Comments on: Photos of a Juvenile Sasquatch?

By: Mock26

Mock26 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:59:15 +0000

Most people who live in that region classify Erie, Crawford, Warren, Mercer, Venango, and Forest Counties as being part of Northwestern Pennsylvania. Northcentral PA runs from McKean and Elk to Tioga and Lycmoning.

http://county-map.digital-topo-maps.com/pennsylvania.shtml

By: Mock26

Mock26 — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:53:20 +0000

Warren, PA, is in Northwestern Pennsylvania. I grew up in that neck of the woods and everyone that I knew always said Northwestern when talking about that area of the state. Northcentral PA is further to the east.

By: YourPTR!

YourPTR! — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:24:00 +0000

Very interesting and curious pics. Don’t think it’s a bear, but wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility all together, but to me looks like either a person in a suit or a real sasquatch. Certainly not a very big sasquatch and pretty skinny. Inconclusive but intruiging for sure.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:30:09 +0000

m_m: all good points.

Remember, though, that I was simply saying it’s not possible, based on the evidence provided by the photos alone, to say what, precisely, this is.

Cheating I am, looking ahead a couple blogs for sure, but Meldrum noted one or two apparent ape similarities in the photos. Despite the fact that he’s apparently coming down bear, that just points out what photos can do.

Which is: sometimes a lot. Sometimes not much at all.

Which is why we’ll need photos, and footage, and significant additional evidence to confirm the sasquatch.

By: Giovarist

Giovarist — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:27:04 +0000

Thanks Joe Levit,
Yes, I initially saw what most others saw; what appears to be a bent over primate. Believe me, I would love it to be just that. Why else would any of us subscribe to this site? But the body dimensions and limb angles, as most seem to agree, look so odd.

I remember a picture of a very strange looking animal sitting in a field, that was posted on either this or another cryptid website several years ago. I believe the poster declared it to be a chupacabra. On closer inspection, of course, it was simply a red fox. But because of the unusual position the fox was sitting in, many people saw something that in no way resembled a fox, until it was literally pointed out in a post using a diagram overlaid on the original photo; “here is the head…” and so forth. (anyone else remember this?)

It seems to me this is a similar situation. And now that I’ve seen the bear head in photo #3, I’m afraid that’s all I CAN see.

And yes, the feet look funny no matter how you look at it.

Pareidolia. Had to look that up, and glad I did. Thanks again, Joe.

By: greenmartian2007

greenmartian2007 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:46:37 +0000

OK.

Craig posted a comment by someone else on a newer thread that this was done near the Kinzua Dam.

That is in Warren County, and the Kinzua is not that far from the New York border. It is inside the Allegheny National Recreational Area (I guess part of the Allegheny National Forest).

My beef is, Warren county isn’t in “Northwestern PA” really. Western PA is right next door to be sure, but that was a mislabeling by BFRO. North-Central PA is more accurate.

Here is more about the Kinzua Dam, from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinzua_Dam

It used to be Seneca land.

By: bobbo

bobbo — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:08:25 +0000

I have been looking at these pics alot since I know who got them. I just noticed something that looks odd to me. I know they are real pics and all but the 3rd pic does look like the head is facing the camera. In pic #2 notice on to log the white blotchy stuff, that was deer feed. In pic #3 above what appers to be a head sniffing the ground notice the white line. It looks like a continuation of the line on the log that starts on the left side of the log. I took a copy of both pics and laid them on top of each other. I then changed the opacity of the top pick 1% at a time and it seems to me that line is there the whole time and never dissapears. Its just not as bright. So where is the neck. I just dont know what kind of animal can stand there with both left side feet pointed the way they are if it is indeed facing the cam. Unless it turned just its head. I dont know just something I noticed. Has anyone else noticed it. If not look and let me know what you think.

By: joe levit

joe levit — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:29:29 +0000

Giovarist,

I can see now what you and others have seen as far as a bear head in the third picture. I just happen to think that is a case of pareidolia more than anything. As someone earlier pointed out, if that is a left front leg of the bear, then it’s a VERY odd thing for it to be pointed sideways to the right. Try to picture what others are seeing (not saying anything is certain), which is an ape-like figure bent over at the waist. In that scenario its left arm reaching out a long way to the ground, and its left leg is oriented in such a way that would make perfect sense for the direction of toes. Someone also pointed out the bare spot along the arm/leg. I have to say that to me that and the way the arm/leg looks hairy rather than with fur reminds me of an ape, particularly an orangutan.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:41:26 +0000

DWA- Let’s also remember that this “juvenile sasquatch” was photographed among other bears. I will admit that there is no way we can say that juvenile sasquatch don’t do this and it is a possible line of scientific inquiry as to whether they do or not. But let’s consider the hard facts. Added to all of the other evidence I mentioned, we know for a fact that bears can be seen with other bears and that especially young bears will be in a group like this. The notion that juvenile sasquatch do so is purely speculation. Period. Considering all of this, there is nothing unscientific about thinking that there is a good chance what we see here is a bear. I would say that the evidence says it is quite possible in light of what we know for a fact. There are no blinders involved with looking at what the facts tell us and reaching a level of certainty based on that.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:19:39 +0000

DWA- Another thing. Considering some of the points I mentioned above with respect to available evidence, I cannot see how it is somehow more scientific to think this is MORE likely a sasquatch than a bear as some seem to think. Unscientific is not only flatly denying that these could be of a sasquatch, as you say, but also ignoring the evidence that says “hey this could be a bear” while embracing an explanation (sasquatch) that has little to support it at this point. This is not “unconscious bias” necessarily, but rather weighing what we know (that bears are quadrupedal, live in the area, and can look strange due to mange) with what we don’t know (if juvenile sasquatch are quadrupedal, if they look like this, if they even exist) and then going with what the photos could be of. So when someone comes to the conclusion that these are probably of a bear, I don’t feel it is unscientific at all as that is what the evidence tends to point to in this case. Personally, I think these COULD be of a sasquatch, but it would be a bit unscientific to embrace that explanation above all others.