Comments on: MSNBC Video on Jacobs’ Creature

By: CBFResearcher

CBFResearcher — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:12:03 +0000

At first I saw a Bigfoot, then upon staring at the 1st photo for a small length of time, I saw what could be a bear. I have to say, inconclusive, leaning more to the side of being a bear.

Was this Pesilvania? I’d then say a very skinny bear. I live in Calgary, and have seen many a bear, in the City! and through-out the province of Alberta and BC, and our bears are chubby, at least by these standards as shown in the video and shots. Gotta be a bear in bad shape, say mange!!!!

Inconclusive, I’d say!

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:06:53 +0000

Thanks’ mystery_man. I enjoy these discussions very mcuh. You & DWA amongst other’s on this site alway’s have interesting opinion’s on subject’s. And I honestly enjoy reading everyones responses to the post here. It’s nice to be able to agree or disagree without getting a bunch of temper’s flying of the handle.

By: miglo1269

miglo1269 — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:22:23 +0000

I dont agree with the mangy bear theory, and I’m not so sure on the ” juvenile Sasquatch” either… but come on people this photo clearly displays an animal with bipedal like features .. lets say a chimpanzee that probably got loose from some traveling zoo or nearby exotic farm?? It definitely deserves an intellectual investigation and not the ..” oh my another so-called bigfoot sighting ha, ha, ha!” ” what do the viewers think?”. I am so critical of all these bigfoot experts and or cryptos out there who are jumping on the ” I believe, but am an initial skeptic” bandwagon. Come on people , we have definetly come closer to revealing the secrets of the American forests !!! It will be a matter of time that a unknown North American ape will be discovered !! and I’ll being saying ” you see!!!”

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:39:18 +0000

I wish I lived in PA, cause I would go out and find this bear and sign him up as my client! Think about it…everyone is talking about him and he’s not getting a cut of the deal! I understand that Jacobs was paid for the photos…but did the bear get anything??? NOooooo… MM and others are on tv talking about the bear and did the bear get to tell his side of the story? NOooooo! He was just strolling through the forest and had his picture taken and slashed all over the internet without any signed consent!!! We all know that fame only lasts 15 minutes and time is ticking… (I would also like to caution you all that calling my potential client “mangy” or “skinny” may be grounds for a libel lawsuit…so watch it!).

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 04:25:47 +0000

DARHOP- Don’t worry, nobody is arguing with you. Just trading opinions and to me, debating in a thoughtful manner. Especially me, I’m mostly agreeing with you, we just differ with how sure we are about our conclusion. If it’s any consolation, as you can see from my extensive posts on this topic, I think these pictures are likely of a bear too. So does Loren, so does Meldrum, and so do a lot of people. Don’t feel intimidated to express your opinion, that’s what this forum is for.

By: gridbug

gridbug — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:06:59 +0000

“He’s got that clownish, cheery, quasi-vampiric expression I usually see on Laura Bush.”

Best. Post. Ever.

By: skidsmint

skidsmint — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:04:57 +0000

i dont understand why there are only 2 pictures of the so called “mangy bear”, usually with game camera’s they take photos until they cant detect anymore movement. maybe jocob’s has more pictures and it really is just a bear. im still undecided though, i really do want to believe that bigfoot does exist. i think it could be possible for a small population to exist in the mountainous forest terrains of north america and other countries. gorrilas were only just discoved in the late 1800’s so why not bigfoot. the creature in the picture looks odd to me though. the back legs looks short compared to the arms and resembles primates like chimps and gorillas but also somewhat like a sickly bear since bears have short back legs compared with their front quarters. to me it looks like the creature could be playing around and doing somersaults inbetween camera shots. if it really was a mangy bear i doubt it would be wasting energy playing around but thats just my opinion. these days there are so many people out there trying to decieve everyone else. its so hard to truth from intentional llies.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:46:02 +0000

m_m: glad I’m not rooting for them Knicks.
You and I agree, I think, on the only real point that doesn’t come down to picking nits. Neither of us is funding an expedtion based on these photos. Not on them alone, for sure. These photos plus 20 multiple-witness sightings reported over the past month in the surrounding ten square miles might be a different story. But I’d still really want better shots than these.

If I have plane tickets for TX or the PNW, I’m not eating them based on this evidence. Not unless you are paying me a LOT of money to cure bears of mange.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:20:27 +0000

DWA- Yeah, that sounds about right concerning my anecdote. Anyway, where I think we agree is that yes, the photos are inconclusive. I think to tell you the truth that most photographic evidence in cryptozoology is. Where I feel we disagree is to what extent they are inconclusive. You think nothing can be told from them either way, and I think they are probably of a bear. That’s fine, and it is good to debate on these things. As I have said before, I appreciate your input and look forward to your posts. That is what my own honest appraisal of them says. There is no shoehorning involved for me, and I dislike shoehorning as much as you do. It is not a bold assertion, merely my hypothesis based on my own experience, what I see in the photos, and the surrounding circumstances of the photos. You don’t agree, and that is fine. I don’t claim to be the final say on what these photos are of.

As I said on another post, there is rarely any final truth in science. Supposed “truth” changes over time with new evidence, new observations, ect, and this has been shown time and time again over the history of science. We are constantly opening up new avenues of research and building upon old ones, so if we actually getting closer to the idealistic version of “the truth”, we would be finding FEWER things to study and LESS new information. In a very strict sense, there really isn’t much that IS absolutely conclusive. Instead, we come to as good an explanation as we can given what is presented to use and the tools we have. We reach levels of certainty based on the evidence and observations. I have explained what I see as the evidence pointing to these being a bear. So when I say I think these photos likely show a bear, that is not conclusive. It is a best guess given what I see and what I know.

So, agree that the photos are not 100 percent conclusive. Disagree with where they lie within that area of inconclusiveness. That fair? Now, how about them Knicks?

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:19:25 +0000

I JUST read a new submission on the “when is a mangy bear a mangy bear?” thread that CONCLUSIVELY proclaims a sagittal crest.

Do bears have those?

Grizzly Bears do.

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos

The grizzly bear is a large mammal in the Ursidae family. The skull of a grizzly bear is extremely large with a broad, short rostrum. The large canine teeth and specialized pre-molar and molar teeth support its omnivorous diet. The sagittal crest is more developed in older individuals.
specimen information

Collected: 5 June 1988
Locality: Whitecourt, AB
Township: 59 Range: 13 W5
Latitude: 54° Longitude: -115.75°
Age: adult Sex: m ©2006 Royal Alberta Museum Pretty much every kind of Bear I checked out on the web has a sagittal crest. As do many other animals.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to start any arguement’s or anything. I guess we all see what we see in the photo’s. Except I do have to say this though. If I was seeing what I want to see. I would be seeing a BigFoot. I didn’t look at these photo’s wanting to see a bear. I looked at these photo’s actually hoping we might have some good new photographic evidence of the BigOnes. So in all actuality I was ( wanting ) to see BigFoot. But that is not what I saw in the photo’s. Again, I wasn’t trying to start anything with you guy’s. Just stating my opinion’s of the photo’s. And I will also say this. I also have shown these photo’s to a few different people. ( One I really didn’t want to, cuz I knew what his response would be. ) And every one of them saw a bear. Granted they are not scientist or anything like that. But they all saw the same thing. One person said it looked kinda like a cub was underneath the animal in the 3rd photo. Like they were playing. That’s why it is in the position it’s in. In kinda of a sprawl over the cub. Anyway, just more opinions. Conclusive or Not this has been one good subject either way you look at it.