Don’t overcomplicate Occam’s Razor.

Two simple explanations.

Bear.

Or something else.

The “overcomplication” comes in complicating a simple explanation. NEVER do that.

You should expect horses, when you live in places where zebras don’t run free. In many areas of Africa, to think horse would be absurd. Zebras would be the simplest explanation: in almost no area of Africa where zebra are native are there sizable numbers of horses.

Once again we see the General Implausibility Theorem (GIT) at work. There’s only one reason that a sas wouldn’t be as simple an explanation as a bear: they, well, they, they, they….they DON’T EXIST!

Well, what if they do? Then they’ve been a simple alternative explanation all along.

Right?

“Simple” does not mean “slightly more likely” or even “much more likely” on a percentage basis given population size. Simple means simple. If the shot clearly shows an okapi, then that the shot was taken in PA has no relevance. Okapi is a simple explanation. I mean, there it is.

It could be a bear.

Or it could be something else.

Whether we know the something else to exist or not has no impact.

“If you hear hooves in the night, expect horses rather than zebra.”

Occam and his razor again. Bear it is.

the image of the bear has been digitally manipulated…turned to face the same direction as the mystery creature probably resized and superimposed i.e. layered over it at a reduced opacity so that both images are visible. The face of the bear has been selected and layered over the dark spot in the jacobs photo to show that the head of a bear could actually fit the shadowed area that exists there on the original photo.

so this is photoshopped image shows that the structure and posture of the bear could indeed fit the structure and posture of animal x.

Using this program we have been able to make some pretty convincing comparisons.

As to the posture, it is not something that a bear could not do. Same with the feet. Bears just do not have stiff, inflexible feet. Bears can take up a wide variety of postures and can be quite flexible. On the opposite side, we have no idea what positions a juvenile sasquatch would make. Not to say that a sasquatch could not, but a bear can so I do not see a need to toss the explanation that fits the known paradigm of wildlife in the area and a known holotype in favor of an unknown just yet. As for the hair of the creature, I don’t know if we can really tell with this resolution just how “even” or “well groomed” the coat is.

A lot of unbiased facts point to this being a bear, so I don’t understand how one could be seen as close minded for thinking that. I will not say with total certainty that it is a bear, as maybe juvenile sasquatch match up very closely with what a mangy bear looks like and we cannot see any of the defining features that would have ended this debate. But a great deal supports these as being a bear, the animal in the photos match up to a known holotype. In order to safely ignore a known animal that matches so many of the circumstances we see in these photos in favor of an unknown, there would have to be more evidence to that effect. Taking a well know paradigm and comparing to that to these photos is not being closed minded or biased, it is something required to do this in a scientific manner. I do see what the others are saying about why these might not be a bear, but nothing really says these cannot be of a bear.

For me, to say it is a bear is not an absolute certainty. It is a best guess considering what I see, the circumstances of the photos, and what we know about bears versus what we do not know about sasquatch. Anyway, whether these are of a sasquatch or not, it has no direct bearing on the larger question of whether sasquatch exist or not. I really wish that people would not take those who rationally explain their reasons for thinking these are of a bear and paint them wish the broad brush of being Bigfoot denialists of some kind. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Thinking these are not juvenile sasquatch photos and thinking sasquatch do not exist are two very very different things.