More on the Juvenile Bigfoot Photos
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 24th, 2007
Hunter gets BigFoot on trail Timer camera.
An outdoorsmen From Johnsonburg Pa get what appears to be a Bigfoot looking creature on his trail camera at night.
He had his trail camera at the Kinzua Dam.
The Kinzua Dam Is flooded with people as well as the so call Bigfoot experts.
These experts and the owner of the trail camera had supposedly gone out late at night and had banged sticks together and had communicated with this creature.
Who knows the true facts for sure, but there is defiantly something strange on these pictures.
Could it be a sick starving bear? I doubt that, Now that there is so few deer in pa woods, there is plenty to eat. (Had to take a shot :0)John Hodgdon
“I was interviewed by Linda Moulton Howe as I looked at the pictures for the first time. I indicated that there were aspects that pointed to a bear, while some features looked rather unusual, even ape-like, e.g. the appearance of the limb proportions. The apparent shape and orientation of the shoulder blades, the length of the feet, and the posture however, seemed to point to bear. Some of the images posted on the internet appear to confirm the bear identification.”Jeff Meldrum
See my original post here on Cryptomundo concerning these photos here: Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?
And Loren’s followup post here on Cryptomundo: Créature de Jacobs.
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.
Ya know, I think someone was sleeping in my bed last night. And when I woke up my porrage had also been eaten. BFRO my heart goes out to you.
The unfortunate thing is, there are still people who are going to accuse those like me, who have been saying a bear was a likely explanation all along, of being close minded for thinking so. I say to them there is nothing close minded at all about sincerely looking at every side of an equation and weighing the apparent facts.
I mentioned on the other posts about the factual evidence that pointed to the possibility of these photos being a bear versus the speculation based arguments that they were not. In any scientific endeavor, you must deal with levels of certainty based on the available evidence. You may not reach an out an out conclusion (hence my reluctance to totally dismiss the notion that these were of a sasquatch), but you can come reasonably close to a logical explanation. Simply put, the better the evidence, the more certainty we can apply to an idea. That is a major tenet of science. So when someone looks at the available facts of the case of these photos, and comes to a hunch that they are of a bear, they are in fact being scientific and open minded.
So which is more scientific? The person who compares those photos with photos of mangy bears and sees the likeness, thereby deducing that that is what they might be of? Or those that say the photos look more like a juvenile sasquatch? Bear in mind on the latter that we don’t even know what a juvenile sasquatch looks like, have no concrete standard or holotype by which to make such an accurate comparison, and can only speculate as to their appearance. So are we to say the photos look more like something that we are not even sure of than a mangy bear? That is an unfounded claim and pits speculation (that these photos look like a juvenile sasquatch, whatever that looks like!) against fact (that they look reminiscent of a mangy bear.)
Granted, a juvenile sasquatch MIGHT look like what we see in the photos. But a mangy bear DOES, we DO know what they look like, we can compare photos of them and see the resemblance. We can not make any assumptions or conclusions about the likeness of the photos to things whose appearance we are unsure of, such as juvenile sasquatch. Remember, take the available information and base your amount of certainty on that. To me, these photos strongly suggest bear, and I am not being close minded when I say that. I would have loved for these to have been the real deal, but I have to go with what the information is telling me. Sasquatch? Maybe. Bear? Quite possibly.
well, the only thing that made me think “not bear” is the position of the front “leg/arm” that we can see. For being a young bear, it is having to extend that limb out to the side so it can reach that salt lick. The first one could be of a bear-either surprised/frightened or really getting the scent from the salt lick.
At first I thought it was a Bigfoot. I always hope new pictures-videos are the real deal. Now I believe it’s a poor sickly bear. That’s pretty disappointing. One, because the bear is sickly and two, because it’s a bear.
I read on the BFRO forum there’s more pictures that haven’t been released yet. I doubt they will be because they would show better pictures of the bear.
This is very clear example of how the BFRO has gone bye-bye.
If they were the “scientific” organization they say they are – they certainly wouldn’t be waving their flag on the mountaintop, stating facts on the behavior of juvenile sasquatch.
As I said, this too, shall pass. And all we’re left with are some photos of a scrawny bear and alot of time spent debating. 🙂
Aw, I miss the old days of the BFRO, where they did good work.
hey everyone wow this is definetly a very inportant update article about these photos defiently worth debateing about honestly etc. good afternoon bill green 🙂
Just looks like a human to me. Not a bear (even a sickly, skinny bear wouldn’t have that anatomy). The legs look significantly longer than the arms, like a human hunched over on all fours.
Well, the 2nd photo had intrigued me because of what I (erronously) considered a disproportionate length of the hind legs. But then you check on the 3rd photo, and you culd discern the lighter snout of the bear, and even the two big ears at the top of the skull. So yeah, this was tempting, but still not the real deal.
But this what we’re supposed to do, we’ll sort through the evidence by the process of trial and error. And BTW, great comments above mistery_man, as always 😉
We now know mangy bears can fool us at first glance. With this new knowledge let’s move on.
A comparison of one of the photos with a young black bear can be seen here. http://tinyurl.com/3b4g7w
The fact that this critter looks like a bear leads me to conclude that the animal photographed by the Jacobs camera is a bear. How profound is that? 🙂
I have to admit, I was excited at first when the original photos were posted. I had no idea that a bear could look like that. Now that I know it can, I’m convinced its a bear. It was fun while it lasted.
A little bit more.
Apparently on Whitley Streiber’s “Dreamland” internet radio service (can be heard on http://www.unknowncountry.com, click on the appropriate link there) this weekend, Linda Moulton Howe is going to conduct an interview about the Kinzua Dam photos.
It may or may not be of utility.
Thought I might give you guys a “heads up” on that.
So, is everybody in agreement that it’s a bear? Really wasn’t that hard to figure out. Since you can see its head in the 3rd photo if you really look close. And the cubs in the first photo pretty much give a person a good idea of what the other 2 photos are. Even if they are taken a few minutes apart.
Well, that was exciting for a few minutes. I’m pretty sure that I can make out an ear (a pointy, triangularish bear’s ear) on the BFRO’s Image 2. Sorry folks, looks like it’s just a (nearly) bare bear.
If this is indeed a bear it is almost as much of an anomaly as it would be if it were a sasquatch. I watched bears for two hours at the St. Louis Zoo this past Sunday and saw none that had anything resembling the physiognamy of this creature. This animal seems to have shoulders, which bears do not; it appears to have kneecaps, a pointed head, limbs disproportionately long and round in cross section for an ursid. Most importantly, it doesnt seem to have a neck. Bears have a longish neck. They dont have to go through the contortions seen in photo 3 to sniff the ground because of the lenth of their neck and the relative shortness (compared to primates) of their limbs.
It wasn’t a bear, real investigations on location by scientists found the limbs longer than the torso. They looked through the game camera and measured a model set up where the creature stood. That makes it impossible to be a bear.
I’m certain this was not a hoax but I can’t say it was a Sasquatch because it was shorter than one. There was many reports of Sasquatch sightings in the very same spot. There was also some sound recordings that were unexplainable.
Cryptid? Yes