Comments on: More on the Juvenile Bigfoot Photos

By: obastide

obastide — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:12:35 +0000

If this is indeed a bear it is almost as much of an anomaly as it would be if it were a sasquatch. I watched bears for two hours at the St. Louis Zoo this past Sunday and saw none that had anything resembling the physiognamy of this creature. This animal seems to have shoulders, which bears do not; it appears to have kneecaps, a pointed head, limbs disproportionately long and round in cross section for an ursid. Most importantly, it doesnt seem to have a neck. Bears have a longish neck. They dont have to go through the contortions seen in photo 3 to sniff the ground because of the lenth of their neck and the relative shortness (compared to primates) of their limbs.

By: chabbu2

chabbu2 — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:42:37 +0000

Well, that was exciting for a few minutes. I’m pretty sure that I can make out an ear (a pointy, triangularish bear’s ear) on the BFRO’s Image 2. Sorry folks, looks like it’s just a (nearly) bare bear.

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:02:06 +0000

So, is everybody in agreement that it’s a bear? Really wasn’t that hard to figure out. Since you can see its head in the 3rd photo if you really look close. And the cubs in the first photo pretty much give a person a good idea of what the other 2 photos are. Even if they are taken a few minutes apart.

By: greenmartian2007

greenmartian2007 — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:11:23 +0000

A little bit more.

Apparently on Whitley Streiber’s “Dreamland” internet radio service (can be heard on http://www.unknowncountry.com, click on the appropriate link there) this weekend, Linda Moulton Howe is going to conduct an interview about the Kinzua Dam photos.

It may or may not be of utility.

Thought I might give you guys a “heads up” on that.

By: deejay

deejay — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:28:32 +0000

I have to admit, I was excited at first when the original photos were posted. I had no idea that a bear could look like that. Now that I know it can, I’m convinced its a bear. It was fun while it lasted.

By: Alton Higgins

Alton Higgins — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:46:16 +0000

A comparison of one of the photos with a young black bear can be seen here. http://tinyurl.com/3b4g7w

The fact that this critter looks like a bear leads me to conclude that the animal photographed by the Jacobs camera is a bear. How profound is that?

By: red_pill_junkie

red_pill_junkie — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:21:25 +0000

Well, the 2nd photo had intrigued me because of what I (erronously) considered a disproportionate length of the hind legs. But then you check on the 3rd photo, and you culd discern the lighter snout of the bear, and even the two big ears at the top of the skull. So yeah, this was tempting, but still not the real deal.

But this what we’re supposed to do, we’ll sort through the evidence by the process of trial and error. And BTW, great comments above mistery_man, as always

We now know mangy bears can fool us at first glance. With this new knowledge let’s move on.

By: CrimsonFox79

CrimsonFox79 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:20:34 +0000

Just looks like a human to me. Not a bear (even a sickly, skinny bear wouldn’t have that anatomy). The legs look significantly longer than the arms, like a human hunched over on all fours.

By: bill green

bill green — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:20:50 +0000

hey everyone wow this is definetly a very inportant update article about these photos defiently worth debateing about honestly etc. good afternoon bill green

By: richcap

richcap — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:18:13 +0000

This is very clear example of how the BFRO has gone bye-bye.
If they were the “scientific” organization they say they are – they certainly wouldn’t be waving their flag on the mountaintop, stating facts on the behavior of juvenile sasquatch.
As I said, this too, shall pass. And all we’re left with are some photos of a scrawny bear and alot of time spent debating.
Aw, I miss the old days of the BFRO, where they did good work.