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

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.

“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.