Comments on: When A Mangy Bear Is Just A Mangy Bear

By: CBFResearcher

CBFResearcher — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:44:17 +0000

Mangy moose and cattle lose their fur/hair… And I have seen it. Some have just enough left to cover the body and look much like the amount of fur left on the bear above.

Photo of juvinle is likely a bear…

By: native_man1

native_man1 — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:43:07 +0000

I for one I’m looking for answers from all those so called mange bear experts. Especially to the comments about the third photo which some claim that’s a bear facing the camera. So here are my questions:
1) “Why does the eyes’ not glow like the first photo of the cubs which shows eyes glowing?”
2) “Why is it that the Bear’s front left paw seem to turn inward?’
3) “Why does the paw that is used for support look more like knuckles?”
4) “Why does the photo of the cubs not match the shade on the cub on the third photo if you all say that’s a cup under the mama bear?”
5) “Why does one front limb look longer than the other?”

These are just the few questions that I’d like answers for. If you may!

I’m not saying that this is a young BF but it sure does not look like a bear with mange to me.

By: hetzer88

hetzer88 — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:21:08 +0000

Ummm, there is one very conspicuous feature on this creature that everyone apparently seems to have missed. The top of the head shows a sagittal crest. Bent over, as it is, the back rear of the skull is pronounced. As far as I know, that is the best evidence for this thing being more of a sasquatch than a bear.

Obviously, this is not a definitive picture of anything. I can only say that, I have worked in the wildlife rescue field for many years, and have seen my share of creatures with and without mange. I have also seen bears, up close and on hidden camera, and I have never seen anything like this before. Couple that with the sagittal crest, and what it is, I don’t know, but from what I see here though, this aint no bear! And so it goes.

By: tapper

tapper — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:00:51 +0000

I’ve spent some time reading through all of the hype and, unfortunately, garbage like this falls into what PR pros like to call “seasonality stories”. The press wouldn’t give this story legs had it not been so close to Halloween. Trust me on this one, folks.

I find it particularly strange how Moneymaker once again throws objectivity out the window, immediately laying claim to this. Matt, no offense but you have to quit being such a leech.

There is no way this could be anything other than a bear. Note the arch in the center of the spine but, more importantly, look closely at the first photo. If this animal were to stand on its hind legs, the “arms” would be just above waist level, which falls in line with a bear’s anatomy but not with a squatch, whose arms are described as being so long that they fall well below the waistline - with hands described as hanging close to the knees in some instances.

Finally, based on my experience and on past discussions with bigfooters, these creatures are allegedly capable of seeing infrared lights (even mentioned in several instances on BFRO’s site). Look at the IR flash of Jacob’s Bushnell camera. The reflection on the tree and ground is bright enough to tell me there’s no way a squatch would remain around long enough for the camera to take a second shot.

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 03:55:23 +0000

Defactor - I think you should reread what I wrote. It really had little to do with Dr. Meldrum.

By: Defactor

Defactor — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:53:06 +0000

Ms Strain is attaching a way too much importance to Dr. Meldrums statement. He did not “declare” anything. And he made no “analyses”. And he surely did not “set us free with the truth”. Dr. Meldrum said that the animal “seemed” to be a bear.
While we all appreciate him and his work, he will be the first to tell you that his statement was by no means an “experts opinion” which would hold up in any court of law or scientific inquiry.

Dr. Meldrum saw what we all saw. And what he made was an educated guess, no more and no less. The photos will no doubt be closely examined by an expert that may yet actually determine whether the animal is a bear or a primate. Until then, anyone has the right to express an opinion.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:12:01 +0000

I agree that the BFRO didn’t handle the situation very well in my opinion. I cannot see what the scientific gain is to putting up some obviously inconclusive photos and then stirring things up by labeling them a juvenile sasquatch. this is just quite simply an unsubstantiated conclusion. I would have liked to have seen them just post them and say “Hey, these are strange, what do you think?”. I feel that allows a more unbiased appraisal of the photos. by claiming they are of a sasquatch, it somewhat leans the argument towards people seeing a Bigfoot but trying to tell if it is a bear or not rather than just seeing the photos for what they really show. The BFRO, being a high profile organization within cryptozoology and by some considered an “expert” source, only manage to bias the debate by making such unfounded claims. The same goes for the assumptions on Bigfoot behavior. We have only tenuous understanding of possible sasquatch behavior at best, mostly gleaned through sightings reports, so stating things like juvenile sasquatch being quadrupedal as fact is not constructive. The way in which their findings are presented causes them to lose credibility in my eyes.

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:18:42 +0000

That’s ok m_m!

Japan, huh? Cool!

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:17:16 +0000

Nope, m_m, I wasn’t talking about you…I was referring to those who toted that Meldrum would set us all free with the truth and when he said bear, they ignored it and are still insisting it’s a sasquatch (for example, the original BFRO statement said that anthropologists at Idaho State were looking at the pictures…then Meldrum says bear…now the BFRO statement says that others experts are looking at it. That sounds like the old “shop around til you find what you want” bit).

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:12:17 +0000

Kathy Strain- Sorry, I misread your post. It’s late over here in Japan. With regards to what you said about Meldrum, I agree. As to my post directly above this one, nevermind!