near identical limb to body proportions as the Jacob photos. And it is not like anyone doubts the bear from the shot 20 minutes earlier.
it could be a new unknown species of bear riding bonobo
it straps the bear cubs to its feet and uses them like roller blades
or its a poor mangy bear wondering around with a couple of cubs …………..
this is a tough one to call
I would suggest that everyone take a look at the 2nd photo that was taken seconds after the one that is posted here.
To me, this is the photo that suggests that this is not a bear.
I don’t see a bear bending into that position. My first thought was of a curious child.
Not saying either way, but if you take a skeleton leg of a bear (as someone has already done) and superimpose it on the image #2, it fits. However the same is true with the skeleton leg of a mountain gorilla.
Skeptic- The bear pic is one pic of a bear with mange that has almost no hair. It does not mean all bears with mange have almost no hair. Mange does not cause all hair to fall out suddenly and simultaneously, it is sometimes a slow process by which the hair gradually comes out. Just because the “juvenile sasquatch” pic seems to have more hair than the bear with mange photo (and I’m actually not sure how much hair we can really assume the “sasquatch” pic has) does not mean that it can’t be a bear with mange. Hairloss occurs at stages and if you look up photos of bears with mange, you will find a large variety of differences in this regard. We simply cannot say it is CLEARLY not a bear suffering from mange. That is an assumption I do not think we can make from the available visual evidence. A bear with mange is still a perfectly feasible, and I think probable, explanation.
Skeptic- Another thing concerning amount of hair. The “juvenile sasquatch” photo can only be said to be “covered” in hair if you are imagining it as a sasquatch, in which case the amount of hair seems right. If however you compare it with healthy bears with all their hair, the “juvenile sasquatch” photo could be definitely said to be of a bear that has mange and has lost hair. It’s relative to what you are comparing it too. If the subject of the “sasquatch photos” is a bear, then it is a mangy one and although it is not totally bald YET, it does not have a full coat. If it is a sasquatch, I guess it has a nice coat of hair but I’ve explained why I don’t think sasquatch is the more likely explanation.
Richard888,
First of all, the two animals shown at the top of this page are not in the same posture.
Secondly, the two animals do exhibit similar joint configurations.
However, thirdly, my comments were not made with reference to the photo of a young bear suffering from mange shown at the top of this page. This
is the example of a bear comparison that I find more compelling.
Fourthly, I wish the goofy idea of bonobos hadn’t been raised in the first place. Talk about throwing oil on the creature distortion fire!
I agree with your notion that the location of a photo should influence the consideration of possible candidates. Very logical.
I find it hilarious that you accuse me of attempting to stifle research because of a fear of the unknown.
(Side note for CryptoInformant: The Flat Earth Society quote is well-known and was not a joke. See the wiki entry under “Flat Earth from space.”)
If the Jacobs photos had come from Africa, the situation would be reversed. There are no known bears in sub-Saharan Africa, but there are apes. So those skeptical of African crypto-bears would point out all the similarities to a primate.
My personal conclusion is that these pictures are just too ambivalent to draw any firm conclusions. The search goes on…
Great discussion people. I think it’s a bear. I really wish it was a Bigfoot.
Alton Higgins, the bear comparision pictures you and others have provided are indeed compelling. I was wondering if you (or anybody posting here) think the bear head was removed from the Jacob Creature pics. Ya know, are they total fakes?
I’m not saying the pictures are altered or fake. I’m just wondering what folks think.
bucko,
I don’t think there is any reason to suspect that the Jacobs photos have been digitally manipulated. The bear’s head appears to be lowered and angled away from the camera.
Here’s another link to see a side by side comparison of the rear ends of the Jacobs bear and a yearling black bear. The full yearling black bear photo can be seen here. http://www.wvblackbears.com/bears.htm Look at the bottom left photo.
Bucko- Well, I thought at first there was at least a vague possibility that they could have been altered somehow but after considering it, I don’t think so anymore. I agree with Alton Higgins that the head seems strange because it is bent down and at an odd angle. In my opinion, there seems to be no reason to think these were faked although I am in no way any kind of expert in photoshopping. I think the photos are real and undoctored, but have been misrepresented by the BFRO. They got a hold of these seemingly mysterious photos and played the sasquatch angle to the hilt.
Alton Higgins, thank you for your picture comparisons. They really do point to a bear. A couple days ago I couldn’t see how people thought bear. Now, with your help and Mr. Colemans help I can totally see it.
mystery_man, I know next to nothing about photoshopping. All I do know is people can show you a picture of about anything! Yes, the bear is at an odd angle. It seems like one of those chance pictures that appear to something it’s not. In this, case a bear that can look like a Bigfoot.
Well, another thing to consider if ou’re gonna compare the Jacob’s picture with a bonobo:
Bonobos have a very visible protruding genitalia, as you can plainly see on the photo included by Loren.
You can see none of that in Jacob’s creature.
Or on any bear photo for that matter.
I hate being the PERVERT that brings this up, but I felt someone had to do it 😉
BTW, it’s very interesting to see bonobos are so devout practicioners of YOGA (LOL)
Good point Skeptic about the lack of a pronounced gluteus maximus and need for one to be bipedal. If indeed these photos are of a juvenile then I would not expect to see as pronounced G M as I would expect from a full grown adult. One could expect a juvenile sasquatch to be of greater height at a younger age compared to the size of a human being at the same age.
I do not think these photos are of a Bonobo but for those supporting a bear hypothesis please explain the positioning of the out-turned foot of the right leg (rear) in the stretching photo. It points in the opposite direction as the rest of the body, a position I am unsure a bear is capable of making given its morphology.
I do not see where it says this creature was observed with the bear cubs. The 2 photos were taken about 28 minutes after the cub pictures. That is more than enough time for the cubs to be far away from this site before the subject appears.
The fact that the knees are not locked straight in either picture is also interesting!
Peace
I do not understand how identifying a creature in a photo as a known local animal (a black bear) that meets the physical criteria and features we are able to discern, photographed in the same area where bears were clearly photographed 30 minutes earlier, and in a position that other known bear photos show is unscientific.
I also do not understand how dismissing all of that, latching onto a creature only alleged and not conclusively proven to exist, in a juvenile state, no less (as though we have tons of historical scientific observation of the species), which while not impossible, is far more unlikely than the common occurence answer of a bear in a known habitat and yet is more scientific.
Please explain. Thank you.
Oh, and Alton: Yes! That’s the photo! Thanks for linking it!
Hullo, new to the discussion forums but an interested observer for a while now. I’ve been looking at these photos for some time and I confess I can’t quite get on board with the bear thing. I grant that it makes a good deal of sense in some ways, but the shape (in both) simply looks wrong to me — the shoulders and hind leg in particular. Also, just a small point here, in the preceding photo of the bear cub, the presence of which has been used in support of the “bear hypothesis,” the cub has much darker fur — are #2 and #3 a different variety of bear that happened to be about? How many varieties live in Pennsylvania? I’m sure that’s still more probable than a sasquatch, but still: is it likely? The lighter color in 2 and 3 could be explained by thinness of hair caused by the suggested mange, but then I would say that the mange seems unusually uniform — and anyway there’s clearly fur there, not just skin. I would have to say photo trickery seems more likely. And the bonobo’s head is much too small, even for Pennsylvania.
Of course it could also be a really big, mutant, bipedal otter. I hate to be the one to bring it up.
The animal in the photo is a black bear. I am an anthropologist and also a member of the bear clan in the Ioway tribe. Other than the paws and head, a bear’s anatomy, once the skin/hair is gone, looks very similar to hominids/primates. The reason it looks odd is just the camera angle. As someone else said, baldness is just the final stage of hair loss in animals with mange. It is just a small black bear guys.
HalcyonicWV- Precisely. That’s what I’ve been saying too.
John5- That is true that the bear photos were taken a short time apart, and I suppose it is possible the bears could have left while a sasquatch moved into the area. I won’t rule that out. But considering that bears were definitely there, it is perfectly reasonable to think that bears were STILL there and that is what we are seeing in the photos. We have no evidence at all that sasquatch were there, it is mere speculation. We see bears clearly gathered in the area, then see a photo of another bear with mange. The fact that the photos were taken 30 minutes apart does not to me cancel out the very real possibility that another bear with mange was in the area too.
As to the odd angle of the leg that everyone keeps talking about, I don’t see anything in the angle that rules out a bear. Bears do not have as inflexible feet as some here seem to think . Anyway, talking about how a sasquatch can move its feet around is complete conjecture and we have no way of knowing if a sasquatch would have its foot in that position either. bottom line is I do not think we can safely make any assumptions about sasquatch with no physical comparison available. The position is not a completely normal posture for a bear, but in my opinion not impossible at all, definitely not to the point of discarding the bear hypothesis to embrace one of a complete unknown.
What about footprints or hair samples? That creature spend some time near the bait…it should left some sort of the above aound it. Just my thought.
Has anybody else heard or read there are more photos of this Jacob Creature? I read on the BFRO forum there were more photos and people were hoping to get Mr. Jacobs to release them.
Of course, people could hoping for more pictures instead of knowing. But, if there are more photos and they’re being held back, that seems odd… Unless they would show really good pictures of a bear.
How often do cameras like that take pictures? If something was just standing there not moving around much would it take one picture? How much movement would it take to snap more then one picture?
What would a bonobo be doing out at night anyway?
I thought they were day creatures
I say bear since we already know there are bears about
I heard there were more photos but they were of significantly worse quality and that’s why they were holding them back. After reading all the comments over the multiple number of threads on this subject I’m practically convinced now that what we have here is nothing more than a bear with mange photographed at an odd angle, and to think I thought it could even been a person in a suit! I feel so foolish now, but it was certainly fun while it lasted. I thought we might really have something significant here for once but it seems a mundane explanation fits the bill. Still there’s always next time! IF these creatures exist, and I hope they do, then it can only be a matter of time before good quality evidence, the irrefutable proof that we all seek and long for is collected.
YourPTR- Yeah, just because these are most likely not of a sasquatch does not mean that it isn’t out there and if it is, there will be other opportunities for better photos in the future. I still won’t totally dismiss the remote possibility that these are of a sasquatch, and some day when we have a good holotype to compare with we might say “hey, those probably WERE of a sasquatch”. Who knows? But right now with what we know and see, the evidence points heavily towards a bear to me. That isn’t 100% positive, granted, but the most likely scenario in my opinion and a very rational one. Bears can have a very simian appearance when they lose their hair, especially in unclear, dark shots with an odd angle like these. Comparative photos attest to this. No photos of a juvenile sasquatch challenge this. If we weigh facts against conjecture, and take a critical approach to these, the scientific probability is that they are of a bear. Nothing solidly supports a jump to an unknown explanation. That is not being close minded, as some want to believe. That is looking at the obvious evidence and surmising that maybe we should call a spade a spade and accept these are quite likely of a bear. I want good photographic evidence as much as the next person, but these aren’t it.
Well…
Toay in my local paper, the Sharon Herald, they had an actual article about this “event” on the inside of the front page. Titled “Did camera catch Bigfoot in Penn’s Woods?”
They quote Rick Jacobs (more than I have seen him say before), and mention that he is from Elk County (which, I wish to repeat, is NOT in Western PA). Yet the Associated Press news story repeated that it is in “Northwestern PA.” I shook my head. (Yeah, maybe it is “Northwestern PA” say, if you are living in south New Jersey.) An example of a quote using the misleading “Northwestern PA” description: “Paul Majet of the Bigfoot group [BFRO] said he has been to the northwest Pennsylvania area and done some analysis.” But no analysis was described after that detail. Just a lot of the following:
“My impression is that it is not a bear,” Majeta said. “It appears to be a primate-like animal. In my opinion, it appears to be a juvenile Sasquatch.” So much for some anticipated scientific analysis, not faith-based commentary!
Anyway, to contradict themselves, the article does say that “Rick Jacobs, the hunter, said he planted the stationary tree camera in Allegheny National Forest, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, to try to find a handsome buck.”
So there you have it….NORTHEAST of Pittsburgh. But the mileage disturbs me. 115 miles? They must mean as the crow flies. It would take a lot longer than 115 to get there.
And, to top it all off, the Slug-line of the report’s location is…
Ridgway, PA–which is actually on the EASTern edge of the Allegheny National Forest, in Elk county.
This thing is around the Kinzua dam. You want to find the critter, if it exists, it’s in that area. Not “Northwestern PA.”
I wonder why Bigfoot “sightings” are considered virtually conclusive by many advocates, when simple photos of a mangy bear cause some to “see” a small Sasquatch? What if one of these folks, or others who are simply suggestible, have a fleeting look or glimpse of such a bear in the wild, would we have another “sighting” touted and held up as evidence for Bigfoot?
Watch out!! This story has shown on local TV station KOMO-TV in Seattle! The theory is about to hit the fan. If this goes national, the hoaxers will be out in force.
#1 Legs and arms are too long for a bear. #2 Back hump shows extreme flexibility that quadrupeds don’t have in their spines. #3 Shoulders too wide. #4 even balding bears have ears. Photo shows no ears. What are you people looking at???..Not what I am …that’s for sure. This could only be a squatch or a chimp. What about the tipped over mineral lick? Could a small bear do that without a 4 foot plus height leverage… it must weigh 40 to 50lbs.? I don’t think so, it is on level ground when we see the first photos. So it’s a chimp or a squatch. Which is found in New England….. Ok! you guessed it! It’s a Squatch. THE END.
Canuck- We are looking at the same photos that most unbiased experts are looking at when they also concur that it is probably a bear. The other two that the BFRO managed to get behind them COULD be right, but unlikely in my opinion.
Also, to counter what you said, #1)- The arm and leg length are within the limits of a bear. Remember too that loss of hair could create the illusion of longer limbs. #2)- Quadrupeds can be very flexible with their spines, some remarkably so. It is incorrect to say that a quadrupedal animal could not possibly display a hump like that. How rigid do you think an animal’s spine is? Bears are actually a lot more flexible than some seem to be giving them credit for. The angle of the photo and the darkness obscures things, but I see no reason at all to think a bear could not be in that position. #3) Bears aren’t exactly known for being slight, narrow shouldered animals. The shoulders do not seem too wide to me at all. Again, within the range of a bear. #4) I agree that the apparent lack of ears is a bit odd. But the photo is dark, it is at an odd angle, the ears could be obscured. The bear might also have its ears back, which would make them even harder to see. I am certainly not ready to throw out the other evidence and say it is a sasquatch just because I can’t quite clearly make out ears. #5) With the mineral lick, yes a bear could do that if it really wanted to.
I won’t presume this to be THE END. Like I said, this is PROBABLY a bear, but maybe it isn’t. It is interesting how others can say with 100 percent absolute certainty that is must be a sasquatch and cannot be a bear. Very few absolute certainties in science, you take what you have and you come to as much certainty as you can get within reason. My eyes are just fine when looking at these. Sasquatch could be out there, but I think the evidence on these photos at this point leans towards a bear.
Yeah…what mystery_man said. Really, nobody could want this to a Bigfoot more then me. At first glance all I could see was a Bigfoot. Well… actually I thought chimp.
I thought no way could that be a bear. Now, with all the pictures of bears I’ve seen, I can see a bear. I could be wrong. I HOPE I’M WRONG. This is one time being wrong would be great.
Bucko- Actually, I hope I’m wrong too. If only the thing in those photos had looked towards the camera at some point so we could see its face! That would have likely ended the debate right there. That or some other feature obviously impossible for a bear, like a hand with fingers, obvious full bipedalism, SOMETHING.
Mystery_man (and everybody) that’s why I keep harping about more pictures! Now I’ve read there are more pictures, but that they’re of such poor quality they’re useless. Of course, the people writing about this don’t really know. That’s just “what they’ve heard”.
That seems very odd to me. Of course more pictures, no matter how poor, would be of some use. If only to make people like me shut up and realise that the extra pictures are very poor and of no use!
This whole thing makes me very uneasy. I’m not gonna sit here and accuse the BFRO or anybody of lying. It might sound like I am, but I’m not. It’s just that the way people have gone over the pictures we have, then they’d do the same with more pictures and maybe see the SOMETHING PRIMATE we all wanna see.
More pictures might show a bear and end this debate once and for all. I’m afraid that might be real reason they’re not being shown. That would be wrong and I hope that’s not the case.
Canuck, you say:
#1 Legs and arms are too long for a bear.
I say: No, they actually aren’t too long for a bear. The camera angle does make us think otehrwise but they’re practically of equal length.
#2 Back hump shows extreme flexibility that quadrupeds don’t have in their spines.
I say: Wrong. I’ve seen black bears stretching in the same way my dog does and in all cases, if it’s not the downward-facing dog position, they almost appear cat-like in stretching posture.
#3 Shoulders too wide.
I say: Huh?
#4 even balding bears have ears. Photo shows no ears.
I say: Camera angle. I see no identifiable headshot, so does that mean it doesn’t have a head, either? Hardly.
(#5) What about the tipped over mineral lick? Could a small bear do that without a 4 foot plus height leverage… it must weigh 40 to 50lbs.?
I say: About a month ago, I was walking in the forest in which I live – in NY state, directly across from the Delaware River and next to 3000+ acres of untouched NY and PA wilderness. I often hear and see strange things but on this day I heard grunting, smelled what reminded me of a zoo, and heard rocks being moved. I immediately thought I was finally going to be able to see a squatch in full daylight. As I crept closer to one of the slate quarries on my property where the sounds had originated, I was somewhat disappointed to see an adolescent black bear, approximately the same size and dimensions as Jacobs’ photo, btw, forraging, and moving very large rocks. It caught my scent, looked directly at me and hauled it’s ass out of the area. I went over to the spot to see what it had been digging and discovered the bear had moved incredibly large rocks, one of them that weighed well over 50 pounds had been dug up and moved completely out of the ground. So, yes, even small bears have incredible stamina and strength
Hi, I understand people want to see a bear. Tell me please. Where is the bear’s tail? There is none. That’s what I thought, someone pinched off the bear’s tail for a souvenir.
This is a Squatch. The genitalia is visible in this photo, it is a male. A bear’s genitalia would not be visible in a photo at this angle.
tapper and Mystery_Man…”YOU OWE ME FOR ONE JELLY DONUT! The End!
I see a tail.
It’s not clear enough to determine if the photo has a tail or male parts. I believe it is very bonobo like after primate expert Vanessa Woods worked out the actual size and determined it was primate like. Dr. Meldrum also has mentioned how chimpanzee like it was. I feel this information came a little late and many jumped on the bear wagon too soon, never giving this possible young Sasquatch a chance.