PDA

View Full Version : Sasquatch or mangey Bear ?


Wild Bill Bucks
October 31, 2007, 11:45 AM
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27916&stc=1&d=1193848773

All over the internet this morning. Guy took it off of his game camera.

Article says it could be baby sasquatch, or a really mangey bear. It is hard for me to tell since most of the ones I shoot are MUCH bigger.:D

What do you guys think?

HatchetWound
October 31, 2007, 02:33 PM
Looks like a guy in a fur suit to me.

Maybe they are remaking 'The Legend of Boggy Creek'.

News Shooter
October 31, 2007, 02:44 PM
It looks like the rear end of a chimpanzee to me

davlandrum
October 31, 2007, 02:51 PM
Mother-in-law???:eek:


Sorry, couldn't resist.

JKump
October 31, 2007, 02:53 PM
Bear. scrawny but a bear.

dustoff
October 31, 2007, 03:34 PM
Just a scawny, mangey bear

http://bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

CarbineCaleb
October 31, 2007, 03:42 PM
Could be an adolescent kid with a hormone problem :eek:. I dunno, I am not much for mysteries, and do find it very hard to imagine a large creature in North America that somehow has escaped being found, dead or alive over roughly 400 years of (European anyways) settlement.

But, I must admit that's an awfully svelte bear, and at least in that poor angle and lighting, he doesn't seem to have the protruding muzzle I'd expect to see. At this point, my money is still on it being either a prankster's work or just an odd bear/photo angle.

Dirty_Harry
October 31, 2007, 07:27 PM
Looks like a guy in a fur suit to me.


+1

Full-choke
October 31, 2007, 07:52 PM
I'm up for hoax, as usual...bigfoot doesn't exist.

But, if he does, I think we should breed and release so we can have a season :D!

4V50 Gary
October 31, 2007, 08:32 PM
Hoax. Limbs too long and narrow to be a mangey bar. Even the arse doesn't look quite like a chimp.

Sgt.Fathead
November 1, 2007, 01:33 AM
The wife and I died laughing over this one. We have a neighbor that is way into aliens, Elvis is alive, bat Boy, etc. He believes it to be a 'furry alien tripod creature'.

Ted, keep your aluminum foil helmet on, man!

CamoCop
November 1, 2007, 06:02 AM
doesn't look like a bear i have ever seen and we are over run with bears. i think it is a photoshop job. like mentioned above, it looks more like a chimp or other monkey.

jhgreasemonkey
November 1, 2007, 01:32 PM
What ever it is I think he should have shot it and put it out of its misery. :barf:
lol

buck460XVR
November 1, 2007, 05:10 PM
I love it when my friends tell me where their game cams are...........:D

Kreyzhorse
November 1, 2007, 06:38 PM
Don't know how it got there, but that's a chimp.

MeekAndMild
November 1, 2007, 07:12 PM
It looks like one of those things you can't classify. I'm going to pretend it's a drunken teenager and just move along.

If the government can't find ten million illegal humans who shop at Wally World and live in houses there could be thousands of bigfoots (bigfeet?) out there and we'd never know.

Eghad
November 1, 2007, 07:20 PM
Mystery Solved...

Its WildAlaska sleepwalking :eek: after a night of drinking.

whiskey
November 1, 2007, 09:24 PM
To me, a guy that has seen bears at bait stations, in the wild, and in the trash cans, it looks like a bear cub.

MeekAndMild
November 3, 2007, 08:50 PM
How about a not-so-extinct short faced bear? It was a long legged skinny critter which has supposedly been dead for about 10,000 years. Consider that Australopithecus and other such human-like critters have been dead for maybe thirty times that time maybe Sasquatch is really this species of bear?

This link follows the main link from an old post by dZ. http://www.kokogiak.com/megafauna/inames.asp#shortfacedbear

FirstFreedom
November 4, 2007, 03:51 PM
I love it when my friends tell me where their game cams are

:D

ActivShootr
November 4, 2007, 08:35 PM
Looks to me like a juvenile bear.

Double Naught Spy
November 4, 2007, 11:25 PM
So the pics were taken by a trail camera, the same one from the same location, apparently with no human involvement, and about 28 minutes separating the bear cubs from the supposed bigfoot.

Notice the object (squarish grey thing partially covering the muzzle of the closest bear) at the bottom center of the image of the bear cubs. Now notice the same location for the supposed bigfoot images. Some sort of rectangular black object has materialized over the grey squarish thing.

Unless somebody placed the object there, how would such an object mysteriously appear?

Me thinks it is a faked image.

Also, I am curious about the "mangey" adjective. There is no way to ascertain from the image if the animal has mange or not.

Bill Siegle
November 4, 2007, 11:54 PM
The object that has "appeared" is the salt lick based turned on it's side by the Bigfoot or the little bears :) It is visible in the pick with the little bears but is standing upright.

Playboypenguin
November 4, 2007, 11:59 PM
I have alot of black bear experience and have seen a few mangey bears before and I will have to say, as much as I would rather believe it was bigfoot, that this pic looks just like a young bear with mange. :(

Double Naught Spy
November 6, 2007, 10:21 AM
The object that has "appeared" is the salt lick based turned on it's side by the Bigfoot or the little bears It is visible in the pick with the little bears but is standing upright.

Interesting, but seems perfectly plausible.

Still, the whole thing is hokey. "Unclassified primate" translates into human in a ape suit more so that I would guess it would mean bigfoot.

Besides, bigfoot is supposedly bipedal based on tracks and other images/video. The "unclassified primate" is shown being quadrupedal.

This sort of phenomenon is funny to hear about. We generally recognize UFO to mean extra-terrestrial flying craft from outer space as opposed to recognizing the object as being unidentified and flying. When a camera catches an animal that doesn't look right or there are some strange deaths, we have Chupacabra or Bigfoot. Voices or noises in the night, ghosts. For whatever reason, we gravitate toward believing the unproven is real and scant evidence is accepted as proof.

Wild Bill Bucks
November 6, 2007, 01:09 PM
Thats about right! I just got Mrs.WBB convinced that everything on the internet is true, and I should order that new H&H Mag. in case I run across Big Foot, and you guys tipped her off, that it might be a hoax.

Oh well, maybe one of you guys can post a picture of an elephant in a feeder in Oklahoma, and I can get the rifle anyway.:)

New_Pollution1086
November 7, 2007, 04:45 PM
Big Ass Beaver

zahnzieh
November 7, 2007, 11:08 PM
OOOOH SCARY... Must be a chupacabre (goat-sucker) - any goats nearby?:D

Sportology
November 8, 2007, 03:33 AM
I love a good mystery. ;) Now I want my own Game-Cam. Maybe the folks at Bushnell or a local sporting goods shop were looking to push a few random sales...

Art Eatman
November 8, 2007, 10:20 AM
Lordy, why won't one of you guys just ask Elvis? He'd know...

Art

FirstFreedom
November 8, 2007, 11:23 AM
I'm pretty sure that's the elusive and wily North American orangutan.

davlandrum
November 8, 2007, 12:03 PM
The persistence of the bigfoot, chucacabra, loch ness monster belief is explained pretty simply - It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. The absence of evidence that it does exist is not the same thing as proving it doesn't exist.

My wife swears I have no brain, but I patiently point out to her that lack of evidence that my brain exists does not, in fact, prove anything. My brain could simply be hiding until the right time...

FirstFreedom
November 8, 2007, 12:06 PM
My wife swears I have no brain, but I patiently point out to her that lack of evidence that my brain exists does not, in fact, prove anything. My brain could simply be hiding until the right time...

Pfffttttt! Damn you, I need a new monitor now. :)

Capt Charlie
November 8, 2007, 12:30 PM
I tend to be a skeptic on these things (understatement :D), but there was a show on The History Channel last night about these critters. I didn't catch all of it, but a team of scientists, somewhere in the NW US, put down a board with nails hoping to get a blood & tissue sample.

They did.

DNA tests on the samples showed it to be from an unknown primate.

Interesting.

Art Eatman
November 8, 2007, 04:27 PM
"DNA tests on the samples showed it to be from an unknown primate."

I wuz thinkin' maybe a rational gun-control freak, which isn't possible. But, if you saw it on TV, it must be true.

Art

Diesel1
November 8, 2007, 10:14 PM
My wife swears I have no brain, but I patiently point out to her that lack of evidence that my brain exists does not, in fact, prove anything. My brain could simply be hiding until the right time...

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.

Double Naught Spy
November 8, 2007, 11:11 PM
but there was a show on The History Channel last night about these critters. I didn't catch all of it, but a team of scientists, somewhere in the NW US, put down a board with nails hoping to get a blood & tissue sample.

They did.

DNA tests on the samples showed it to be from an unknown primate.

Interesting.

If that is the show I think it is, then the samples collected from the nails were of unknown origin, meaning they didn't see what creature deposited the samples. Also, the identification was not based on comparison with all known primate and non-primate taxa, but on ruling out a few non-primate taxa and noting the sample was similar to primate DNA.

Is this the correct show? If so, the results are dubious. If they were able to tell it was primate, then they should have been able to get a more precise identification as to whether or not it was an ape or monkey even if they could not pinpoint the species.

I have it set to record tomorrow night and I will watch it.

Double Naught Spy
November 10, 2007, 12:35 AM
Okay, saw the show. The tissue, hair, and blood samples were taken from a board with screws on it that were used as a deterrent to bears (sort of bed of nails configuration). Samples were collected two years after they were reportedly deposited. When the independent researcher was unable to extract DNA, one of the investigators on the team found that the DNA extraction was being hindered by the galvanization on the screws and he supposedly corrected for that and got the DNA. Strangely, I am not sure why he did the second DNA analysis only after the first failed. I would have thought that he would have done one initially or in tandem with the first researcher to cross verify results.

It was strange that they could get DNA samples done immediately from blood, but not from the tissue, the claim being that it would take up to a year. Same for the hair. As a DNA researcher, the guy would have known that to get DNA from the hair samples, the roots would need to be present. Whether or not the roots were present could have been determined through visual (unaided or magnification aided) examination.

I was surprised at the amount of blood shown on the back side of the board with the screws. It looked like a lot of blood drained through the board to the back side and then flowed like a paint run drip...which is odd for a surface that would have been flat on the ground.

I liked how the crew came under attack at the cabin, yet there was no footage of the actual attack or auditory verification. None of the cameras saw anything and scanning the area with infrared and night vision cameras during the "attack" turned up nothing.

So it was claimed that it was a 1 in 5000 chance to be human. Given the sample was 2 years old and left exposed to the elements, I would guess that the ID is a bit dubious.

jbrown
November 11, 2007, 09:22 AM
more like a giant crock of shiyt,if you ask me.Ive been watching these bigfoot/loch ness/ufo shows for 30 years and they all claim to have " new evidence" or some other proof and it is always just smoke and mirrors.
Rocks on the roof?thats an "attack"?It was probably a friggin pine cone off a tree,the cabin was surrounded by conifers,fer cris sake.