Wow. I was NOT expecting that one. A blobstump.

Which lifeform can be proven to exist in PA.?…….Bear…100%

Evidence; actual living specimens, no further proof required.

Which lifeform can be proven to exist in PA.? ……Bigfoot…0%

Evidence; eyewitness (subjective), photography (inconclusive), footprints (inconclusive), physical (inconclusive), actual living specimens…none.

Based on the EVIDENCE, if the image shows an actual living animal and the CHOICE is between a Bear (100% proven, even if mangy) or a Bigfoot (0% proven) – then your answer is clear.
Please don’t misunderstand, I hope for the day when the Bigfoot also equals 100%.

But this image isn’t the one to do that.
Note that this picture appears to have been run through a photo-program to enhance the image so that something at least shows in the dimly lit landscape. I feel this is why the detailing is so poor. Also, I think that this is small detail of a larger image in which the subject figure is rather small.

“It’s most likely, as others have also mentioned, a mangy bear. One that is facing the camera. it is precisely the kind of photo you would expect to occasionally get to help substantiate that the “Jacobs creature” of BFRO (Matt Moneymaker) fame is also a mangy bear.”

(Prove it. You can’t. Actually, given how you pile assumption on assumption, I’ll take the “photographer,” who thought it looked like a “little gorilla,” over you, precisely because one can’t tell what that is.)

“How about a little quiz in logic:”

(This’ll be fun.)

1. There are bears in PA. (They share habitat with sasquatch. Good point.)

2. No sasquatches have ever been found (dead or alive)…anywhere, let alone in PA. (That anyone wants to believe. There are some guys in PA you might not want to stand in front of and call them liars.)

3. Bears get mange. (Hmmmm. That might mean sasquatch do too. So you can diagnose mange from a badly-pixelated photo? Some degree you got there!)

4. Mange causes loss of hair and many times loss of weight (primarly fat
reserves). (So you are diagnosing how much hair/weight loss here? From what are you making this judgment?)

5. Removal of hair and fat on mammals = profound change of appearance. (I think a few of us humans might have noticed that . (I get better looking every day. You are diagnosing “removal(?) of hair and fat, precisely, how?)

6. Mangy animals appear different than their healthy counterparts –
specifically, skinnier and longer-limbed. (So, you saw this guy before he got all pixelated? As in, you were there?)

“Now, what is more likely – that blurry or odd-positioned still photos of
unidentified animals that don’t look like anything else as observed by non
wildlife experts are A) an alien or legendary organism, or B) a common animal filmed in an awkward position and/or having a common disease or health issue?”

(When one thinks that only cars and buses exist, and not trucks, the chances of getting hit by a truck, according strictly to that person now, are zero percent. Some of us might want to look more than “both ways” before crossing the, um, woods.)

See, what this amounts to is another “expert” content that no one will call him on all the assumptions he stacks up, because, well, he is an “expert” and cannot be gainsaid.

Except by people that concern themselves with, er, logic.

Debate Jeff Meldrum and you might start making points. Until then…don’t shine that ‘science’ right in people’s eyes, junior. Blinds folks to the truth. And how to get it.

(Again, for the record: I don’t know what that is. That’s not the expert take, just the intelligent one. I’ve seen more bears than you. Wanna bet…?)

This photo aside, we can at least ascertain either

(1) your lack of a science degree or

(2) your egregious failure to exercise it outside a very narrow technical range of specialty.

They DID teach logic where I went to school.

How about a little quiz in logic:

1. There are bears in PA.

2. No sasquatches have ever been found (dead or alive)…anywhere, let alone in PA.

3. Bears get mange.

4. Mange causes loss of hair and many times loss of weight (primarly fat reserves).

5. Removal of hair and fat on mammals = profound change of appearance. (I think a few of us humans might have noticed that .

6. Mangy animals appear different than their healthy counterparts – specifically, skinnier and longer-limbed.

Now, what is more likely – that blurry or odd-positioned still photos of unidentified animals that don’t look like anything else as observed by non wildlife experts are A) an alien or legendary organism, or B) a common animal filmed in an awkward position and/or having a common disease or health issue?

Let that little logic exercise soak in. Because THAT my friends, sums up (other than lies, hallucinations, errors in judgment and hoaxes) the entire episode of bigfootery. Wow! Maybe logic is an important subject to teach in schools, after all!

And it still doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy the old Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search Of” series quite a few years back. At least he wasn’t so arrogant as to name it “Finding…”