Jacobs Mischief Continues
Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 4th, 2007
It is the 4th of November, and yet it is literally almost two weeks since the beginning of the “Jacobs creature” melodrama. Despite the repeating of this story endlessly by the media, there are new stories being written this Sunday about it as if it is news.
This media flap beats to the drum of a different kind of absurdity.
There are people - thanks to news stories such as on CNN News today - that are hearing about and seeing a Rick Jacobs photo for the first time, described as a “juvenile sasquatch.”
At least one image (see above left) is still being shown, usually without even one comparison photograph of a mangy bear (as, for example, on the right).
Some folks even wish to ignore the obvious, saying that bears cannot get themselves into contorted positions.
Do not be distracted by the healthy fur and body fat of this specimen shown below, and merely take a look at how twisted the body of a bear can get when it needs to scratch itself:
hey loren very interesting update article about the jacobs photos which i do agree are becomeing very conterversal becouse the media. thanks bill green.
Maybe it is just a bear. Everyone seems to be jumping on that Monday morning quarterback train all at once. They knew it all along. Maybe so. If it is, its funny how disproportionate the hind legs of the Jacobs creature are to the hind legs of the mangy bear next to it. The Jacobs creatures legs look like they could be ten or more percent longer by comparison. Photoshopped? I dont know. One thing this business does show definitely is the amazing degree of infighting and resentment that exists in the ‘bigfoot community’. If some pariah in the community produced final proof of Bigfoot’s existance would it take the true belivers longer to accept it that the smirking Keith Olbermanns of the world?
I am not a wildlife biologist or an expert of any kind of game of North America, But, I thought that black bears had territories. And, if that’s the case would there be other black bears in this area? Especially in a territory of a mother with cubs? All the guys I work with think I am either a nut or are very sceptical of Bigfoot, but after seeing those photos, are very intrigued. By they way, they are mostly outdoorsman (hunters, fishers, etc). My opinion is that the questions these photos’ raise will never be resolved. With the clarity of these photos, I believe we are entering a “new and improved” age of game photography, lets hope that more is to come.
Maybe, within our lifetime, there will be solid, scientific proof of Bigfoot. But science tends to be a bit particular; needing more than fuzzy photos and anecdotes to declare an animal to exist. (Much less give it an appropriate classification and name)
The saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” definitely applies here. YES, we do need to keep open minds and go over all offered evidence, but that is NOT the same thing as blindly ignoring the facts that we do have in order to see what we want to be true.
As far as I am concerned this is, sadly, a sickly bear who more than likely will not survive a Pennsylvanian winter. Media hoopla not withstanding there is nothing new here, so rather than beat a dead horse(bear). Why not spend the time looking into other offered evidence that isn’t getting the media attention? It would be more productive and we might be able to avoid some of that ‘in-fighting and resentment’ that comes up at times like this.
Regardless of where one comes down on the identity of the creature in the photo, I’m convinced that the trailcam is our best bet to take the next convincing photo of a Squatch. If all goes well, I’ll be moving into rural Oregon in the not too distant future. When I do, I’ll be sure to get some-o-that newfangled equipment, i.e. a sound activated recorder and a camera or two as well.
That’s a seriously cute bear.
“The Jacobs creatures legs look like they could be ten or more percent longer by comparison.”
The bears body is foreshortened in the Jacobs photo, creating the illusion that the legs are longer in comparison to the other pic.
Hey Cryptomundians, What I keep seeing in these pictures is A: In the supposed little squatch pics. the arch in the back is up by the shoulder area of the creature. B: The arch in the back of a black bear is in the lower spine area of the bear when bent over. See this in the lower pic. This is just something I keep observing. What do you all think?
I think I’m getting tired of saying that the Jacobs “creature” is a bear while the media continue to blithely hype the topic.
http://tinyurl.com/yppqp3
Hey Loren, thanks for the update. Is it possible that the mangy bear in the Jacobs photo has longer legs than the bear in the comparison photo? Just a suggestion. Thanks!
Is it me or when you look at the 2 photos of the animal (the complete large pictures) at the bottom the black shape looks like its in the same spot even though the time has changed?
There are a few things that could be contributing to the illusion of longer legs in the Jacob’s pics. First of all, when a bear loses it’s hair to that extent, you are likely going to get distorted proportions compared to what you are used to seeing on an animal with its full coat. Second, keep in mind that often an animal with mange can exhibit a wide range of health problems, including difficulty eating and weight loss. A thinning bear, coupled with the lack of hair, is sure to make the legs look longer. Third, the angle of the photos I think is also contributing to the feeling that the “Jacob’s creature” has disproportionate limbs. I have given my opinion on this quite a few times, and that is that the limb length is well within the norms for a bear.
SOCALcryptid- The arch of the back in the Jacob’s photo is not anything impossible for a bear. I’ll say it again, bears really are not as inflexible as many here seem to think. They can get themselves into a wide variety of positions and like I’ve said before, quadrupeds can have very flexible spines. I find it interesting that many seem to regard a bear’s spine and feet as being so robotic and stiff when this simply is not true. I think even those here with experience seeing bears may not even be aware of just how flexible they can be. The bear in the photo above is just in a position that the bend appears in the lower back. It could just as easily display the hunch that we see in the Jacob’s photos. Just as you can hunch over at the waist or at the shoulder, so can a bear. The photos are just in two different positions, that’s all. Maybe a sas can do that too, that’s possible, but a bear definitely can.
I’d like to keep it as simple as Alton Higgins, but I’ll elaborate. With the facts that are apparent, a bear really is a very rational and probable explanation here. I cannot say that these 100% cannot be of a sasquatch, just that to me they are most likely not. In order to deviate from the known paradigm of the wildlife in the area, we are going to need more evidence that these absolutely CANNOT be a bear, and I find that evidence lacking (read- nonexistent) in this particular case. To me, everything in the Jacob’s photos from the habitat to the behavior the creature shows (positions, quadrupedalism) matches up quite well with a known holotype. Bear. In order to dismiss that possibility in favor of an unknown creature like a sasquatch, whose behavior and morphology we know little to nothing about about for sure, we are going to need something more than what the Jacob’s pics show. I’ve been through this all on the other posts. Maybe they are of a Bigfoot, but strictly scientifically speaking, we just cannot make that jump to a speculative unknown with these pics no matter how much we might like them to be sasquatch. I can say with reasonable certainty that the Jacob’s pics are of a bear.
Anyway, I agree with Bob K in that I feel that trail cams offer an exciting possibility for gathering photographic evidence in the future, especially as the technology is making them better and more practical by the day.
Another thing I find kind of sad is that if someone is to say that these are of a sasquatch, it makes them open minded and a good cryptozoologist in some people’s minds. Yet if someone says “Look, a mangy bear!” that is somehow taken as a close minded, less acceptable hypothesis. Or somehow unscientific, which is frankly ridiculous. In my opinion, healthy skepticism and a critical mind is absolutely necessary in this field and looking at possible mundane explanations IS scientific.
I honestly can’t believe that these photos are still being debated as to what they are. But it makes for good reading. So I stay tuned.
OBSERVATION POINTS
1. 28 minutes elapsed between photo 1 & photo 2. Which is more than enough time for the cubs with mother to clear the scene. So a cub is not necessarily nearby, thus eliminating the possibility of a non-mother-bear near the cubs. Thus a sasquatch possibility.
2. The dark and identical object in the forefront of photo #2 & #3, appears to be a turned over feeder. Which is why it is stationary.
3. No ears are evident in photos #2 & especially #3, which would indicate a bear, if present. Thus a sasquatch liklihood.
4. The supposedly mangy look, is possibly because sasquatches have hair, not fur. Hair is thinner than fur. Fur gets mange, which results in loss of all layers of fur and completely bare skin is then evident. This creature has not lost all layers of either hair or fur and no completely bare skin is evident. Fur has a dense underfur and outer guard hairs. Hair has no dense underlayer, so skin is can be seen through the thinner hair. So a misidentified and alleged mangy creature, can be mistaken for normal healthy body hair. This hair looks similar in density to many known wild primates. Thus a sasquatch liklihood, since this is a Pennsylvania photo.
5. Bears appear to have identical length front legs and rear legs, since their backs are generally parallel to the ground. In photo #3, the front legs or arms, appear to be significantly longer than the fully extended real legs, or the only legs. Which is similar to known wild primates. Thus a sasquatch possibility.
6. In photo #3, both a sharp right and left boney hip appears to be evident. Primates have hips. Bears do not have hips at all. Bear hind ends are covered with heavy muscle. Thus a sasquatch liklihood.
7. In photo #3, the body is contorting fairly severely, yet the legs or rear legs, do not appear to be particularly stressed from that contorsion. I do not recall ever seeing a bear contorting it’s body to this degree, implying a greater flexibility in the skeletal structure. Thus a sasquatch possibility.
8. Bears would more likely roll in a scent or fragrance that they wanted on their fur. Rolling involves quickly flopping down on its side or back. This creature is not rolling onto its side, but maintaining its only 2 legs in a supportive position. Thus a sasquatch liklihood.
9. Bears have short tails. Although the resolution of the photographs is not great, no tail is evident. Sasquatches don’t have tails. Thus a sasquatch liklihood.
SCOREBOARD
Sasquatch liklihood 5 Sasquatch possibility 3 Da Bears 0