Can you identify these?


Locutus
#1
The first photo is of bear cubs. What of the next two?











 
Locutus
#2
I'm not a crypto-believer by any means. I would need to see something to pretty much go along with any measure of belief. However, when there is a reasonable mystery to be sorted-out, I sometimes take interest in the findings. What say you all about these photos and the story?



From the NY Times:

Pa. Hunter's Images Stir Bigfoot Debate


RIDGWAY, Pa. (AP) -- It's furry and walks on all fours.

Beyond that, about the only thing certain about the critter photographed by a hunter's camera is that some people have gotten the notion it could be a Sasquatch, or bigfoot. Others say it's just a bear with a bad skin infection.

Rick Jacobs says he got the pictures from a camera with an automatic trigger that he fastened to a tree in the Allegheny National Forest, about 115 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, hoping to photograph deer.

''We couldn't figure out what they were,'' Jacobs said of the images captured on Sept. 16. ''I've been hunting for years and I've never seen anything like this.''

He contacted the Bigfoot Research Organization, which pursues reports of a legendary two-legged creature that some people believe lives in parts of the U.S. and Canada.

''It appears to be a primate-like animal. In my opinion, it appears to be a juvenile Sasquatch,'' said Paul Majeta of the bigfoot group.

However, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has a more conventional opinion. Agency spokesman Jerry Feaser said conservation officers routinely trap bears to be tagged and often see animals that look like the photos.

''There is no question it is a bear with a severe case of mange,'' Feaser told The Bradford Era.


www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp (external - login to view)


And don't give me the "It's CdnBear" horse hockey, m'kay?
 
triedit
#3
bear with mange

I can't comment further because Im involved in the investigation.
 
shadowshiv
#4
With those particular pictures, it looks like a man wearing clothing to me.
 
Kreskin
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by trieditView Post

bear with mange

I can't comment further because Im involved in the investigation.

Start your investigation at photoshop.
 
TenPenny
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

The first photo is of bear cubs. What of the next two?

The same two bear cubs.

Is it that hard to see?
 
karrie
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Start your investigation at photoshop.

Why would you need photoshop? A bear cub with mange looks creepy enough as it is. It would be easy to mistake it for something 'primate' if you didn't know what it was.
 
Just the Facts
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

The same two bear cubs.

Is it that hard to see?

Whatever is in the foreground of the second and third pictures hasn't moved in 36 seconds.

Interesting.
 
Locutus
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Whatever is in the foreground of the second and third pictures hasn't moved in 36 seconds.

Interesting.

I think the animal on the left has knocked over the salt-lick before the 2nd was taken and is focused on it. It's just that the legs look so long and gangly on the animal to the right. Weird.
 
Just the Facts
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

I think the animal on the left has knocked over the salt-lick before the 2nd was taken and is focused on it. It's just that the legs look so long and gangly on the animal to the right. Weird.

Yeah but it hasn't moved a whisker in 36 seconds. That's pretty focused!
 
Just the Facts
#11
Unless that's just the base of the salt lick. That could be.
 
karrie
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Yeah but it hasn't moved a whisker in 36 seconds. That's pretty focused!

It probably has moved a bit. But on such small scale, it's hard to see the minute differences.

And an animal at a salt lick... focused doesn't even begin to describe it. lol.
 
Just the Facts
#13
Yeah, I think that's what it is. So there is only shaggy in the last two pics.
 
lone wolf
#14
Salt lick is hexagonal and the black blob in the latter two photos appears to be too. Likely the salt lick's base....

Woof!
 
Just the Facts
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Salt lick is hexagonal and the black blob in the latter two photos appears to be too. Likely the salt lick's base....

Woof!

Yup I think so. I think it's a hoax. Here we go again with the dark grainy picture. Why wouldn't someone wanting to get a picture of a deer at night use a decent flash? Duh!
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Yeah but it hasn't moved a whisker in 36 seconds. That's pretty focused!

The front image is clearly the salt lick on its side. If you look at the left you will see the salt. I would say the other figure was a monkey or gorrilla of some sort but without knowing the specifics of location, etc., it would be hard to say if that was a valid guess.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Yup I think so. I think it's a hoax. Here we go again with the dark grainy picture. Why wouldn't someone wanting to get a picture of a deer at night use a decent flash? Duh!

Looks like it may have been taken without flash with night vision apparatus. A flash would cause whatever is being filmed to scatter.
 
Locutus
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the FactsView Post

Yeah, I think that's what it is. So there is only shaggy in the last two pics.

Then it has to be Scooby, man.


I think if it were hoaxed, buddy would have done a more compelling job rather than a simple long legged creature. Certainly isn't very 'bigfoot-like'.

I'll stick with Scoob.
 
triedit
#19
I can tell you this. The photo was taken in northwestern Pennsylvannia with a hunting camera. It is a movement activated Bushnell with an infrared flash. A bright flash would scare away anything. This person was trying to capture deer.
 
JoeSchmoe
#20
Samsquampsh????
 
Kreskin
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Why would you need photoshop? A bear cub with mange looks creepy enough as it is. It would be easy to mistake it for something 'primate' if you didn't know what it was.



The head looks pasted on to the photo. No shadows. If the animal in the photo needs investigating I would start with the hallmark properties of photoshop before anything else. If this is just a mange bear and what we're looking at is well understood then what has to be investigated?
 
daisygirl
#22
The above picture was on some science show and, forgive my memory, but I believe it was identified as a fox with mange or some type of disease.
 
Niflmir
#23
Now, I pick a die out of my bag of D&D dice and I roll a six. What is the probability of rolling another six on that die? I won't give you any other information.


The real question is, have I given you enough information?
 
daisygirl
#24
No, sweetie. We would need to know how many sides the die has and what the other numbers are on it.
 
Niflmir
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by daisygirlView Post

No, sweetie. We would need to know how many sides the die has and what the other numbers are on it.

And that is the danger of making identifications from a fuzzy image, how do you test alternatives? Imagine if these were pictures of mushrooms and someone was asking if they were edible? I would just say: "Don't eat them! There aren't enough identifiable features to distinguish between Amanita virosa and Agaricus bisporus."

Of course, in this case without color and only thermal contrast I wouldn't be able to distinguish Boletus edulis from Psilocybe azurescens.
 
Unforgiven
#26
The problems with the second and third photos, though some have been pointed out already, is that the man or woman posing as the bigfoot monster, is bipedal. The crouching is abnormal for him/her due to the structure of the hip and leg bones. Not to mention that he/she is standing flat footed.

The good news is that it's usually stupid people that try to pull off these hoaxes and even when they do their best, they're just too dumb to cover up all the tell tale signs.

snicker
 
daisygirl
#27
Quite frankly, when it comes to mushrooms, I know nothing...so unless they are sold in the grocery store, I will not eat them.

As for the picture, I would not dare identify it, myself. I would, however, possibly take the word of a science team hoping that they hopefully know more than I know. I don't think we have any scientists on CC who are qualified, do we? So, as it stands, I will take the word of the science team that I heard on the TV regarding the mangy fox.

As for the other pictures, I agree with what Unf has said. He has a terrific photographer's eye and can spot things like that.
 
Sal
#28
It looks as though the salt-lick has been upended... why would that be? The cub looks too small to have done that.
 

Similar Threads

no new posts