Bigfoot Caught on Camera in PA Woods

[thewild]

It is furry, lives in the woods and walks on all fours.

Beyond that, there are no hard facts about the furtive creature spotted prowling around the foot of a tree in Pennsylvania.

But its mysterious appearance has prompted a storm of speculation - and prompted many Bigfoot believers to grab their cameras and head for the woods.

Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490638/Is-Bigfoot---bear-bad-skin.html

Read more...

Long time lurker here but actually registered for the forum to share this news story. I love Bigfoot, and I hope they are alive and well and get more photogenic!

Edited November 27, 2009 by thewild

[Kipperphoenix]

I've seen those before. They look like photos of a chimpanzee to me.

[behaviour???]

I've seen those before. They look like photos of a chimpanzee to me.

Just what I was going to say...they merely looks like a chimpanzee...I would appreciate any proof to claims otherwise

Thanks

B???

[JonathanVonErich]

sadly not a bigfoot...damn !!

[Stormcrow]

Yeah, this has been posted tons of times before. It was pretty much decided to be a bear with mange.

[KennyB]

behaviour???, Wonder if a chimpanzee could survive the winter in a PA. forest? KB

[Agent. Mulder]

behaviour???, Wonder if a chimpanzee could survive the winter in a PA. forest? KB

Kenny, no one can show this IS in PA. it can easily be a chimp outside Anywhere. unless youve been to that tree and know for sure its in PA.

just because someone says the pic was taken there, doesnt mean its true. besides, weve seen this pic before.

[behaviour???]

behaviour???, Wonder if a chimpanzee could survive the winter in a PA. forest? KB

ofcourse...you have any proof that this place is PA?

Thanks

B???

[Neognosis]

It is a sick bear with mange. It's been debunked over and over. But this post is an EXCELLENT example of how bigfoot folks keep perpetuating the same hoaxes and/or misinformation over and over and over again. No doubt it will come up again in the future. Right now, there are people out there that still think this is a baby bigfoot.

[Tarmac_Chris]

It is a sick bear with mange. It's been debunked over and over. But this post is an EXCELLENT example of how bigfoot folks keep perpetuating the same hoaxes and/or misinformation over and over and over again. No doubt it will come up again in the future. Right now, there are people out there that still think this is a baby bigfoot.

Calm down, the topic creator is only a day old and might not have seen these before. Unlike him, the rest of us HAVE seen it before and not a single one of us agreed with the BF assumption, in fact all replies said it was not.

Rather than using this as an example of how horribly bad bigfooters are, perhaps it may be better to look at as a good example of a confusing photo which caused enough controversy to warrant a deeper look. The correct conclusion was reached, so no big deal.

[JonathanVonErich]

glad to see a post by you Chris...long time since i saw one from you !

[thewild]

Calm down, the topic creator is only a day old and might not have seen these before. Unlike him, the rest of us HAVE seen it before and not a single one of us agreed with the BF assumption, in fact all replies said it was not.

Rather than using this as an example of how horribly bad bigfooters are, perhaps it may be better to look at as a good example of a confusing photo which caused enough controversy to warrant a deeper look. The correct conclusion was reached, so no big deal.

Yea, you are right, I HAVEN"T seen these pics before. I thought it was recent news. I live in bear country though and have seen thousands of bears but none of them had mange. Maybe the stress of living in PA? So, was there a definate conclusion to these pics? It does kinda look like a chimp but why would bear cubs hang around a chimp? Anyway, seizure later..

[Mistydawn]

Oh sigh, me oh my. Come the day when I browse the forums and see a post about the sightings of an actual Bigfoot and discover it can't be disproved or ridiculed. Sigh.

[+DieChecker]

The pics are from 2007. Commonly known as Jacob's pictures or Jacob's Bigfoot.

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

Calm down, the topic creator is only a day old and might not have seen these before. Unlike him, the rest of us HAVE seen it before and not a single one of us agreed with the BF assumption, in fact all replies said it was not.

Rather than using this as an example of how horribly bad bigfooters are, perhaps it may be better to look at as a good example of a confusing photo which caused enough controversy to warrant a deeper look. The correct conclusion was reached, so no big deal.

I think I remember that differently. There were several posters who examined the photos, myself included, and could not say 100% that this was a bear. There have been various individuals out on the web who have done the measurements of the creature and found it not to be consistant with a bear. So there are still people who use science that are not sure what the creature is.

Myself I think it was a bear. Maybe a genetically abnormal bear, but probably not a baby bigfoot.

There are several other threads on this topic. Here is one....

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=122489&st=0&p=2224465&hl=jacob's%20bigfoot&fromsearch=1&entry2224465

Edited November 29, 2009 by DieChecker

[Nuckelavee]

Not suprising, the Daily Mail is made out of BS anyway.

[Neognosis]

I think I remember that differently. There were several posters who examined the photos, myself included, and could not say 100% that this was a bear. There have been various individuals out on the web who have done the measurements of the creature and found it not to be consistant with a bear. So there are still people who use science that are not sure what the creature is.

What a bunch of silliness, but again, following the formula. "various individuals who have done measurements......" Measurements Really? Come on... this is the usual grasping at straws combined with an appeal to a vague and usually improper authority. Next there will be an "animal kinesthetics" expert who will go on Monster Quest and claim that no known animal can posture like that and the bigfoot people will have a ball, even though it is as ridiculous as the claim that no human could possibly stride the same way that a figure in a distant, grainy, shaky film with no reference point does.

It's a bear. Possibly a sick bear. It is in a group with other bears. It is in an area where there are lots of bears. Bears sometimes do have mange or other diseases that could result in them being thin and having sickly fur. The only picture where it looks weird is at a funny angle. It is entirely consistent with "the measurements" of a bear because IT IS A BEAR.

But if you would rather entertain the idea that instead of the obvious conclusion, it could be a mythical creature for which there is not one single shred of scientific evidence, that is up to you. IMO, that is very silly, though fun.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Neognosis

[+DieChecker]

There are lots of those people on Youtube... They have some points if I am seeing things right. But, I still feel this was a weird bear. But, then one of my favorite theorys on BF (Aside from the H. Erectus theory) is that it is some weird bear sub-species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Z1I7u-rzw

[+DieChecker]

What a bunch of silliness, but again, following the formula. "various individuals who have done measurements......" Measurements Really? Come on...

Hey. I did not say scientists, or that they were correct. I said some people had done measurements and thought those measurements raised doubts. Isn't that the scientific method? Collect data and compare?

But if you would rather entertain the idea that instead of the obvious conclusion, it could be a mythical creature for which there is not one single shred of scientific evidence, that is up to you. IMO, that is very silly, though fun.

Well you are right about at least one thing... "IMO", it is your Opinion.

[Neognosis]

You have to collect real data based in reality, not made up data to support a fantasy.

ONe need go no further than 58 seconds into the first video diechecker posted to see the fantasy. The creature has no tail? Really? From a blurry photo at night, you can tell that? No, you can't. but you can make yourself believe that if you want to badly enough. The video then goes on to compare healthy, well fed bears with the skinny, diseased bear of the photo. Then makes a silly claim about body proportions. Do you folks really buy into this nonsense riddled with subjective silliness? Now it's going on and showing "enhanced" versions of the photos and claiming to see things that are not there. This seems typical of these bigfoot photos. They are more Rorschach tests then anything else. Clear genitalia? No. Not unless you are closed minded and want to see what you want to see.

but don't take my word for it, just watch the first of what 'checker links to. I am continuously entertained by what some people will convince themselves of.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Neognosis

[UltraThunderMan]

Silly rabbit, Bigfoot is a myth like the Yeti or his native american cousin, the Skunk Ape.

[bigarsebits]

Hey. I did not say scientists, or that they were correct. I said some people had done measurements and thought those measurements raised doubts. Isn't that the scientific method? Collect data and compare?

Well you are right about at least one thing... "IMO", it is your Opinion.

Not sure about hairless bears or measurements, but looks a LOT like an old dorm-mate of mine doing the "Downward Dog" Yoga exercise. Has anyone really been able to measure anything or judge sex from this grainy film ? Stuff like this always makes me question angles....granted it looks strange, but does it warrant all of us suddenly believing in Sasquatch ? I'd love to believe, but until there is a dead (hopefully natural causes) Bigfoot carcass, DNA typed and tagged, I will be a bit skeptical.And if/when that day comes, I will gladly roll over any take all the "Told you so's" that believers can fling.

[Sweetpumper]

Finally, some real proof that Bigfoot exists.

[+DieChecker]

You have to collect real data based in reality, not made up data to support a fantasy.

ONe need go no further than 58 seconds into the first video diechecker posted to see the fantasy. The creature has no tail? Really? From a blurry photo at night, you can tell that? No, you can't. but you can make yourself believe that if you want to badly enough. The video then goes on to compare healthy, well fed bears with the skinny, diseased bear of the photo. Then makes a silly claim about body proportions. Do you folks really buy into this nonsense riddled with subjective silliness? Now it's going on and showing "enhanced" versions of the photos and claiming to see things that are not there. This seems typical of these bigfoot photos. They are more Rorschach tests then anything else. Clear genitalia? No. Not unless you are closed minded and want to see what you want to see.

but don't take my word for it, just watch the first of what 'checker links to. I am continuously entertained by what some people will convince themselves of.

Does one.... or many stupid points invalidate other, or even one, valid point? You seem to be making a wide dismissal that non-degree'd people can not do science. The one video clearly shows how the fellow measured the approximate bone structure and that he found it much more closely resembled an ape then a bear. By a factor of 50% or something like that. So do we throw that out simply because the pics are blurry, or that we can not see the face or that he is drawing conclusions about tails and genitals? Does science really toss out all data in a particular event if part of that data is judged to be wrong?

[Neognosis]

No, checker, non-degreed people can "do science." but that's not what these people are doing. The factor that these people are missing is that the photo is in the dark, grainy, blurry. And they also assume that a bear can not have odd dimensions or that the camera angle and shadow can make things look even odder.

THere is also no source for these physical formulas. Science tosses out data that is not reliable. Otherwise, you end up coming to false conclusions. Like some people are doing with this mangy bear.

IF the photo is discernible and IF shadow doesn't change the "measurements" and IF the measurements are even valid anyway (no source or anything given, and no zoologist seems to think there is anything to this, btw), and IF the thing actually doesn't have a tail, and IF it wasn't surrounded by BEAR CUBS in an place where BEARS are very common, then MAYBE some of that "data" would be valid. But it is not. And the conclusion from invalid data is invalid.

You are willing to ignore all the accepted data in favor of one bit of questionable data, and instead draw your conclusion on that? Come now.... this is why what these people are doing is not science.

[+DieChecker]

No, checker, non-degreed people can "do science." but that's not what these people are doing. The factor that these people are missing is that the photo is in the dark, grainy, blurry. And they also assume that a bear can not have odd dimensions or that the camera angle and shadow can make things look even odder.

THere is also no source for these physical formulas. Science tosses out data that is not reliable. Otherwise, you end up coming to false conclusions. Like some people are doing with this mangy bear.

Oh, I agree that it is hard to use a single pic or two to proove anything. I also concede that it is unlikely this guy went out and consulted animal experts on apes and bears. Probably he just did it with a printer and a ruler. But what he did should have poked some expert so that he would do his own study of the pics. But, incredulousness and the likelyhood of ridicule probably prevents that scientific analysis from happening.

IF the photo is discernible and IF shadow doesn't change the "measurements" and IF the measurements are even valid anyway (no source or anything given, and no zoologist seems to think there is anything to this, btw), and IF the thing actually doesn't have a tail, and IF it wasn't surrounded by BEAR CUBS in an place where BEARS are very common, then MAYBE some of that "data" would be valid. But it is not. And the conclusion from invalid data is invalid.

Fair enough. I have trouble with the bear cubs too. Seems that if there are cubs, there is a mother bear, who, to me, would probably show up in a pic or two also.

You are willing to ignore all the accepted data in favor of one bit of questionable data, and instead draw your conclusion on that? Come now.... this is why what these people are doing is not science.

I'm not drawing conclusions, merely being open to using the data not thrown out to ask more questions. I don't ignore any data. You probably have seen that I agree with all proven data. I am just looking at where the anomolous data comes from. And really isn't that the Scientific Method at its core? Investigation to further expand knowledge.