1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

PA Big Foot or Mangy Bear?

Discussion in 'Tin Foil Hat Lounge' started by Ardent Listener, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. Ardent Listener

    Ardent Listener Monkey+++

    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=780 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>click onto photos for larger viewing.

    Jacobs Photos - Pennsylvania, 9/16/2007

    <TABLE cellPadding=3 width=734 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=3><TABLE width=723 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=14></TD><TD width=210>[​IMG]</TD><TD width=24></TD><TD width=215>[​IMG]</TD><TD width=10></TD><TD width=224>[​IMG]</TD></TR><TR><TD width=14>
    </TD><TD width=210>
    Image 1 : Bear Cubs​
    </TD><TD width=24>
    </TD><TD width=215>
    Image 2 : Unclassifed Primate?​
    </TD><TD width=10>
    </TD><TD width=224>
    Image 3 : Unclassified Primate?​
    <TABLE width=700 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=277>Date: September 16, 2007

    Location: Northwest Pennsylvania

    Camera: Bushnell trail camera (automatic) with infrared (invisible) flash. Camera placed by R. Jacobs.

    Time of images: See time stamps on images - click icons above for larger versions.

    Figures in images: Bear cubs in first image; Possible young sasquatch in two subsequent images.

    Bait used: Strong aromatic deer attractant mix and a mineral lick block.

    </TD><TD width=10></TD><TD width=399>[​IMG]</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=277 rowSpan=4>Current Analysis:

    The debate about these images revolves around whether the figure is a skinny, mangy bear or a healthy primate. The experts we have spoken with about these images say the anwer to the skinny-mangy-bear vs. primate question may be found in the third image --"Jacobs Image 3".

    We are seeking comparative images of a skinny, mangy bear, bent over and smelling the ground, as you see in this image. The people we have spoken with so far who have spent a great deal of time with both primates and bears (mainly zoo people) say this figure looks much more like a healthy primate smelling the ground than like a skinny bear smelling the ground.
    If the figure is a 'skinny mangy bear' bent over, then it should be fairly easy to replicate with photographs of such. So we are seeking images of a skinny, mangy bear in this same posture.

    BFRO members are directed to ask around to find one or more skinny mangy bears in captivity, such those that are occasionally brought into wildlife rescue centers. We will direct the caregivers of those skinny mangy bear(s) to coax their bear into smelling the ground so it can be photographed at this same unflattering angle. We also ask BFRO members to go to their local zoo in order to photograph various ape species when they bend over to smell the ground.

    Chimps (and other apes) in public zoos are easy to find and photograph. The hunt is on for skinny mangy bears in captivity. If you know of a mangy bear in captivity somewhere please send an email to Jacobs_photo@BFRO.net right away, or alert your local newspaper and ask them to contact us about it.

    </TD><TD width=10 rowSpan=3></TD><TD width=399 height=336>[​IMG]
    </TD></TR><TR><TD width=399 height=80>
    Bear vs. Primate
    </TD></TR><TR><TD width=399 height=258>
    </TD></TR><TR><TD width=10 height=278></TD><TD width=399 height=278>
    </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=3>
    <TABLE width=547 align=center bgColor=#336633 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=12 height=55></TD><TD width=504 height=55>
    Debunking the Pennsylvania Game Commission
    </TD><TD width=17 height=55></TD></TR><TR><TD width=12></TD><TD width=504>
    To local journalists in Pennsylvania: Here is your next story regarding the Jacobs Photos:

    Pennsylvania Game Commission spokesman Jerry Feaser has been quoted by various newspapers as saying the strange looking animal in the Jacobs photos is "definitely" a "skinny mangy bear." People outside of Pennsylvania may not know about the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) and their history of deceitful denials of mountain lions.

    A significant percentage of people in PA say the PGC is the least trusted government agency in the state, because the PGC has stated for years, emphatically, that there are no mountain lions in Pennsylvania, even though hundreds of people in Pennsylvania, including many government employees, have seen mountain lions.

    It seems that credible people in PA who have clearly seen a mountain lion do not like to be told that they did not see a mountain lion. Until earlier this year (2007) the PGC routinely offered unwavering denials to mountain lion sightings, until a farmer named Roger Madigan saw one, along with several other people, on his farm after a large outdoor party which included a roast pig cookout. Roger Madigan is a Pennsylvania State Senator. Madigan apparently didn't like being told that he did not see a mountain lion, because after his sighting he called a meeting in his office with the PGC, and brought in the only other wildlife agency that could assert jurisdiction over the heads of the PGC regarding the mountain lion issue. That agency was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The USFWS can assert jurisdiction regarding moutain lions under the Endangered Species Act. The push of the meeting was apparently to force PGC's official position to something more rational-sounding, like "There might be mountain lions in Pennsylvania." The official statement at the end of the meeting stated that USFWS concluded that there "needs to be a study" to determine whether (and if so, how many) mountain lions exist in Pennsylvania. The USFWS now asks the public to send sighting reports of wild mountain lions directly to the USFWS, rather than to the PGC, in apparent recognition of the PGC's long-standing practice of whitewashing any sighting reports sent their way.

    Worries about mountain lions might hurt the Pennsylvania Game Commission directly in their pocketbook. The PGC receives all of its funding from the sale of hunting licenses. There is reason to believe the PGC fears that the revenue from hunting licenses might be reduced if hunters were afraid to go into the woods by themselves, due to fear of a mountain lion attack, or if the wives of hunters were too worried to let their husbands go hunting by themselves. Worries about some other strange animal might have the same effect, or so the PGC may fear, as they hinted last week when they chastised the first PA newspaper that ran the story about the Jacobs photos. The PGC claimed the newspaper was "spreading panic" in Pennsylvania.

    The very first newspaper to run a story about the Jacobs Photos was the Bradford Era, in Bradford Pennsylvania. Not long after that first newspaper story appeared, the Bradford Era's managing editor was contacted by phone by Jerry Feaser of the PGC and was told the newspaper was doing a "disservice to the public" and "spreading panic" if they did not write a follow-up story with a retraction stating that the strange animal is merely a mangy bear. Feaser said he was "certain" that the Jacob's creature is nothing more than a skinny mangy bear, and offered offered a photo of a skinny mangy bear to the newspaper. Folks at the Bradford Era newspaper thought the bear in the PGC's photo (shown above) looked distinctly unlike the Jacobs creature in various ways, so they did not promote the PGC's assertion that it is a case of mistaken identity, as Feaser urged them to do.
    You can find more information about the PGC's history of deceitful denials of wild mountain lions by performing a search on Google with the search string "Pennsylvania Game Commission Mountain Lions".
    </TD><TD width=17></TD></TR><TR><TD width=12 height=38></TD><TD width=504 height=38></TD><TD width=17 height=38></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=5>
    The three images at the top of the page were obtained with a Bushnell trail camera in Northwest Pennsylvania on the evening of September 16, 2007 by R. Jacobs.

    Jacobs had placed the motion-sensing camera on a tree along a game trail in a remote forest area in order to photograph any deer that might be using the trail. He did this in preparation for the Fall deer hunt. Jacobs was not trying to obtain images of a bigfoot/sasquatch.

    The area in the foreground was baited with a deer attractant mix and a mineral lick block. In the first image (the one with the bear cubs) the mineral lick block can be seen sitting on a large black plastic plate. One of the bear cubs is apparently licking or sniffing the mineral block. In the two subsequent images the black plate is turned over and leaning against the mineral block.

    Several minutes elapsed between the image of the bear cubs and the images showing the ape-like animal (see the time stamps in the lower right corner of the images).

    The second image shows the ape-like animal from a rear-side angle, with its head obscured by its shoulders. In the third image the ape-like animal appears to be smelling the ground near where the deer attractant mix had been scattered.
    Various anatomical elements can be seen upon careful examination of the images, including a bare spot in the fur under the arm. More details, data, and related images will be added to this page in coming days.

    Various primate experts and bear experts in the US and Canada are currently examining these photos. The ones who have offered initial impressions to the BFRO say the latter two images do not show a bear, but rather a primate.

    These recent images from Pennsylvania are very significant to bigfoot research. They likely show a young juvenile bigfoot (smaller than ~5 feet tall), as they have been described by eyewitnesses over the years. Young juvenile bigfoots are typically described as quadrupedal (walking on four legs), with the ability to climb trees or run very quickly on all fours (See the New York Baby Footage). They are sometimes seen alternating between a quadrupedal posture and an awkward bipedal posture. Whereas the larger bigfoots (5 feet tall and above) are almost never described as walking or running on all fours.

    It was thought for a long time that any legitimate images of an adult bigfoot would likely be dismissed by the public as showing a human in a costume due to the bipedal posture of adult bigfoots, which is so reminiscent of a human posture. In the case of a young juvenile (quadrupedal) bigfoot, by contrast, the scientific debate would not revolve around whether the figure could be a man in a costume. Rather, the debate would revolve around what type of animal it is ... an entirely different debate.

    The BFRO has the privilege of informally naming the apelike-figure captured in these photos. It will be referred to as the "Jacobs creature" (like the "Patterson creature").

    Formal, scientific, taxonomic classification, usually cannot be derived from photographs alone, but can be tentatively suggested.

    Over the years we have heard of other decent photographs of these animals, in other parts of the country, which have never been released to the public, for various reasons. So we greatly appreciate the decision of the Jacobs family to release these images to the public. If you are inspired by these images as much as we are, please send an email of thanks, along with your impressions and comments, to the Jacobs family, via their lawyer, by emailing Jacobs_photos@BFRO.net
    These images have been registered with the U.S. Copyright office by the lawyer for R. Jacobs. The images are available to be licensed for re-publishing. To inquire about licensing please send an email to Jacobs_photos@BFRO.net

    All other comments or questions about these photos should be posted on the BFRO's public discussion forum.
    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/ja...re_image_2.asp</TD></TR><TR><TD width=131 colSpan=2>[​IMG]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  2. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Taint no bear far as I am concerned...
  3. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Well, if it was a "primate" and not another bear, wouldn't the cubs have run off immediately?

    I dunno, it does look very strange.
  4. doc elwin

    doc elwin Monkey+++

    Primate/ape most definitely.

    Or possibly El Chupacabra....

  5. RobertRogers

    RobertRogers Monkey+++

    First pic - obviously bear cubs.

    Have you noticed there is always what I call "The Camera Hex" when it comes to pics of strange creatures and UFO's etc.

    By camera hex I mean - the pics of these things are always fuzzy or indistinct somehow, so that you cannot say "Yes, this is a good picture of a ---- (fill in the blank with hoped for creature).

    Do you know why the camera hex is? Its because any good pic (see the first picture) of an animal is going to show it to be obviously a common bear or what have you. Only bad pics (see the 2nd and 3rd pictures) will be open enough to interpretation to get the mind running as to if it is indeed a --- (insert hoped for creature here).

    The 'Camera Hex event' is directly proportional to the 'Pic of a Mysterious Creature event'. In fact, they go hand in hand so much so that the reverse is even true:

    When cameras take bad, fuzzy, indistinct pictures there are often strange creatures being framed by the lens.

    So I will lay you dollars to donuts that last pic is merely one of the bear cubs rolling around in play. Like a house cat, when it stretches out it can look much skinner than when it is at normal repose. Bears are very human (primate) like, in fact some Native Americans believed humans and bears were related.

    IMHO there is nothing mysterious here. The first pic says it all - bear cubs.
  6. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    This was taken in the infrared...using an infrared flash...(non visible). And infrared focuses at a different point than visible. We used to practice this with kodak 35mm infrared film. the results looked similar and were of limited utility( but that was before night scopes and x?generation light intensifiers. This was probably taken in pitch black darkness. Older 35mm lenses had a red "infrared focus" mark offset from the regular mark so you could estimate the focus by distance.

    The cubs are only visible in the first image, the ones with the critter in it show a black object, I think that is the salt block from the first image turned on its side.
    I agree it's strange ALL critter; ufo; and loch ness monster photos are fuzzy and indistinct...
  7. Ardent Listener

    Ardent Listener Monkey+++

    Update to the story. Further photos clearly show that the object in question was SurvivalMonkey.[beer]
  8. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Clyde!!! dang it! takeoff the big foot sandals and get a good waxing...thought you were banned from pa anyway(?)
  9. fritz_monroe

    fritz_monroe Monkey+++

    Looks like a chimp to me.

    Have you guys taken a look at the New York Baby footage linked in the original article? Looks to me like that was a monkey also. Not difficult to imagine someone owning a chimp illegally and it getting away. The locations are only a couple hundred miles away. The chimp's owner wouldn't report it getting away.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary