Heres a couple pictures that I "poached" from another site. The discussion over there is that they have no idea what these could be. Some are saying bear, but the poster and a few others are saying there are no bear in the area. You can make up your own mind.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I would lean towards bear.....except for one thing-- It looks to me in the second picture ( please correct me if I'm seeing things), like this animal has a rather large, and might I say rather "human" looking male gentalia? A bear wouldn't have that would it? ( Sorry if I'm wrong, and looking like a naive fool! )

My guess is bear. It looks like he's standing up inside the framework of one of those Tripods used to hold pots/dutch/coffee pots ovens over a campfire for cooking outdoors. Here's a pic of one model.

Click to view attachment

As far as there being no bears in the area, says who? If it's that State's DNR it seems they have a habit of saying there isn't something in an area until they get numerous sighting reports they can no longer ignore or absolute proof. In Wisconsin the official DNR Position is there are no bears within about 100 miles of this area. Yet every year reports come in from an area only about 20 miles away of bear sightings.

Oh fer gawds sakes, if you can't tell that's a bear no one can help you.

I can't honestly believe this is even worth discussing.

Well, if they didn't have bears in the area before this, they do now. In the first photo, notice that the area above the hip joint, it is indented. This shows that the normal position for that area is behind the front part of the back leg, allowing free movement of the back leg. It also shows (where the harsh highlight is) where the pelvis is making the skin fold around it. As seen with the Jacobs' bear, the pelvis is fairly long in a bear.



In the second photo, you can clearly see the claws of the back feet. They are fairly long.

Yup, I was going to point out that skinfold too...

Once again, the lack of accompanying photos (and clever cropping) is all you need to know to reveal that this is being portrayed as something other than what the owner knows it obviously is.

-A

Okay, I think it's time we get a grip people! Only 7 posts into it and it's ready for the scrap heap, a new BFF record (I think) for a bear photo. I'd like to personally thank everyone for being so civil and courteous, and also the owner of the photos for being so generous and allowing us this...opportunity. We couldn't have made it without ya man.

I'm curious about ... well WWOTW already said it ... the apparent ... you know ... penis.

edit: oh, nevermind!

Click to view attachment

Bears don't got no weenie, they procreate the same way preteen boys do...in their dreams.

They got the beans.

Click to view attachment

tripod feeder anyone?

Come on.. that looks completely, unambiguously, totally, like a bear. Anyone thinking otherwise is suffering from a serious case of wishful thinking.

Apparently that's a bear.............

Good Grief............... this one isn't even mangy.

And they gots the junk. I don't remember Winnie The Pooh sporting anything like this.

I'll go along with that Schilleville.. You Win!

That's exactly what it is. A bear trying to get into a deer feeder. I mean, why else would the camera be set up there?

To put the picture of the feeder in perspective the page lists the legs of it at 7' factor angle and then the distance the can is hanign down and I'd say we have a bear of sabout 5' to 5'6" of standing height. and the pictures are absolutely without a doubt the best evidence (to me) that Jacobs photos are a skinny bear, because this bear shows the exact same proportions and muscle structure of the creature in the Jacobs photos. I was mostly convinced already, but this was the clincher for me.

Here’s the third picture that’s missing

FTW!

Man. That quickly went from a determination that the photo was of a bear to a discussion of "beans" and "junk" and scandalous photos from the PlayBear magazine.

Good job guys and gals.

(P.S. It's a bear... duh!)

Simply a bear that´s fore sure.

CU

What you are looking at is a springtime bear( a bear in spring time)....a skinny one at that.......attempting or suceeding in ravaging a tripod deer feeder! Please, if someone thinks this is anything other than exactly what it is..... a bear, then give up on sasquatching, hunting or anything else involving the outdoors because you are hopeless! I am sorry to come across as obtuse or demeaning but please people...........think! I agree with the other posters that it is rediculous to EVEN discuss this in terms of the subject in question being even CLOSE to a sasquatch!

The leg shape (on what would be the hind legs on a bear), and length of the "torso" should be a dead give away (in my city-boy eyes anyway) that it is a bear.
I have a hard time believing anyone would think otherwise.

ROTFLMAO!!!!



Thanks BD....I needed that this morning!

The question is, if there really are people out there who could not instantly recognize these as photos of a bear, approximately what percentage of alleged "eyewitness accounts" of bigfoot need to be just plain tossed out?

Good question!!!!!

BEAR!

Depending on the area , wildlife therein , and other environmental and mental factors, My guess would be it's approaching the 60-70% range , if not more. ( Depending on the source and follow up also.)

Who cares what it is. All I know is that it has quite a unit!



Uncle Hairy

"Unit not sold in stores."

[Hmmm. I wonder what MM might think about this trail cam shot?]

BINGO BD!!!

at least this one ain't mangy.....

edited to add: Dammit WmRoy beat me to the mangy punchline....

Little known "facts" about young Sasquatch...

• Their bodies and genitalia are adult length by 18 months.
• Their feet remain small in proportion until adulthood, a converse of what is usually expected in mammalian juveniles
• Their tails fall off at puberty
• Their pelvises widen by 75% as they go through adolescense.
• natural selection has given them temporary superficial camoflage characteristics of other top level predators to ensure they survive into adulthood.
• Before the age of 18 months they have long ears, and a tawny coat dappled with white spots.

That's a great question. Someone else mentioned 60%-70% Which I think is a bit on the high order as most sightinngs are Torso up which is likely much more distinctive than torso down.

Personally I think about 20% of reports are a simple misidentification, and I am talking about clear view encounters. 70%-80% are obscured views but if someone had a photo they could really analyze with time and enhancements a more proper designation could be made one way or another. Leaving somewhere between 0%-10% as people who really know what they say and it ain't no bear.

[quote name='accozzaglia' date='Nov 15 2007, 08:07 AM' post='420582']
"Unit not sold in stores."]

I take it batteries aren't included either?



Uncle Hairy

Excellent observation. Me NOW thinks these photos actually have a value far greater than my initial 'analysis' suggested. I've absolutely no doubt now that at least a certain amount (substantial amount?) of 'Bigfoot reports' are just bears up on their hind legs like this one. It's already been determined here, by the ongoing Jacobs Monkey study, that any number of people cannot decipher a bear from an air conditioner. The resemblance of this 'standing bear' to numerous accounts of 'Bigfoot' are uncanny. Although, I don't recall many reports mentioning a 'big unit' the way this one so obviously portrays. The Enquirer might not have been so 'off base' afterall, this type of 'Bigfoot/Bear hybrid' really does want you to bear his children...and you're gonna like it!

I shudder to think of the search string you used to come up with that ...

While I agree that a percentage of sasquatch reports are most certainly bears, I think it should be remembered that the bears ("bigfoot") in this and the Jacobs Photo are still frames and are not being viewed in motion, in which case their origin (I'd hope) would be more apparent.

Let's take a vote. Please choose one of the following:
A) Bear Bear C) Bear D) Bear E) All of the above

Tossed out for probable misidentification only?
My guess would be better than 80%.

Add in deliberate hoax, attention seekers, Bigfoot on the brain syndrome....................toss out 98%.

Boy, I can't either, that is exactly how abear looks when it stands on it hind legs..

Probably about the same percentage as those who are trying to make that silly photo of a bear into a sasquatch.

Time for a poll? That would be "scientific", right?



That leaves 2% which are valid.

And that means that....................an investment into resolution is justifiable.

I like bears. They are interesting... to say the least!

cool BEAR pictures, forthose of you who may not be familair with bear anantomy.. They have "male organs" similiar to humans, except the have a small bone in their "male parts" therefore they don't "shrivel" we call it the "swivel stick".. just thought you might find that interesting.

bear fixing to mess-up a tripod feeder.

kind of an old thread but........ Besides all the obvious listed above, did anyone notice the placement of the ankle on the foot, It is set to far back for BF, but is placed perfectly for a bear.

Allen

WOW. How about a new saying, Hung Like A Bear!! If your gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly!



I won't ask how you came about that little tid-bit of info, LOL. . .You need a hobby my friend!! LOL,









PS: Just teasing!!

I think it's a "tri-pod feeder inspector".

An how many ''poor'' bear sightin's may actually have been sasquatchs ?

Enjoy the day ! Pat...