The Juv subject is significantly larger than the bear cub, almost twice as tall at the shoulders. It was fortunate that both the cub’s and the stretched Juv’s left front legs(?) are almost located on the same spot for easy measurement. The hump at the shoulders of the stretched Juv reveals a rather broad back and torso and does not appear that it is emaciated.

Secondly the right rear foot of the stretched Juv is pointed out to the right, away from the body. The Black Bear tracks I have seen show the rear feet either straight in line of the direction they are moving or with a pigeon-toe whereby the tracks point in toward the body. Given that the bulk of the Juv body s and limbs are facing to the left, the right rear foot pointing off to the right appears odd. The overlay bones on the right foot leg are not placed in the right direction of the real foot however it would appear a difficult bones to comfortably accommodate this angle of the foot especially with the bulk of the subject pointing in the opposite direction.

I had also mentioned on the original post that there appears to be a visible cleavage of a buttocks on the stretched Juv photo. No one either confirmed or denied this observation or confirmed this as a trait of a mangy bear. That also brings to mind ‘Where is the tail?’.

The bent over Juv photo captures the subject in an unusual posture. The shape of the hips does appear to resemble the bone structure as presented in the Meldrum photo overlay. It also appears to show the Juv with its head in a bucket, or some other type of object, between its front legs The front left leg although appearing longer than what I would expect in seeing the rear legs, seams to be supporting the subject while it is rummaging in the bucket. If it were a juvenile Sasquatch would it not be using its hands in its effort more than for mere support?

Sure would be nice if there were a few more pictures to view from the visit!

Peace

What I was trying to say is that I am a little surprised that people would claim that this actual wildlife photo was altered somehow and then use that as some sort of evidence that the “juvenile sasquatch” cannot be a bear. From what I see here, it most certainly could be a bear, yet some are refusing to entertain that thought, instead claiming that the above photo of a bear is doctored. This is a bit absurd. The wildlife commission is not orchestrating some big conspiracy by messing around with its photo archives in order to obfuscate the truth somehow. I urge people to look at this photo, look at the other “juvenile sasquatch” ones, and honestly say that a bear is an impossibility. This photo is fairly good visual evidence to me that the photos on the other thread may not be that of a sasquatch as claimed.

The bottom line is this. The above photo IS real. It DOES look like the “juvenile sasquatch” photos. So that suggests to me that there is a strong possibility that those photos could be of a bear with similar conditions too. I am not trying to deny sasquatch. I cannot say that the BFRO photos are definitely NOT of a sasquatch, but the possibility is absolutely there.

I am starting to shy away from the idea that the BFRO photos are manipulated or photoshopped. But looking at the very NON manipulated photo above, I think the explanation that they are of a bear is far from being discounted. It seems like a very rational line of inquiry to me.

Perhaps it is a trick of light or the position of the bears body when the photo was snapped but the head looks as if it were taken at a different time and c&p onto this snapshot.

To anyone who doubts this is a yearling black bear with mange check out this site http://www.wvblackbears.com/bears.htm especially the picture in the lower left hand side. There is an animal with a similar look, build and shape all the while remaining clearly a bear. And to those who think it looks photoshoped, isn’t it more likely it is just one of the white spots found on the necks of a certain percentage of black bears. Spots like these http://www.alaskainpictures.com/images/Braveheart.jpg?

I can bearly help chuckling.

Come on now, indeed. I am getting sick of hearing from Photoshop “experts.” So here’s the second real, actual photo I have seen “debunked” by people who “know.”

And I think it can tell you what to think about other Photoshop “debunkings,” in fact about pretty much every one I have ever seen.

I’d like to add to The Legend of the Omnipotent Hoaxer (LOTOH) the Legend of the Omnipotent Photoshop Expert (LOTOPE). On second thought, the latter is simply a division of the former. It sets back cryptid research ten years or so every time it happens.

I said on the other Jacobs thread that photo manipulation is a possibility in the case of that critter. If I didn’t also say this I should: I consider it unlikely, in the extreme.

If you want to hunt – or debunk – cryptids, GET OUTSIDE for once. The fresh air will do you a power of good. Trust me, you need it.

Thanks, m_m. Although I know you tend to get a bit passionate about things, it’s OK, as long as I come in afterward to calm things down some.

Although I do need to add that I’ve never seen a bear photo, of any bear, in any condition, sufficient to tell me that it’s “likely” that the Jacobs critter is a bear. You just can’t tell from those shots, says here, what that is. Witness the many people with unquestioned experience in the matter who are coming down on both sides of the issue.