• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

New juvenile sasquatch/OOP ape photos

nataraja

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
106
What do people think of these photos?

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

The first one looks like a chimp to me, the second one i'm having much more difficulty making out... if i half close my eyes, i can almost see a face looking somewhere between a panther and a bull terrier type dog... but then i'm not even sure if that's the front or back end of the animal...

It really doesn't look like a man in a suit (unless it's Andy Serkis)...

Whatever it is i don't think it's the same species as the Patterson footage. Don't some people regard the "NApe" as a distinct cryptid from bigfoot?

Almost makes me think of that "Skinwalker" stuff...
 
Interesting. It's worth adding the text here:

These images 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.

These images are currently being analyzed for the BFRO by anthropologists at Idaho State University at Pocatello. The anthropologists will be examining bear skeletons in order to rule out that possibility definitively.

More details, data, and related images will be added to this page in coming days.

The specific location will not be disclosed publicly, for obvious reasons.


These recent images from Pennsylvania are very significant to bigfoot research. They likely show a juvenile bigfoot, as they have been described consistently by eyewitnesses over the years. Juvenile bigfoots are typically described as quadrupedal (walking on four legs), with the ability to climb trees or run very quickly on all fours. They are sometimes seen alternating between a quadrupedal posture and an awkward bipedal posture. Whereas the larger, adult bigfoots 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 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 refered 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.

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 only, please send an email to [email protected]

All other comments or questions about these photos should be posted on the BFRO's public discussion forum.

Copyright © 2007 BFRO.net
 
Maybe a malnourished bear from an awkward angle? Could even be a dog, but I'm not immediately seeing an ape or apeman.
 
I usually lurk here, but these pictures intrigued me so much I went on a Google hunt for pictures of bears to compare. My initial thought was 'that's not a bear.' I don't think it's impossible to be a bear, but it'd be a strange bear.

From my observations bears have short legs in relationship to long bodies, are massively muscled, and tend to be rump heavy. The creature in those photos appears to have long limbs in relationship to a short body, and appears to carry more weight in the shoulders than behind (it seems to be almost flat behind, which is really odd for a bear). Also -- and this is quite possibly just a consequence of the lighting -- the hair seems different than a bear's. Bears have very thick, shaggy fur -- note how dark the bear cubs are in the first picture. The creature seems to have sparser, finer hair.

Also, in the second picture, note how the creature's fore arm seems to join to the body. To me it seems to join the body in the manner more of a biped than a quadruped, with the arm joining the shoulder at the corner of the body, rather in the middle in the manner of an animal, although it's difficult to tell for sure.

It could still be a bear -- but it'd be a really weird bear. And it can't be a wolf or dog or cat or any other four-legged animal in the North American wilderness. Why? Because the hind joints bend the wrong way. They bend forward, like knees, not backwards like hocks. Bears are the only North American quadruped I can think of who have rear legs like that.
 
Fascinating stuff. I'd say the author possibly jumps to the "juvenile bigfoot" conclusion a bit too fast - surely OOP chimps would be equally (or indeed far, far more) likely? After all, who knows what escaped pets are out there? If that photo was taken in Africa, I'm not sure there's anything about it which would make me think anything else but chimpanzee.

The second mystery photo looks to me like the creature's facing away from the camera, crouched, with its arse sticking towards us slightly.

That would be a very weird bear, the limb length and posture looks all wrong, but if anyone could show any bears photographed at angles that would look anything like that I'd love to see them.
 
I couldn't find much at odd angles. Here's a bear sort of bending over, but from the front:

http://www.starsailcruises.com/starsail ... itBear.jpg

Here's a bear bending over, but once again from the front. Still, it gives the impression of the sort of bulk involved that the 'creature' lacks:

http://gardenpartyradio.com/wp/images/Sleeping-Bear.jpg

Here's the closest I could find to either of the 'creature's' positions:

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/content/a ... news01.jpg

(Although note that's a grizzly, and the bear population in PA is supposed to be entirely black bears, from what I can find out.)

Will keep looking for pictures.
 
I was fascinated by these photos. It definitely looks ape-like to me.
 
It looks very much like a young chimpanzee in my inexpert opinion.

Edit: After taking a second look, it looks like another young bear. Lean and lanky and seen from behind, but a bear. It appears to be 'standing on its head' in the last picture, so you can see the bear face, even.
 
Actually, I'm moving over to bear after looking at the photos a few times. A bear that's lankier than normal, maybe, but on reflection maybe it doesn't have to be too weird. Plus we know there's bears in the neighbourhood...

A great simulacra of a chimp if not though, and I'm still willing to be persuaded back.

Werecow - all your pics are of full grown grizzlies! A black bear cub would be a lot more supple.
 
evilsprout said:
Werecow - all your pics are of full grown grizzlies! A black bear cub would be a lot more supple.

Not all of them are. The first one is a black bear, albeit it a 'spirit bear.' But I was having an hard time finding ones of black bears in odd positions, so I threw up a couple of grizzlies and made a note to that effect.

(Still looking at bears...)
 
Talking of bears, this link, on this very site, seems to lend credence to the theory that these photos could well show mangy bears. The legs of the so-called "Chupacabear" (Cabear-sucker?) look much longer and thinner than on a normal bear, due to the lack of hair?

I'd love to think this thread was about a sasquatch, but even I am beginning to have doubts!
 
In my humble opinion it is an unwell (for whatever reason) bear

Two reasons, one is the proximity of cubs to what would otherwise be a strange animal, and the other is that the length of limb is by no means a convincing argument.

If you look at these two examples of young bears, though they are admittedly somewhat chubbier, they do display the same sort of leg dimentions if you allow for the amount that the stomach hangs down.

black_bear_photos_3_.jpg


black_bear_photos_2_.jpg
 
Forget about what it looks like for a second. Because even experts can be fooled by pictures of things taken at funny angles or bad lighting. Would a mother bear allow a creature like a bigfoot (if it did exist) anywhere near her cubs?
 
Dessie32 said:
Forget about what it looks like for a second. Because even experts can be fooled by pictures of things taken at funny angles or bad lighting. Would a mother bear allow a creature like a bigfoot (if it did exist) anywhere near her cubs?

I've often heard warnings to stay away from bear cubs, as the mother is usually nearby. The implication here is that bear cubs wander away from their mothers. So maybe a baby sasquatch got a savage mauling off-camera. ;)
 
Mister_Awesome said:
Dessie32 said:
Forget about what it looks like for a second. Because even experts can be fooled by pictures of things taken at funny angles or bad lighting. Would a mother bear allow a creature like a bigfoot (if it did exist) anywhere near her cubs?

I've often heard warnings to stay away from bear cubs, as the mother is usually nearby. The implication here is that bear cubs wander away from their mothers. So maybe a baby sasquatch got a savage mauling off-camera. ;)

So then there would be some forensic evidence left behind. But as all ways there is none.
 
Just saw his thread, I work for a zoo that is world famous for its collection of primates (including chimps gorillas bonobos and orangs) and I'm pretty sure that if you showed these photos to any of our staff without explaining the background they would unhesitatingly ask where the photo of the chimp or bonobo was taken.
 
BlackPeter said:
Just saw his thread, I work for a zoo that is world famous for its collection of primates (including chimps gorillas bonobos and orangs) and I'm pretty sure that if you showed these photos to any of our staff without explaining the background they would unhesitatingly ask where the photo of the chimp or bonobo was taken.

Yeah but that still don't mean it is not a picture of a mangy bear though.
 
Yes that's the problem and despite apearances I would personally incline (given circumstances) towards the mangy bear theory!
 
When I first saw these pictures, I was very excited - BUT after a minute or so my excitement was replaced with disapointment. I think this is clearly the mother of the bear cubs in the first picture, although she is obviously very sick. Also, something else which troubles me is where are the other photos in the sequence? it seems to me that the published photos have been carefully chosen to cause a stir - to make the public believe that this could indeed be photographic evidence of Bigfoot. The camera would surely have taken other shots in between the published shots, where are they? why have they not been published? because they would have clearly shown that this was a bear I suspect. Thinking logically these photos must be dismissed I feel. I would love to see photographic evidence of bigfoot, I am not a disbeliever, I truely want to believe in the existance of such large Bi-pedal primates, but these photos do not prove anything.
 
Back
Top