MSNBC Video on Jacobs’ Creature
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 30th, 2007
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has fun with the “Jacobs’ Creature” photos. He appears with Bob Kiviat, who produced the 1998 Fox program, “The World’s Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed.” I discussed the shallowness of that attempt to overthrow the Patterson-Gimlin footage in my Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America.
It should also be noted that Kiviat was the producer of one documentary on the Roswell alien autopsy film, and then another one in which he debunked his own documentary.
With Kiviat and others lining up to support the Jacobs’ Creature being a “juvenile Sasquatch,” and Jeff Meldrum and I saying it is a bear with mange, the choices are clear here.
As to MSNBC, we should have expected no less or no more than what was produced there. I like Keith’s view on many things, from baseball to muckraking, but his ridicule of Bigfoot is getting old.
Anyway, here it is:
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.
Good lord that so called reporter is a TOOL. I wouldnt even clinch my fist i would just slap him like the little girl he is…..sorry the way the media portrays such events really gets to me because i KNOW they are out there and i KNOW this because ive been within 20 yards of a large male…..sheeeesh!!! i need a drink!
I didn’t think the tone of the report was as bad an anticipated. However, this story is getting a lot more press than it deserves (Fox and CNN websites covered it prominently). As somebody mentioned at the beginning, apes (and man) don’t investigate something on the ground using the straight-legged stance in the 2nd picture. Plus, the montage shot of a mangy bear and the Jacobs creature match up *very* well. This is a case of a picture deceiving us due to an image we all have in our minds: a chimp shuffling across the ground, head down, one arm extended forward. With the head perfectly blocked, it does like look a chimp, not a bear – but everything else points to ‘bear’.
Okay, the prairie dog having an OMG moment is funny.
Even though I’m leaning heavily toward “mangy bear”, (but am still not convinced either way) I thought it was pretty interesting that the guy who spends his life debunking hoaxes is willing to give it an open door. Maybe that’s why Olbermann got a little over the top — when he realised that his guest wasn’t going to summarily dismiss it as rubbish.
Sure hope they manage to find out more about this critter.
How do we know that Bigfoot don’t look exactly like a mangy bear?
Benjamin Radford responds:
October 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
How do we know that Bigfoot don’t look exactly like a mangy bear?
I have never heard of a BigFoot described as a mangy bear. Never even heard of one being described as a bear. BigFoot don’t have muzzles like bears do. So how could one see a bear and think it’s a BigFoot? The only way I think that could be possible is if the animal’s head and face were not seen. then I guess it could be possible. Besides bears don’t usually walk around on 2 feet. I think even on my drunkest day I would be able to tell a bear from a BigFoot. No matter how hammered I was. And what more could sober a person up than seeing a BigOne.
And as jamesrav said, this story is getting a lot more press than it deserves. I totally agree.
The Patterson film, a hoax, proof, ZERO.
Ohh, I did NOT see a bear, or a guy in a suit, and i certainly was NOT hulucinating. Yes Bigfoot is real. Wether these photos in particular are of a real bigfoot or not, is to be seen. I have never seen a juvenile, so I have no clue. It looks realish, but you never can truly know…….
Well… the report was exactly what one would expect from Olbermann; have the Daily Show or Colbert picked up on this story?
What’s scary is the amount of work that Kiviat has had done on his face…
Just my two cents.
hey loren & everyone yes that was a interesting news segment about the jacobs bigfoot-bear photos on countdown with keith oberman last night indeed. im sure we will see alot news media about these conterversal photos in weeks to come. thanks bill green 🙂
Ben Radford- How do we know sasquatch don’t look like a mangy bear? I guess we don’t. But we do know that mangy bears look like mangy bears. With the information we have, in absence of any other physical evidence to the contrary, I’d say it is reasonably safe to say that what we see in those photos is a mangy bear. Jumping to other conclusions based on comparisons to something that we don’t even have a solid holotype for is something I think should be done only if we saw something here that made it quite impossible for it to be a bear. I don’t see anything of that sort in these photos. It looks like a mangy bear, in an area where bears live, photographed around the time of other bears being clearly in the area. Sasquatch may look like mangy bears, but that isn’t necessarily the most likely explanation here in my opinion.
i like kieth olberman, i think he is a funny, intelligent guy. what i think is wierd is how he talked about bob h. being the “man in the suit” without questioning it at all, however he is convinced from the word go that jacob’s photos are a bear. i am not convinced one way or the other, sometimes they look like a bear, sometimes they look like nessie in a suit, and other times they look like some kind of biped. i think i have lost my point, i just wish that the media didn’t treat these kinds of situations as a big joke all the time.
p.s. judging from two of the comments here it seems like jacobs creature may be driving some people to drink 🙂
We’ll not see many stories in mainstream media after today. As I said in an earlier post, this type of story plays well into journalism seasonality (Halloween) … so it’s had its day.
There’s no doubt in my mind – this is a bear, and there’s no objective scientist who can prove otherwise. There’s simply not enough evidence from those photos. And, besides, in all of the documented sighting reports, has anyone ever seen a young squatch down on all fours like this? Can a college-educated primatologist chime in on the arch in the animal’s spine? Look at the arch in this animal’s back and compare it to the cubs in the earlier picture. See a resemblance? I certainly do.
Look closely at the back left foot. From what I can see, it doesn’t seem to be a primate’s foot. It looks more like a paw than anything else (the back right one is questionable as well, though less evident). And if it’s a squatch, where’s the left hand? Buried in the ground or hidden in the grass? Hardly. With little vegetation, I’d expect to see more details if this thing had hands and feet.
Nobody has said a word about the hair length on this animal. The animal that I saw many years back had considerably longer hair than the thing in this photo does. I mean, it was pitch black outside and I could barely make out anything beyond its mesmerizing eyes, but the one thing that didn’t escape me was the hair hanging off its body (specifically, its legs).
Let me guess – this Jacobs photo must be a squatch with mange, or young squatches don’t have long hair, right?
For crying out loud, why must researchers and groups like BFRO jump on this as the Holy Grail of squatch photos? Of all the organizations out there, BFRO should know better. Stories like this don’t enhance our credibility, they only hurt it. The only benefit I’m seeing is the cash that’s lining some folks pockets. Shameful, really.
Tapper- I’d suggest you go read some of the other threads on this topic. The comments will answer a lot of your questions, or at least give you ideas with which to come to your own conclusions. Some comments also mention the same things you brought up about sasquatch on all fours, etc. I’d go into it here, but I’ve already written at length about my opinion on the matter on the other threads. The spine and hair length issues have all been addressed, although opinions vary.
Will do. Thanks MM, I appreciate it.
Elsanto sez >>What’s scary is the amount of work that Kiviat has had done on his face…
HAHA! Oh my god, that is so true… damn creepy, if you ask me. He’s got that clownish, cheery, quasi-vampiric expression I usually see on Laura Bush.
Nobody should ever accuse the mainstream media of rationality when it comes to stuff like this.
Exactly right, michaelm: Olbermann takes Hieronymous-in-suit, the most laughably implausible hypothesis in the history of squatchery, as gospel, then claims knowledge that we have a bear here. Would Olbermann do the same run with a rumor passed along by one of his makeup people that Jackie Kennedy-Onassis was really a man? Why not? He knows about as much about that as he does about this.
If I’ve said it a million times I’ll say it again: there is no “clear” choice here. No one can convince anyone what this is. The photos are simply inconclusive. I’d need more than this – a lot more – to send an expedition to Jacobs’s doorstep. But I wouldn’t be convinced it’s a bear either. The photos are INCONCLUSIVE.
It’s simply irrational to “conclude” what this is. You’re in violation of Science 101 if you do: CONCLUSIVE characters of species must be clearly in evidence. Are they here? Nope. And please, no one Photofake any more bones on this and call it proof.
But no one ever accused Olbermann of a college degree, either. And definitely never of properly using one.
DWA – The photos are INCONCLUSIVE.
I’d have to disagree with you on that.
The 2nd photo yes, inconclusive. The 3rd photo definitely shows the bears head. I have a hard time believing people can’t see it. And the fact that the first photo shows the cubs pretty much says it all. So what if the photos are taken 20-30 minutes apart. All I’m saying is that, to me and some others on here, the photos ARE conclusive. They tell the whole story. And the story is BEAR. I really wish you could see what I see in the 3rd photo. Now onward through the fog. For the next photo.
DARHOP: I disagree with you.
And I have more convincing evidence than you do. By far.
My evidence? THESE THREADS!
I JUST read a new submission on the “when is a mangy bear a mangy bear?” thread that CONCLUSIVELY proclaims a sagittal crest.
Do bears have those?
“I have a hard time believing people can’t see it” is not conclusive.
People not seeing it IS conclusive.
Of what?
THE PHOTOS ARE INCONCLUSIVE.
I do need to take back something I said above.
Hieronymous-in-Suit is NOT the most laughably implausible hypothesis in the history of squatchery.
It’s up there. But it’s not it.
The hypothesis that everything we’ve ever seen about the sas is the product of lie, hoax, hallucination or honest misidentification? That’s the one that takes the cake.
But H-i-S is close. I will give it that.
The problem with people like Olbermann is that they have a pulpit from which they can spout pretty much what they want, regardless the level of knowledge they have of the topic in question. And of course the ancillary problem is a general public that isn’t educated enough, on any of the relevant topics, to call the Olbermanns on it.
The problem that I, personally, have with humanity in general is the distressing tendency of ignorance to win out. But I don’t get upset about that; I just feel superior. And so should you. If, of course, you aren’t ignorant.
(pdxbigfoot: if I were you, I cannot conceive of myself getting so upset about this. My God, YOU SAW A SASQUATCH. I’d cut up my credit cards in exchange for that. Even if I hadn’t seen one – and I haven’t, dammit – I’d be smugly smirking at that bespectacled baboon and laughing between sips. Oh, I WOULD have a beer handy, you are so right there. After all, I’m way smarter than average.)
I JUST read a new submission on the “when is a mangy bear a mangy bear?” thread that CONCLUSIVELY proclaims a sagittal crest.
I disagree again, Sorry, but I see no sagittal crest on any of the animal’s shown in the Jacob’s photo’s. And after all aren’t we talking about the photo’s? Not the when is a mangy bear a mangy bear post. Like I said, the 3rd photo plainly show’s the bears head. Might be a bit hard to see because it blend’s with the rest of the body. I’m sorry you can’t seem to see it. But it’s there. Do BigFoot have a snout (muzzle) and ears that resemble a bear? Not that I have ever heard of. So for me the photo’s are good enough to know that this is a bear conclusively. Granted the 2nd photo it is in a strange position. But the other two really do tell all. Isn’t it nice to be able to express our opinions. Even if we don’t agree sometimes. Seeing is believing. for me it is anyway. And I see bear. 2 cub’s and possibly their momma.
You should think about changing this site’s name to Skeptomundo since the majority of posters have obviously never had an experience with a unknown animal or let alone gone out in the woods (which excludes heavily used hiking trails and/or recreational areas), including the hunters on their ATV’s or in a stand in their back forty, or with their well paid guide. I’ll see a trapper here and there when I’m out in a remote area, but very few hunters go off the beaten path anymore and the ones who do have had quite a few documented reports. Those are the ones we should take seriously. Whether or not it’s a biped in the Jacobs film, one should never claim to say 100% that he or she actually knows. It just shows your ego based bias one way or another.
DWA- I don’t know if we can say that that one comment can be considered CONCLUSIVELY proving that the subject of these pics has a sagittal crest. It is one person’s opinion. I also have a lot of experience with wildlife and I do not see it. I suppose if one really looks and really wanted to see it, then they could maybe make out something like that, but to me nothing in those photos conclusively points to a sagittal crest. Looks like another case where people are going to be saying “I can’t believe people aren’t seeing the sagittal crest”, and as you said yourself that isn’t conclusive.
I wish we had clearer evidence of this being something other than a bear. A face shot, clear hands with fingers, a truly abnormal position for a bear, anything like that would have to me leaned this debate the other way for me. Right now everything in those pics lays within the parameters of a bear. We do not know if it is within the parameters of a sasquatch. The conclusive evidence that we DO have suggests bear, namely comparative analysis with pics of mangy bears (we know they can look like this), the fact that this area supports bears, and that bears were clearly photographed in the same area. We know none of this for certain with regards to sasquatch. Any one of these things on its own would not necessarily rule out sasquatch, but taken together they are fairly persuasive arguments for a bear in my opinion. If one wants to be objective, then bear is a probable explanation. I won’t conclude without a doubt that it is a bear, but I think it is a very good likelihood.
In the end the pics are inconclusive in a way because no one can prove without a doubt what is in that picture, and we simply do not know enough about sasquatch morphology to say anything for sure in that regard. But given what we do know I think we can say that there is a good chance these are of a bear. I actually do not want cryptozoology to embrace photos like these without at least considering the mundane possibilities, especially in a case like this where a mangy bear is a good match for the appearance and the circumstances. In absence of any other physical evidence to the contrary, I have to lean towards bear on these. I think it is a very reasonable, scientific assessment at this point in time.
PG on the other hand, well that’s a whole other story! 🙂
DWA- Oh yeah, also throw in the apparent quadrupedalism of the subject of the photos onto that list. Again, we don’t know if sasquatch do that, maybe they DO. There are a few sightings along those lines as you helpfully pointed out in another post. But we do know bears are quadrupedal. Again, on its own not overwhelming, but taken together with everything else, leans me towards bear. We simply cannot throw away what we know in favor of an unknown without more compelling evidence to the contrary.
I really suggest that people here who doubt a bear could look like that or be in that position look up photos of bears with mange. Bears can demonstrate some surprisingly simian attributes when balding and I think when seen at a certain angle, in an unclear shot, without the benefit of defining features, could very likely be mistaken for something simian in nature. Bears are also actually a lot more flexible than people seem to give them credit for. Their spine and feet are not robotic or rigid at all and can move into a wide variety of postures. I want to dispel the myth that quadrupeds all have inflexible spines or feet, as this is simply not always true. Some quadrupeds have remarkably flexible spines.
Bears are not, however, fully bipedal. They have no hands with fingers and opposable thumbs. They have a face that is not simian. These are things that to me would have ruled out a bear in these photos had they shown any of them. Basically anything we can see in the PG footage is a good start for alleged sasquatch photos to have.
DARHOP and m_m: you’re not reading past what I’m saying to what I’m saying.
“I JUST read a new submission on the “when is a mangy bear a mangy bear?” thread that CONCLUSIVELY proclaims a sagittal crest.
I disagree again, Sorry, but I see no sagittal crest on any of the animal’s shown in the Jacob’s photo’s. And after all aren’t we talking about the photo’s? Not the when is a mangy bear a mangy bear post.”
Um, no, we’re talking about the photos and only the photos; and that quote is precisely proving my point. You CONCLUSIVELY disagree with what someone else says the photo is CONCLUSIVELY showing. Reason? BOTH of you are seeing what you want to see. INCONCLUSIVE is what that is called. By a scientist, that is.
“DWA- I don’t know if we can say that that one comment can be considered CONCLUSIVELY proving that the subject of these pics has a sagittal crest. It is one person’s opinion.”
Right. Stated as a no-doubt, no-way-otherwise CONCLUSION.
INCONCLUSIVE.
Folks who defend P/G (and I’m not pointing to anyone here!) need to remember what the rush to judgment by scientific Olbermanns thinking pseudo-scientifically did to that as evidence.
The above posts lead me to believe we may be embarking on a yes-no merry-go-round here.
But the point I’m trying to make is at the end of my last post.
If scientists had held an open mind on the P/G film, we might have documented a new species 40 years ago. But no one considers it conclusive, one way or the other, mainly because almost all mainstream scientists who saw it did what so many are doing to these photos – dismiss them on what is far-from conclusive evidence. And for Pete’s sake, P/G isn’t two photos. It’s a MOVIE. If it were a known species we would know which one. It’s not too ambiguous what that is: a bipedal primate. The only question is whether it’s wearing a suit or not. And there is much more evidence that that isn’t a suit than there is that it is one.
If you can’t say what that is, you can’t say what this is, without more evidence what this is.
And you cannot – in all fairness – get on mainstream scientists for dismissing P/G if you can so readily come to a conclusion on this one.
DWA- I always appreciate your input and there is a lot we typically agree on. However, maybe it is you who haven’t been reading my posts. I have made no final conclusions, nor have I said that this is not a sasquatch for sure. I didn’t even make a conclusion about that person’s post. I said it is one person’s opinion, not that it was necessarily WRONG. I have said that sort of thing time and time again over several posts.
I have also made clear that I am not seeing what I WANT to see. I don’t WANT to see one thing or the other. Maybe there is a sagittal crest there, I don’t see it because to my eyes it isn’t there. An objective person is not going to immediately see it, I don’t think, if it is even there at all. The thing in this photo looks photo looks and acts like a mangy bear, so how is saying that somehow unscientific? What else do you want? I AM being scientific and I have explained time and time again why. You know that I work in a scientific field, so you must know that it somehow offends me to be told to go back to science101 or that I do not approach these things with an open scientific mind. I find it interesting that I could be accused of being unscientific when I have given very clear and rational reasons why I think this shows a bear and tend to go with that assessment over a complete unknown such as a sasquatch of which this photo shows no evidence of being. The photo is inconclusive, but to a scientist, a bear is what this photo shows to a REASONABLE DEGREE. And a lot of science is just that, coming as close as one can to a conclusion within a reasonable degree. It is not biased, it is an appraisal of the facts involved. I am just trying to teach a little about how science actually tends to work, not trying to be “right”. It is not a challenge to anyone. I know I have explained these things on the other threads at great length.
I do think sasquatch might be out there. If I thought these photos had actual usefulness, I’d say so. Maybe they ARE of a sasquatch. But can you honestly say these photos are totally inconclusive and that we can not surmise at all that they are likely of a bear? Is it really more scientific to hold onto a possible unsubstantiated explanation when so much points to these being of a bear? It makes me a little disappointed to hear that as I find your posts to be quite intelligent, and I think you know enough about science to know that. I think these are not totally conclusive, but from an objective, unbiased angle, they certainly leans towards bear. Period. I think anyone who would ignore the facts here is maybe not being completely objective.
To sum up my opinion. Evidence that these are possibly of a bear- Quite a lot. Evidence that these are of a sasquatch- Not so much. Therefore, it is rational to say that there is a good chance they are of a bear. What could be more scientific than that? Are the photos inconclusive, yes. Is leaning towards the opinion that these are more probably a bear unscientific? Simply, no.
m_m: I was replying more to DARHOP, who does seem to be coming to a conclusion, and a lot of others here who are coming to another, quite different, conclusion.
That says inconclusive to me; and I’m mindful as I’ve said that P/G was dismissed by people who leaned one way on it.
That’s all.
I’ll tell everyone here a little anecdote about “readily coming to conclusions”. I showed these photos to a Japanese zoologist who I sometimes work with doing field research. I showed them without any pretense and without mentioning anything crytpozoological in nature. I just said “These are weird, what do you think?” He studied them for a minute, furrowed his brow a bit, then proclaimed “Probably a bear with mange.”, then went back to what he was doing. I don’t know exactly what my point is telling this. Maybe it is just to say that these are not inconclusive to all scientists. Some of us have more open minds than others, and I think I am one of those. At least I entertain the thought that I could be wrong about these. That being said, even I think these photos are quite possibly showing a bear and I have studied them thoroughly. It is not any sort of wishful thinking at all, come on now I’m not a denialist! In absence of other evidence to counter the evidence that these are of a bear, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Some scientists like, oh say, Meldrum, seem to agree.
By the way, funnily enough, I actually TEACH Science 101 (or the equivilent anyway) at high school! 🙂
M_M: the only thing I can say about that anecdote is:
The folks who saw Patterson/Gimlin, so far as I can tell, were doing the precise same thing.
Too rapidly shoehorning a possible unknown into what you know is a failing to which scientists are as susecptible as the rest of us. That these aren’t inconclusive to all scientists could simply say that some scientists aren’t uncomfortable jumping to conclusions. That I’ve seen many bears of the same alleged species as this one in the wild, and that this didn’t look like one to me, and still doesn’t (again, I don’t KNOW what it is), says something to me. Not about sasquatch, but rather about using photos to draw conclusions, without more evidence.
To be fair, m_m, this scientist was probably “playing layman” when you showed him these photos. He didn’t feel, I’m sure, professionaly pressured to state his opinion as a scientist, but rather OK to shoot off an impression of what he saw there. I do think that it’s a significant point to ponder that, if you don’t think something exists, that thing is probably going to be automatically ruled out when you see a shot that is no more definitive than these are.
I JUST read a new submission on the “when is a mangy bear a mangy bear?” thread that CONCLUSIVELY proclaims a sagittal crest.
Do bears have those?
Grizzly Bears do.
Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos
The grizzly bear is a large mammal in the Ursidae family. The skull of a grizzly bear is extremely large with a broad, short rostrum. The large canine teeth and specialized pre-molar and molar teeth support its omnivorous diet. The sagittal crest is more developed in older individuals.
specimen information
Collected: 5 June 1988
Locality: Whitecourt, AB
Township: 59 Range: 13 W5
Latitude: 54° Longitude: -115.75°
Age: adult Sex: m ©2006 Royal Alberta Museum Pretty much every kind of Bear I checked out on the web has a sagittal crest. As do many other animals.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to start any arguement’s or anything. I guess we all see what we see in the photo’s. Except I do have to say this though. If I was seeing what I want to see. I would be seeing a BigFoot. I didn’t look at these photo’s wanting to see a bear. I looked at these photo’s actually hoping we might have some good new photographic evidence of the BigOnes. So in all actuality I was ( wanting ) to see BigFoot. But that is not what I saw in the photo’s. Again, I wasn’t trying to start anything with you guy’s. Just stating my opinion’s of the photo’s. And I will also say this. I also have shown these photo’s to a few different people. ( One I really didn’t want to, cuz I knew what his response would be. ) And every one of them saw a bear. Granted they are not scientist or anything like that. But they all saw the same thing. One person said it looked kinda like a cub was underneath the animal in the 3rd photo. Like they were playing. That’s why it is in the position it’s in. In kinda of a sprawl over the cub. Anyway, just more opinions. Conclusive or Not this has been one good subject either way you look at it.
DWA- Yeah, that sounds about right concerning my anecdote. Anyway, where I think we agree is that yes, the photos are inconclusive. I think to tell you the truth that most photographic evidence in cryptozoology is. Where I feel we disagree is to what extent they are inconclusive. You think nothing can be told from them either way, and I think they are probably of a bear. That’s fine, and it is good to debate on these things. As I have said before, I appreciate your input and look forward to your posts. That is what my own honest appraisal of them says. There is no shoehorning involved for me, and I dislike shoehorning as much as you do. It is not a bold assertion, merely my hypothesis based on my own experience, what I see in the photos, and the surrounding circumstances of the photos. You don’t agree, and that is fine. I don’t claim to be the final say on what these photos are of.
As I said on another post, there is rarely any final truth in science. Supposed “truth” changes over time with new evidence, new observations, ect, and this has been shown time and time again over the history of science. We are constantly opening up new avenues of research and building upon old ones, so if we actually getting closer to the idealistic version of “the truth”, we would be finding FEWER things to study and LESS new information. In a very strict sense, there really isn’t much that IS absolutely conclusive. Instead, we come to as good an explanation as we can given what is presented to use and the tools we have. We reach levels of certainty based on the evidence and observations. I have explained what I see as the evidence pointing to these being a bear. So when I say I think these photos likely show a bear, that is not conclusive. It is a best guess given what I see and what I know.
So, agree that the photos are not 100 percent conclusive. Disagree with where they lie within that area of inconclusiveness. That fair? Now, how about them Knicks? 🙂
m_m: glad I’m not rooting for them Knicks. 😉
You and I agree, I think, on the only real point that doesn’t come down to picking nits. Neither of us is funding an expedtion based on these photos. Not on them alone, for sure. These photos plus 20 multiple-witness sightings reported over the past month in the surrounding ten square miles might be a different story. But I’d still really want better shots than these.
If I have plane tickets for TX or the PNW, I’m not eating them based on this evidence. Not unless you are paying me a LOT of money to cure bears of mange. 😉
i dont understand why there are only 2 pictures of the so called “mangy bear”, usually with game camera’s they take photos until they cant detect anymore movement. maybe jocob’s has more pictures and it really is just a bear. im still undecided though, i really do want to believe that bigfoot does exist. i think it could be possible for a small population to exist in the mountainous forest terrains of north america and other countries. gorrilas were only just discoved in the late 1800’s so why not bigfoot. the creature in the picture looks odd to me though. the back legs looks short compared to the arms and resembles primates like chimps and gorillas but also somewhat like a sickly bear since bears have short back legs compared with their front quarters. to me it looks like the creature could be playing around and doing somersaults inbetween camera shots. if it really was a mangy bear i doubt it would be wasting energy playing around but thats just my opinion. these days there are so many people out there trying to decieve everyone else. its so hard to truth from intentional llies.
“He’s got that clownish, cheery, quasi-vampiric expression I usually see on Laura Bush.”
Best. Post. Ever. 😀
DARHOP- Don’t worry, nobody is arguing with you. Just trading opinions and to me, debating in a thoughtful manner. Especially me, I’m mostly agreeing with you, we just differ with how sure we are about our conclusion. If it’s any consolation, as you can see from my extensive posts on this topic, I think these pictures are likely of a bear too. So does Loren, so does Meldrum, and so do a lot of people. Don’t feel intimidated to express your opinion, that’s what this forum is for. 🙂
I wish I lived in PA, cause I would go out and find this bear and sign him up as my client! Think about it…everyone is talking about him and he’s not getting a cut of the deal! I understand that Jacobs was paid for the photos…but did the bear get anything??? NOooooo… MM and others are on tv talking about the bear and did the bear get to tell his side of the story? NOooooo! He was just strolling through the forest and had his picture taken and slashed all over the internet without any signed consent!!! We all know that fame only lasts 15 minutes and time is ticking… (I would also like to caution you all that calling my potential client “mangy” or “skinny” may be grounds for a libel lawsuit…so watch it!).
I dont agree with the mangy bear theory, and I’m not so sure on the ” juvenile Sasquatch” either… but come on people this photo clearly displays an animal with bipedal like features .. lets say a chimpanzee that probably got loose from some traveling zoo or nearby exotic farm?? It definitely deserves an intellectual investigation and not the ..” oh my another so-called bigfoot sighting ha, ha, ha!” ” what do the viewers think?”. I am so critical of all these bigfoot experts and or cryptos out there who are jumping on the ” I believe, but am an initial skeptic” bandwagon. Come on people , we have definetly come closer to revealing the secrets of the American forests !!! It will be a matter of time that a unknown North American ape will be discovered !! and I’ll being saying ” you see!!!”
Thanks’ mystery_man. I enjoy these discussions very mcuh. You & DWA amongst other’s on this site alway’s have interesting opinion’s on subject’s. And I honestly enjoy reading everyones responses to the post here. It’s nice to be able to agree or disagree without getting a bunch of temper’s flying of the handle.
At first I saw a Bigfoot, then upon staring at the 1st photo for a small length of time, I saw what could be a bear. I have to say, inconclusive, leaning more to the side of being a bear.
Was this Pesilvania? I’d then say a very skinny bear. I live in Calgary, and have seen many a bear, in the City! and through-out the province of Alberta and BC, and our bears are chubby, at least by these standards as shown in the video and shots. Gotta be a bear in bad shape, say mange!!!!
Inconclusive, I’d say!
I say it was definetly a hoax