Pa. hunter's images stir Bigfoot debate

Dark Knight · #1 10-31-2007, 07:32 AM

RIDGWAY, Pa. - It's furry and walks on all fours. Beyond that, about the only thing certain about the critter photographed by a hunter's camera is that some people have gotten the notion it could be a Sasquatch, or bigfoot. Others say it's just a bear with a bad skin infection.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/..._bigfoot_in_pa

Pandora · #2 10-31-2007, 07:39 AM

I've been looking at these pictures for several days now, and I don't think it's a bear--mangy or not.

(However, I do have to admit that I have never seen a bear nekkid, so it could be one.)
I think it looks like someone was keeping some type of monkey/gorilla/orangutan as a pet, it got too big, and they just turned it loose! It happens with gators, exotic fish, and (gulp) snakes all the time. I can't imagine how it hooked up with bears though, that confuses me.
I don't go for the sasquatch angle because none of them have ever been hit on the road. Maybe that sounds stupid, but I have seen everything dead alongside the road. One year while we were on vacation, we passed a dead carcass, and I thought WTH for about 2 miles. Then I spoke up: "Did anyone else see a dead monkey by the side of the road about 2 miles back?" My parents just howled with laughter because they'd both seen it too, but had thought they were losing it!

Dark Knight · #3 10-31-2007, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandora

I've been looking at these pictures for several days now, and I don't think it's a bear--mangy or not.

(However, I do have to admit that I have never seen a bear nekkid, so it could be one.)
I think it looks like someone was keeping some type of monkey/gorilla/orangutan as a pet, it got too big, and they just turned it loose! It happens with gators, exotic fish, and (gulp) snakes all the time. I can't imagine how it hooked up with bears though, that confuses me.
I don't go for the sasquatch angle because none of them have ever been hit on the road. Maybe that sounds stupid, but I have seen everything dead alongside the road. One year while we were on vacation, we passed a dead carcass, and I thought WTH for about 2 miles. Then I spoke up: "Did anyone else see a dead monkey by the side of the road about 2 miles back?" My parents just howled with laughter because they'd both seen it too, but had thought they were losing it!

It doesn't look like a bear at all to me, either. Looks very humanoid.

Taximom · #4 10-31-2007, 08:31 AM

Someone give me a link to the pictures! I saw this "news" a few days ago, but haven't found a site with the pictures. When I tried the bigfoot site, I got a server busy message. Thanks!

luthersmama · #5 10-31-2007, 08:45 AM

I am 100% certain that it is a bear. Some of the images online are cropped so that only the "creature" is visible. Others show the complete scence which includes ......2 other bears!!! When you see all three bears together, it is plain as day that the one - probably the mom - is just skinny and mangy. The other two are fluffier.

There is another site that has a very clear photo of a mangy bear for comparison. It is surprisingly monkey-ish. I have to go to work, but I'll check back later and see if I can find them. The one site has "crypto" in the url if you want to try to find it. There is an article that is titled "Sometimes a mangy bear is just a mangy bear".

Taximom · #6 10-31-2007, 08:50 AM

Thanks, luthersmama. I saw one picture a few days ago, but it wouldn't enlarge. It looked like someone in a bad costume bent over doing something.

lizzybeth · #7 10-31-2007, 09:06 AM

My first thought was a bear with a skin condition and I still think that's the case. I didn't see the other pictures with the three bears (LOL).

Or maybe it's just because ever since I was a kid I'd had a Bigfoot phobia. I refuse to believe he exists.

Amraann · #8 10-31-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizzybeth

My first thought was a bear with a skin condition and I still think that's the case. I didn't see the other pictures with the three bears (LOL).

Or maybe it's just because ever since I was a kid I'd had a Bigfoot phobia. I refuse to believe he exists.

Lizzy I don't know that would so much be considered a phobia or just good old common sense!!

reportertype · #9 10-31-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandora

I've been looking at these pictures for several days now, and I don't think it's a bear--mangy or not.

(However, I do have to admit that I have never seen a bear nekkid, so it could be one.)
I think it looks like someone was keeping some type of monkey/gorilla/orangutan as a pet, it got too big, and they just turned it loose! It happens with gators, exotic fish, and (gulp) snakes all the time. I can't imagine how it hooked up with bears though, that confuses me.
I don't go for the sasquatch angle because none of them have ever been hit on the road. Maybe that sounds stupid, but I have seen everything dead alongside the road. One year while we were on vacation, we passed a dead carcass, and I thought WTH for about 2 miles. Then I spoke up: "Did anyone else see a dead monkey by the side of the road about 2 miles back?" My parents just howled with laughter because they'd both seen it too, but had thought they were losing it!

LOL. Your roadkill reasoning makes perfect sense! It doesn't look like a bear to me, either, but I all I know about bears is that I don't want to meet one.

reb · #10 10-31-2007, 11:00 AM

what's funny,, is how come you never, ever, EVER see a clear image of bigfoot, nessie, a ghost, a UFO, etc.. & all those other anomolies caught on camera.. it's always just a fleeting, blurry, vague and very 'mysterious' image... LOL.... i vote for 'guy in a costume' photographed by someone who is need of some attention (and possibly hoping for some dough!)

luthersmama · #11 10-31-2007, 11:05 AM

Here is a link to a photo of a black bear in Florida with mange:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo...acobs-cryptid/

Doesn't look much like a bear, does it?

luthersmama · #12 10-31-2007, 11:09 AM

And here's a link to a bigfoot page that shows the uncropped photos with the bear cubs. They still insist, though, that the "creature" is a juvenile bigfoot. Right.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

BTW, if you look through the Cryptomundo site, you will see where someone has overlaid bear bones on the "creature" and it shows that the typical proportions of bear bones fit the creature perfectly.

Squishified · #13 10-31-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reb

what's funny,, is how come you never, ever, EVER see a clear image of bigfoot, nessie, a ghost, a UFO, etc.. & all those other anomolies caught on camera.. it's always just a fleeting, blurry, vague and very 'mysterious' image... LOL.... i vote for 'guy in a costume' photographed by someone who is need of some attention (and possibly hoping for some dough!)

Exactly, reb!!!

Cypros · #14 10-31-2007, 01:32 PM

Thanks for directing us to the whole truth, Luthersmama.

Even without seeing the other bears in the picture, I thought it looked like a very malnourished bear. Definitely nothing primate.

It is too bad that there are people who will misrepresent information just to get attention or to "prove" a point.

Poor bear. It needs some good food and a safe place to raise its young.

reb · #15 10-31-2007, 02:21 PM

oh so it's really a malnourished bear...?? how awfully sad!!! something tells me we are going to be seeing more and more starving wildlife in the future,, thanks to what humans have done. i hope people (not just us, everyone whose debating the pic) will stop talking about the silly 'bigfoot' nonsense and will discuss what is really going on in the picture. but of course,, most people don't seem to care.. it seems most view wildlife as something that's 'in the way' of progress......

luthersmama · #16 10-31-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reb

oh so it's really a malnourished bear...?? how awfully sad!!! something tells me we are going to be seeing more and more starving wildlife in the future,, thanks to what humans have done. i hope people (not just us, everyone whose debating the pic) will stop talking about the silly 'bigfoot' nonsense and will discuss what is really going on in the picture. but of course,, most people don't seem to care.. it seems most view wildlife as something that's 'in the way' of progress......

Not exactly starving. Mange is caused by a mite that burrows into the skin and makes the animal itch. It scratches and scratches, making most of its hair fall out. Then it becomes prone to infections and other diseases. If it injures itself, the scratches can get maggots and then things go downhill in a bad way. That bear will probably not survive the winter without a full coat. It tends to be a problem where there is a very large population of a particular animal. It spreads from animal to animal and can infect pets who come into contact with the mites. The part of Pennsylvania where that photo was taken has lots of bears. They have had less competition from deer and other wildlife for food in recent years, so the bears population is growing very rapidly. Although I generally agree with you about the inordinant disregard for wildlife, mange is just one of those bad things that happens in an animal population regardless of humans.

Around my house we have many, many foxes. There are usually one or two with mange. The appearance of "skinniness" is mosly due to lack of fur. Think of a poodle that has been clipped - looks like a different species from one that is "natural". But mange can wear the animal down over time and can be lethal in winter.

A veterinarian for the state told me that it is possible to help foxes with mange if you can get a cooperative vet to sell you a huge dose of the iv form of ivermectin. You mix it with fruit and put it near the fox den so that they eat it. It is the same stuff that is in oral flea medications, but for mange you have to give a huge dose of the concentrated form. Don't know if it would work for bears - I suppose it might.

SeriouslySearching · #17 10-31-2007, 03:47 PM

How sad for bears to have mange! This would account for the "horrid smell" they have associated with sighting of "bigfoot", too.

However, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has a more conventional opinion. Agency spokesman Jerry Feaser said conservation officers routinely trap bears to be tagged and often see animals that look like the photos.

"There is no question it is a bear with a severe case of mange," Feaser told The Bradford Era.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/..._bigfoot_in_pa

SeriouslySearching · #18 10-31-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthersmama

And here's a link to a bigfoot page that shows the uncropped photos with the bear cubs. They still insist, though, that the "creature" is a juvenile bigfoot. Right.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

BTW, if you look through the Cryptomundo site, you will see where someone has overlaid bear bones on the "creature" and it shows that the typical proportions of bear bones fit the creature perfectly.

AHA! The "REST" of the story emerges!

Great job in finding that, LM!

Cypros · #19 10-31-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reb

oh so it's really a malnourished bear...?? how awfully sad!!! something tells me we are going to be seeing more and more starving wildlife in the future,, thanks to what humans have done. i hope people (not just us, everyone whose debating the pic) will stop talking about the silly 'bigfoot' nonsense and will discuss what is really going on in the picture. but of course,, most people don't seem to care.. it seems most view wildlife as something that's 'in the way' of progress......

I totally agree with you, reb. The bear is not just suffering from mange. It is VERY thin and appears to be malnourished. I feel so badly for wildlife that is forced into marginal lands and unable to maintain a healthy diet and life. Sadly, if this bear were to become aggressive in its efforts to find food for itself and its babies it would be considered a threat to humans and killed promptly.

I would love to see a stop to land development for residential purposes in order to quell the encroachment on lands that are homes to the earth's other creatures. There are plenty of houses out there. We do not need any more oversized McMansions. Cities can invest in improving old neighborhoods and families can refurbish old houses rather than building more and more of them.

luthersmama · #20 10-31-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypros

I totally agree with you, reb. The bear is not just suffering from mange. It is VERY thin and appears to be malnourished. I feel so badly for wildlife that is forced into marginal lands and unable to maintain a healthy diet and life. Sadly, if this bear were to become aggressive in its efforts to find food for itself and its babies it would be considered a threat to humans and killed promptly.

I would love to see a stop to land development for residential purposes in order to quell the encroachment on lands that are homes to the earth's other creatures. There are plenty of houses out there. We do not need any more oversized McMansions. Cities can invest in improving old neighborhoods and families can refurbish old houses rather than building more and more of them.

The part of PA where this bear was spotted would welcome development It is extremely rural and there is no shortage of bear habitat.

I don't disagree with your point, but factually it doesn't apply to this situation. People don't understand how huge Pennsylvania is and how much of it is uninhabited. Towns that developed because of coal or timber or oil are now struggling because there are no jobs. There are probably fewer people in Ridgway today than there were 100 years ago. And way more bears than back then.

Cypros · #21 10-31-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthersmama

The part of PA where this bear was spotted would welcome development It is extremely rural and there is no shortage of bear habitat.

I don't disagree with your point, but factually it doesn't apply to this situation. People don't understand how huge Pennsylvania is and how much of it is uninhabited. Towns that developed because of coal or timber or oil are now struggling because there are no jobs. There are probably fewer people in Ridgway today than there were 100 years ago. And way more bears than back then.

Actually, I live in PA so I am familiar with the terrain. Uninhabited land is not necessarily conducive to appropriate food and resources for wildlife when the land is subdivided by highways and much of the land is cultivated.

I realize that development is important to the economy, but I do not believe that new homes on unbuilt land are necessary when there are old abandoned homes that can be refurbished and old factories and other commercial lands that can be converted to housing and businesses.

reportertype · #22 10-31-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cypros

I totally agree with you, reb. The bear is not just suffering from mange. It is VERY thin and appears to be malnourished. I feel so badly for wildlife that is forced into marginal lands and unable to maintain a healthy diet and life. Sadly, if this bear were to become aggressive in its efforts to find food for itself and its babies it would be considered a threat to humans and killed promptly.

I would love to see a stop to land development for residential purposes in order to quell the encroachment on lands that are homes to the earth's other creatures. There are plenty of houses out there. We do not need any more oversized McMansions. Cities can invest in improving old neighborhoods and families can refurbish old houses rather than building more and more of them.

I agree. This is happening in many areas, tho as luthersmama pointed out, not all. It's bad in our part of Fla with panthers and their habitat getting smaller and smaller. They end up in highways getting run over.