Sasquatch or mangey Bear ?

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.
 
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.
 
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. :(
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.:)
 
Mangy Bear?!

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...
 
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...
 
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...
Click to expand...

Pfffttttt! Damn you, I need a new monitor now. :)
 
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.
 
"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
 
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...
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
a bit dubious?

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top