NationStates Jolt Archive

For the sake of good fun... But real topic, not trolling, here's the situation:

The debate about these images revolves around whether the figure is a skinny, mangy bear, or a healthy primate like creature. The Pennsylvania Game Commission 'experts' have said these images are of a mangy-bear.

Judge for yourself.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Bigfoot/20-32-05.jpg

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Bigfoot/20-32-41.jpg

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Bigfoot/Compare.jpg

I don't know what it is, but I don't think it's a bear. It may very well be a total hoax, but it doesn't look like a bear to me. What say you?

MORE INFO:
link (http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp)
link (http://www.wpxi.com/news/14449154/detail.html)
link (http://www.mysterycasebook.com/juvenilebigfoot.html)
link (http://www.nationalledger.com/ledgerpop/article_272616948.shtml)

Bear.

Bear.

I don't know, maybe...

Referring to the “Jacobs creature,” he said, “that thing does not have a tail. It doesn’t have any ears. If it was a bear with mange, you’d see that tail a lot more.”

From all the comments received via e-mail, the calls to The Era and the talk in the public, it seems that just one thing is certain — whatever it is in the photos, it has made people curious.

story (http://www.bradfordera.com/articles/2007/10/30/news/doc4722b121b961b265436842.txt)

;)

I don't know, maybe...

Referring to the “Jacobs creature,” he said, “that thing does not have a tail. It doesn’t have any ears. If it was a bear with mange, you’d see that tail a lot more.”

From all the comments received via e-mail, the calls to The Era and the talk in the public, it seems that just one thing is certain — whatever it is in the photos, it has made people curious.

story (http://www.bradfordera.com/articles/2007/10/30/news/doc4722b121b961b265436842.txt)

;)

Bears don't have much of a tail, and honestly the pictures are of such poor quality that you can't tell which end is which.

I find it much more likely that it's a bear, rather than some kind of primate.

I want to be the first on my block to own the coat of one.

It looks like a bear to me.

The first one looks all mysterious, but in the second one the butt and hindquarters look very bony and very much like the mangy bear's.

Am I the only one who can make out somewhat of a tail in the second picture?

poor bear, that's horrible :(

Since Pennsylvania leads the country in werewolf sitings, I'm surprised the thought it's Bigfoot even came up. However, since Bigfoot is a protected species in Washington, the nod to a fellow state should make the question "How can the government spend more money to aid the poor thing?" and not "What is it?"

Oh please. That is so obviously a bear it makes my brain hurt.

Look, we don't know about all of the animal species in the world, but such limits to our knowledge are confined to the depths of rainforests and the oceans, not to fucking North America. If something like Bigfoot actually existed, we'd know.

Oh please. That is so obviously a bear it makes my brain hurt.

Look, we don't know about all of the animal species in the world, but such limits to our knowledge are confined to the depths of rainforests and the oceans, not to fucking North America. If something like Bigfoot actually existed, we'd know.

Well, there may very well be something we don't know about in the dense forest of North America.

Just not an primate. The reason why is because there is simply no food for a primate in the forests. It is pretty much a wasteland for them.

Well, there may very well be something we don't know about in the dense forest of North America.

Just not an primate. The reason why is because there is simply no food for a primate in the forests. It is pretty much a wasteland for them.
No, no, you're right...it IS possible there is some species we're still unaware of. I find it highly unlikely, but it's possible.

Either way, though, not a primate. This Bigfoot shit has got to stop.

Well, there may very well be something we don't know about in the dense forest of North America.

Just not an primate. The reason why is because there is simply no food for a primate in the forests. It is pretty much a wasteland for them.

Yes, I'll inform the Native Americans at once.

Yes, I'll inform the Native Americans at once.

Other than humans, smartass. :p The various Native American tribes pulled it off because they used tools and all sorts of technology they invented.

Yes, I'll inform the Native Americans at once.

I'll flag down the next Tribal Police car that drives past my house.

Well, there may very well be something we don't know about in the dense forest of North America.

Just not an primate. The reason why is because there is simply no food for a primate in the forests. It is pretty much a wasteland for them.
Yeah, there is totally no way they could survive on all those insects and berries.

I don't know what you think primates eat, but it isn't bananas.

Yeah, there is totally no way they could survive on all those insects and berries.

I don't know what you think primates eat, but it isn't bananas.

Not enough of the food, though. It exists, but not in sufficient quantities.

Plus, there's the simple fact that there's only supposed to be one of these Bigfoots and that never made any sense. No species can survive with only one member.

I think it's pics of a big, mangy littlefoot.

Not enough of the food, though. It exists, but not in sufficient quantities.

Plus, there's the simple fact that there's only supposed to be one of these Bigfoots and that never made any sense. No species can survive with only one member.

Which explains the prevalence of cannibalism among the Native Americans. Primates are omnivores, so if there's food there for anything, they'll eat it. They don't even complain if someone else has been eating it.
Also, where did you hear there's only one Bigfoot? The Abominable Swamp Slobs in Florida travel in packs, Skunk Apes are usually seen in pairs-though the observers may be seeing double at the time, Momo(Missouri Monster) is solitary, but it's also aggressive and hostile, unique among the "Bigfoot" creatures. Since the state of Washington believes in these things enough to make them a protected species, the sasquatch is a legal entity, at least in Washington. The Jacobs photos seem proportioned oddly for a bear, but species variations certainly allows that explanation to hold water, unlike the Patterson footage or that Arkansas clip from a few years back. I put the Jacobs photos in the Patterson category-I don't see the zipper. The Arkansas footage of a creature running across a stretch of countryside is a different category-attempts to debunk it proved a human can't reach those speeds, and the fact it's either carrying young at the same time or has two heads clinches it.
Besides, if these things exist, it's just a footnote in a naturalist's guide-unless the Oklahoma variety is telepathic like the natives insist.

Why, that's Rick Santorum!

Why, that's Rick Santorum!

No it's Dick Cheney out for his monthly stroll.

Those are bear cubs in the foreground. I can think of only one animal that size that the mother bear would allow that close to her cubs: herself. She doesn't look too well.

Most every mythical beastie thing seems to look like a mangy animal. From far away a mangy swan probably resembles Nessie.

It is obviously a small Sasquatch. I see them all the time.

It's Bigfoots and a mangy bears love child.

Well, there may very well be something we don't know about in the dense forest of North America.

Just not an primate. The reason why is because there is simply no food for a primate in the forests. It is pretty much a wasteland for them.

Food sources come from many places for primates. For example the baboons and Barbary macaques of North Africa live exclusively in the forests. I have seen them eating the Cedar berries. So to say that forests are wastelands is not accurate for primates.

Definitely not a bear. Look at the way it is walking and bent over. And it's not mangy .. it has plenty of hair. Resembles a primate much more than a bear.

If it's not a hoax and there indeed are sasquatch or whatever .. I hope they can continue to thrive their own way and evade us as long as possible.

But.. seeing the cubs did at first make me think it was a bear. Just isn't built like one though. I dunno. Good luck to whatever it is!

It's a bear with mange.

In Soviet Russia, mange is a bear...with you!

It's a bear with mange.

It does not look like a bear. It looks like a primate. A juvenile bigfoot, perhaps, or maybe an escaped chimp.

You know what I'm changing what I wrote. First pic looks like a dude in a costume and second I couldn't guess. But having looked at the first, it's a hoax. If you think it looks like a bear then look at the head. It has the same damn shaped head as the costume in that really famous bigfoot home video.


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/BigFootPatCORB_468x567.jpg

Where is the manbearpig option?

You know what I'm changing what I wrote. First pic looks like a dude in a costume and second I couldn't guess. But having looked at the first, it's a hoax. If you think it looks like a bear then look at the head. It has the same damn shaped head as the costume in that really famous bigfoot home video.
That would make the person in the costume a gymnast.

Those are bear cubs in the foreground. I can think of only one animal that size that the mother bear would allow that close to her cubs: herself. She doesn't look too well.

There are pictures of cubs, however, the only pictures of cubs that I saw was nearly a half an hour before the pictures of the creature pictured in the OP. There are no cubs in the foreground that I see, what I see is the bottom of the platter holding the turned over mineral lick block from when the cubs were there earlier...

I think a half an hour is more than enough time for Momma bear to have taken the cubs away, OR for momma bear to still be there and hanging out. I think the cubs are inconclusive myself.

Where is the manbearpig option?
...

You could pick, mangy bear, other animal, hoax and mirth? No? :)

Where is the manbearpig option?


That would make the person in the costume a gymnast.

You're saying that gymnasts don't like to frolic in the woods in a bigfoot suit?

Looks like a primate but considering where it is I will have to go with mangy bear.

Looks like a primate but considering where it is I will have to go with mangy bear.

Why? There are reports of Bigfoot type creatures all of the US and Canada, and all over the world. PA is a very rural state outside of Philly and Pittsburg and the surrounding areas.

Plenty of area for a group of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) to live.

The first one looks all mysterious, but in the second one the butt and hindquarters look very bony and very much like the mangy bear's.

Indeed. I'm going to say that it's most likely a bear.

Why? There are reports of Bigfoot type creatures all of the US and Canada, and all over the world. PA is a very rural state outside of Philly and Pittsburg and the surrounding areas.

Plenty of area for a group of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) to live.

You are telling someone this that lives In Washington State. The place is known for Bigfoot sightings.

Problem with these images are that a face is not clearly seen. It is difficult to identify this as anything other then a bear even if it does resemble a primate.

Problem with these images are that a face is not clearly seen. It is difficult to identify this as anything other then a bear even if it does resemble a primate.

QFT.

And the creatures 'face' area is particularly uniform in blurred grey pixils. It makes me wonder if the head and face area wasn't intentionally obscured, it wouldn't be hard.

That's the reason I selected Bigfoot AND Hoax. If it's an honest picture of a bear, my apologies to the guy who took the picture for suspecting it's been doctored to look more questionable.

Which explains the prevalence of cannibalism among the Native Americans. Primates are omnivores, so if there's food there for anything, they'll eat it. They don't even complain if someone else has been eating it.


As stated, Native Americans(Some do perform cannabalism, but for very different reasons that sustenance) used tools to survive in North America. There are plenty of food stuffs available, however for primates, which tend to need to eat a lot of food, the availability of said food is very limited. Humans got around this by knowing where to look for food. Primates, even the most advanced of them, tend to basically stumble upon food. As well, a large part of the diet of most North American groups(Aside from pastoralists, which only came about post-contact with Europe, or Californian, who relied almost entirely on Acorns-however, once again, not a good food to eat raw, as in high quantities can poison you, it has to be processed to be edible) relied on fishing(Almost as a universal, anyway), which you just don't see with other primates, for various reasons(Primates are not built naturally for fishing, such as bears are-you know, claws and all). Hunting, as well, suplemented the diet of rather low amounts of edible vegetation available, which although not uncommon for other primates to do, it's just not done as a major means of sustenance. As well, we have to take into account horticulture, which provided a huge deal of what Native Americans ate.

So basically, humans were able to overcome the rather poor environment for primates by A)Horticulture(Biggest one), B)Fishing(Next biggest), and C)Hunting. The coniferous forests of North America suck balls for any primate that is unable to do at the very least the first, and to a large extent the next two. There just isn't enough wild food sources available to sustain any population of resource devouring primates. Hell, most food is completely innedible to primates especially unless you process it(Such as with acorns).

i don't see the point of speculating on any one incident when there have been rather a large number of sightings ... of ... something.

probably half of them by hunters drunk out of their gord on the first day of hunting season.

but there's no reason their couldn't be ... something ... big and shaggie, i mean a species of them. maybe some u.f.o. alien thyps' pets or something.

i'll reserve my opinion untill i personally meet one.

i clicked ALL of the options though, because, anytime you have a lot of sightings and a lot of people dissagreeing on what they are, chances are reall good that there NOT all the same thing. some will be one, some will be another. maybe all possibilities will be represented and maybe not, but they're bound to not ALL be the same thing. any one thing.

they COULD be a bunch of folks like some of us on here, wearing their fursuits and getting a good laugh, sitting arround their cabins and college dorms afterwords, swapping stories of freeking people out.

sound's like riskey bussiness to do something like that during hunting season, but we live in a world that has gotten to where a lot of people DO get despirately loonie enough to want to pull stuff like that.

and then again, there could be people who are real shape chaingers too. or again, well, we DON'T HAVE to know everything for anything to exist.

personally i like the idea, and it's one reinforced by its shere overwhelming endlessness, of a univese diverse enough, to harbour for greater diversity then even i have ever begun to imagine.

=^^=
.../\...

Logically it would be a bear. But it's limbs are longer than those of any bear I've ever seen.

It's a duck.

de Loys' ape.

The leg bone structure, at least what can be seen, suggests it is not a bear. The hips are too rounded and its knees are too straight for a bear, unless it is some new kind of bear I have never seen before, and from a Maine hunting family, I have seen lots of bears.

escaped mangy gorilla?

escaped mangy gorilla?

Yeah, it's probably an escaped animal that the zoo just neglected to mention.......

actually i dunno all of a sudden:


http://www.mysterycasebook.com/2007/bearcubs.jpg

actually i dunno all of a sudden:


I don't think there is any question that those are bear cubs. They tipped over the mineral lick/block on the platter AND they were there 20-30 minutes before the 'creature' pictures were taken according to the time stamp on the picture.

I don't think the bear cubs are convincing of either argument because of the time lapse. Is the next creature their Momma? If so, why did it take nearly half an hour for her to show up? OR, the time lapse between pictures is proof that the cubs could be long gone and not anywhere in the area anymore when the new creature comes along (maybe that’s why the cubs are gone, because the creature came along?).

Am I reading correctly that there is 36 seconds between photos? It seems suspicious to me that there are only two and that these were only distributed of this particular animal. Maybe there was a face shot however if that was shown the story would not be news worthy. Seems odd....


Also would like to share my observations of baboons out in the wild. I notice that baboons travel in groups. They are fairly easy to spot in the wild and many will come near humans because as most animals know that humans=food. At least the ones that I encountered in Africa

So I wonder how a N American primate could go undetected by film or camera all these years? It would be completely reasonable to expect a primate group to have been recorded many many years ago. So the chances of this being a primate however I would like it to be is near impossible.

they could be escaped from a zoo or from someone's private collection...

they could be escaped from a zoo or from someone's private collection...

Your right and that is a small possibility such as the Rhesus monkeys let loose in the Florida Keys.

they could be escaped from a zoo or from someone's private collection...

Would a zoo really cover up the fact that animals had escaped, or be negligent to the point that they were unaware of it? I wouldn't think. And in the case of a private owner, well it's somewhat more possible.

Would a zoo really cover up the fact that animals had escaped, or be negligent to the point that they were unaware of it? I wouldn't think. And in the case of a private owner, well it's somewhat more possible.

There are many monkeys in private hands. I doubt a zoo but more like a private owner if in fact this were a monkey.