Créature de Jacobs
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 22nd, 2007
The above photograph is for viewing during the ongoing discussion of the “Jacobs creature” captured via a trailcam. This image may be useful for comparative analysis, as the subject reveals itself nearly bare of hair, as the reality is it could never bear being called a Sasquatch.
See Craig’s earlier posting on this topic for more details: click on “Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch.”
Thanks to erb jacques for sharing the mangy bear photograph from Florida.
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.
Isn’t this a lot like the Coyote with mange in Texas that was declared “Chupacabra”? A greyish skin? No Hair? There are several parallels. This could be a “Chupacabear”!
Are they serious? It’s a black bear with mange. I mean, come on. It’s clearly a bear. That was an easy one.
Totally a bear. Although, it does look odd, it probably has mange and the ears look a bit weird too.
Bingo! Nice detective work.
That supposed unknown creature looked like an unhealthy bear from day one. At no point in time did its structure look remotely like anything other than ursine, well possibly canine, I guess. I live around black bears. How some posters manage to comment that a bear could not be that skinny or unhealthy-looking is beyond me. They get old, get diseases, get run out by competition, and have bad seasons/years.
I am stunned at the amount of hype a bear photo has created. I am not stunned by which organization purported it as something else. Especially when the triangular ears were visible, a fairly long neck is displayed, and hip joints that have a different orientation than primate hips.
“…it could never bear being called a Sasquatch.” !!!
“Chupacabear” !!!
I LOVE it! Cryptomundo’s complex intensity demands
a bit of levity now and then. Thanks!
hey loren very interesting new article, i realy like the above replys as well. thanks bill green 🙂
what is the black animal behind this one it looks like a bear but it has a pig snout
Guys, please get with the program and read the post. Nobody is calling this pic a squatch. The pic is simply a reference of what a sick bear looks like so it can be compared to the new BFRO/Jacob’s pics.
This pic was posted on Bigfootforums as an example of how weird a bear can look. It is an excellent illustration that helps discredit the “likely juvi sas” that isn’t likley at all.
It looks like the head has been glued on using paint shop or something :X
Now bear with me here people. I think this photo pretty much lays bear the mystery of what the “juevenile sasquatch” likely is. I can see from looking at this bear that it is one obvious possible explanation that is going to bear down on the sasquatch idea with those other photos. I think we can bearly afford to say that a bear with the appearance of the one above couldn’t be what we see in the trail cam photos from the BFRO website. I can bearly see any difference at all. One thing I wonder, though is how this bear can bear to be bare when winter rolls around.
Oh ok, I’ll stop. 🙂
Oh! The poor bare bear! 🙂
dyldevtor responds:
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
what is the black animal behind this one it looks like a bear but it has a pig snout
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m going to go out on a limb here and surmise that it is a bear.
/headslap
Ive been hunting Pennsylvania black bear for 40 years and killed, eaten and tanned many even a couple with mange, and those photos are not of a bear the proportions and the head are just not of a bear even a skinned one. Has to be some type of monkey, cant help you there never killed a monkey.
This picture really does look photo-shopped. It is definitely a bear on the trail came. But this picture looks altered…..why? It even looks like it is wearing a necklace made out of crocodile teeth or something….weird
That does look photoshopped!
I agree it looks much like a black bear, some features don’t quite match up.
Do people really think this photo was altered? Come on now, folks, this is a picture issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. Why on earth would they photoshop a photo of a bear to make it look like this? I hope we are not going down a route whereby we try to debunk real photos made by wildlife commissions in order to try and somehow support a supposed photo of a sasquatch as being real. Let’s not over complicate things with conspiracy theories of doctored scientific photos, that is just folly. The above photo is a real picture of a real bear, and it bears a striking resemblance to the “juvenile sasquatch” photos. What other proof do you need people to provide in order to sway you from the certainty that those are actual pics of a sasquatch?
It’s no wonder that juvenile squatches so often go undetected–they look just like bears with mange. Excellent follow-up Loren.
mystery_man: I was going to lay off this thread until I saw your post. I considered it a call for backup.
Come on now, indeed. I am getting sick of hearing from Photoshop “experts.” So here’s the second real, actual photo I have seen “debunked” by people who “know.”
And I think it can tell you what to think about other Photoshop “debunkings,” in fact about pretty much every one I have ever seen.
I’d like to add to The Legend of the Omnipotent Hoaxer (LOTOH) the Legend of the Omnipotent Photoshop Expert (LOTOPE). On second thought, the latter is simply a division of the former. It sets back cryptid research ten years or so every time it happens.
I said on the other Jacobs thread that photo manipulation is a possibility in the case of that critter. If I didn’t also say this I should: I consider it unlikely, in the extreme.
If you want to hunt – or debunk – cryptids, GET OUTSIDE for once. The fresh air will do you a power of good. Trust me, you need it.
Thanks, m_m. Although I know you tend to get a bit passionate about things, it’s OK, as long as I come in afterward to calm things down some. 😀
Although I do need to add that I’ve never seen a bear photo, of any bear, in any condition, sufficient to tell me that it’s “likely” that the Jacobs critter is a bear. You just can’t tell from those shots, says here, what that is. Witness the many people with unquestioned experience in the matter who are coming down on both sides of the issue.
bucker: those of us who have seen bares are just going to have to keep the bear truth to ourselves.
I can bearly help chuckling.
long time reader, first time poster
To anyone who doubts this is a yearling black bear with mange check out this site http://www.wvblackbears.com/bears.htm especially the picture in the lower left hand side. There is an animal with a similar look, build and shape all the while remaining clearly a bear. And to those who think it looks photoshoped, isn’t it more likely it is just one of the white spots found on the necks of a certain percentage of black bears. Spots like these http://www.alaskainpictures.com/images/Braveheart.jpg?
While I have no doubt that this picture is of a mangy black bear, (I live in the Mauch chunk area of NE Pa – I’ve had to shoo them away to get to my car on the odd morning) I DO have to agree with some of the other comments about it looking photoshopped. On my work monitor it looked fine, but on my home monitor (much better quality) the head looks as if it where pasted on this body.
Perhaps it is a trick of light or the position of the bears body when the photo was snapped but the head looks as if it were taken at a different time and c&p onto this snapshot.
DWA- Thanks for your insights as always. I was really focusing on talking mostly about the photo above on this thread. Some people are considering that it could be a photoshopped photo of a bear when in fact it is a real photo of a bear with mange. It is not a photo that was manipulated to resemble the “juvenile photo” in the other post, it is a wildlife photo released by the wildlife commission and I think it looks very much like the BFRO photos. The photo should not be discounted, it should be used as a tool by which to do a comparative analysis with the other “unknown” photos.
What I was trying to say is that I am a little surprised that people would claim that this actual wildlife photo was altered somehow and then use that as some sort of evidence that the “juvenile sasquatch” cannot be a bear. From what I see here, it most certainly could be a bear, yet some are refusing to entertain that thought, instead claiming that the above photo of a bear is doctored. This is a bit absurd. The wildlife commission is not orchestrating some big conspiracy by messing around with its photo archives in order to obfuscate the truth somehow. I urge people to look at this photo, look at the other “juvenile sasquatch” ones, and honestly say that a bear is an impossibility. This photo is fairly good visual evidence to me that the photos on the other thread may not be that of a sasquatch as claimed.
The bottom line is this. The above photo IS real. It DOES look like the “juvenile sasquatch” photos. So that suggests to me that there is a strong possibility that those photos could be of a bear with similar conditions too. I am not trying to deny sasquatch. I cannot say that the BFRO photos are definitely NOT of a sasquatch, but the possibility is absolutely there.
I am starting to shy away from the idea that the BFRO photos are manipulated or photoshopped. But looking at the very NON manipulated photo above, I think the explanation that they are of a bear is far from being discounted. It seems like a very rational line of inquiry to me.
WOW….You all took that comment way too serious…..THE PICTURE LOOKS ODD!……that’s it, end of story. I don’t think anyone really thinks the picture is photo-shopped….it just looks funny that’s all. So everyone can calm down. I think the photos on the other site are definitely a bear, and so is this obviously. But that was never supposed to be in question. Sorry for the mass confusion.
The BFRO photos do appear to be a mangy bear as there are some similarities to the above photo. The photo with the overlay of bones provided by Jeff Meldrum’s post is really well done and helpful in visualization as well. Prior to this posting however I was switching the 3 original BFRO pics back and forth in comparison and noticed some unusual aspects with the ‘Juv’ photos. (referred to as Juv for ID purposes only)
The Juv subject is significantly larger than the bear cub, almost twice as tall at the shoulders. It was fortunate that both the cub’s and the stretched Juv’s left front legs(?) are almost located on the same spot for easy measurement. The hump at the shoulders of the stretched Juv reveals a rather broad back and torso and does not appear that it is emaciated.
Secondly the right rear foot of the stretched Juv is pointed out to the right, away from the body. The Black Bear tracks I have seen show the rear feet either straight in line of the direction they are moving or with a pigeon-toe whereby the tracks point in toward the body. Given that the bulk of the Juv body s and limbs are facing to the left, the right rear foot pointing off to the right appears odd. The overlay bones on the right foot leg are not placed in the right direction of the real foot however it would appear a difficult bones to comfortably accommodate this angle of the foot especially with the bulk of the subject pointing in the opposite direction.
I had also mentioned on the original post that there appears to be a visible cleavage of a buttocks on the stretched Juv photo. No one either confirmed or denied this observation or confirmed this as a trait of a mangy bear. That also brings to mind ‘Where is the tail?’.
The bent over Juv photo captures the subject in an unusual posture. The shape of the hips does appear to resemble the bone structure as presented in the Meldrum photo overlay. It also appears to show the Juv with its head in a bucket, or some other type of object, between its front legs The front left leg although appearing longer than what I would expect in seeing the rear legs, seams to be supporting the subject while it is rummaging in the bucket. If it were a juvenile Sasquatch would it not be using its hands in its effort more than for mere support?
Sure would be nice if there were a few more pictures to view from the visit!
Peace
Hmm? The fact that there is a big black bear (see top center of photo) looking over the shoulder of “bigfoot” leads me to believe that “bigfoot” is just a bear.
Hey…I am new to this site, so please *bear* with me on my questions. Was the camera he took these pictures with motioned sensored? If so, where are the pictures of the *creature* first entering the area? Surely it did not just fly down and land with its back facing the camara. Does anyone know if there are more pics?
Bilbo that photo is not the Jacobs photo it is a bear. This is posted for comparison reasons.
I still don’t believe it was a bear because scientist that worked out the size did find the limbs were longer than the torso.