Juvenille bigfoot or mangy bear?

Johnny of the Half Sasquatch blog sent me a link to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization about photos of "a possible bigfoot (thought to be a juvenile)." The photos were taken using a motion-controlled camera with an infra-red flash.

I immediately headed over to Loren Coleman's Cryptomundo blog, because I figured he'd have something to say about these photos. His verdict?

The animal is a bear with mange. No trickery was put forth, and it is rather incredible a few people could not believe what was right in front of their eyes with the above.

No photoshopping, no Chupacabear, no juvenile Sasquatch: sometimes a bear is merely a bear.

Link

[#1 posted by kaosdevice , October 24, 2007 12:55 PM]

Somewhere a fledgling band is naming itself 'Mangy Bear'.

[#2 posted by halfsquatch , October 24, 2007 1:13 PM]

I'm gonna play bass for a band called Jacob's Creature

[#3 posted by kaosdevice , October 24, 2007 1:31 PM]

Was the creature a mangy bear?

[#4 posted by David Stein , October 24, 2007 1:53 PM]

That's supposed to be a bear?

I am a diehard skeptic when it comes to this sort of thing - nothing yet has convinced me that Sasquatch or other fabled creatures exist. And this photo is hardly dispositive proof of anything - could be a typical monkey.

However, there's no way it's a bear. One glance at the photo labeled "Unclassified Primate 1" or "Image 1 Creature" should prove that.

The extended back leg has all the wrong anatomy for a bear: it's not short and stumpy and muscular; it's extended and sinewy. It's built more for reaching than for power.

Bears don't have knees like this animal - this animal's knee looks flexible enough for kicking.

Bears also don't have hips like that. A bear's pelvis and lumbar spine position its hind legs underneath it - good for running and power. Makes sense for a typically four-legged creature. This creature's hind legs are oriented parallel to its spine, as with a biped, and it can stretch its legs back in exactly the manner that a bear can't.

I can only claim amateur physiologist status - my studies ended with the undergrad premed sequence, completed back in '97 - but the anatomic discrepancies between this creature and a bear seems plain as day to me.

- David Stein

[#5 posted by Charlie Lesoine , October 24, 2007 2:04 PM]

Also, it doesnt say anything about mangy bears in Pennsylvania. The photo on the right was taken in Florida...so I really don't see how the mangy bear photo makes the first one questionable.

[#6 posted by Miss Cellania , October 24, 2007 2:49 PM]

Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair...

This is the first time I've seen a bear with mange! He looks kinda scrawny without hair; a shape I would not recognize. I wonder how a bear with mange makes it through the winter?

[#7 posted by Lauren O , October 24, 2007 4:09 PM]

That is an ugly goddamn bear.

[#8 posted by Loren Coleman , October 25, 2007 6:10 AM]

For those people that have not fully explored this story, you are missing a couple important details.

Mark writes: "The photos were taken using a motion-controlled camera with an infra-red flash."

And what does the photographic sequence show before this "juvenile sasquatch" is pictured? Two bear cubs. Yes, the cubs are even in some of the same frames as this not-so-mysterious "other animal."

Mange is a terribly painful, itching ailment, and this youthful bear or even young thin mother, must have been in deep agony to appear as she does in this photo.

Many people have scratched their heads over this one, but I say, it's because of the mites and mange, not because it's a Bigfoot.