Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 20th, 2007

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

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

Are the photographs legitimate?

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

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

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

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

128 Responses to “Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?”

  1. sschaper responds:

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

  2. cryptothekid responds:

    It looks very much like a skinny chimpanzee.

  3. cryptothekid responds:

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

  4. JRufus responds:

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

  5. Scarfe responds:

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

    See it here.

  6. greenmartian2007 responds:


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

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


  7. mystery_man responds:

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

  8. Patrick Bede responds:

    I think it’s a bear.

  9. DWA responds:

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

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

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

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

  10. Questor responds:

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

  11. DWA responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They are inconclusive.


  12. greenmartian2007 responds:

    Update for all.

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

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

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

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

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

  13. bobbo responds:

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

  14. rugby411 responds:

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

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

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

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

    Cheers All!

  15. Double Naught Spy responds:

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

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

  16. mystery_man responds:

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

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

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

  17. Giovarist responds:

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

  18. mystery_man responds:

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

  19. mystery_man responds:

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

  20. joe levit responds:


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

  21. bobbo responds:

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

  22. greenmartian2007 responds:


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

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

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

    Here is more about the Kinzua Dam, from Wikipedia.

    It used to be Seneca land.

  23. Giovarist responds:

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

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

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

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

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

  24. DWA responds:

    m_m: all good points.

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

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

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

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

  25. YourPTR! responds:

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

  26. Mock26 responds:

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

  27. Mock26 responds:

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

  28. kezliura responds:

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

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

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