Spammers - take note

Just a quick note to spammers - you are wasting your time leaving your spam comments here. All comments on this blog are moderated prior to publication, and all spam comments are reported then deleted. Strange Days does not provide free advertising space.

21 October, 2007

Pennsylvania baby bigfoot?

A hunter named R.Jacobs is believed to have captured images of a juvenile bigfoot, in northern Pennsylvania. The photographs are interesting, and the BFRO seems to consider them to be authentic. I initially wondered if they showed an emaciated young bear. If you look at this image, all four limbs seem of equal thickness. I would have expected a primate - if that's what bigfoot are - to have thinner front limbs. That said, juvenile bigfoot are said to walk primarily on all fours, so I presume that all limbs would be equally developed, as a result of supporting their body weight. I'm no expert on bigfoot or primates in general, and have only ever seen one bear, a chunky juvenile, being exercised near the campsite of a travelling circus. So I have no choice but to keep an open mind on these images. I'd love them to be authentic bigfoot images.

The more I read, the more I become convinced that the bigfoot species is real. I don't buy into the paranormal theory of its origin, nor am I especially convinced by stories of bigfoot being seen in association with UFOs. But they do say the truth is stranger than fiction - so who knows?


Dustin 21 October 2007 at 18:24  

I never bought into the stories of bigfoot being associated with UFOs or anything of that nature until I read "Hunt for the Skinwalker" from Colm Kelleher recently. Fascinating book if you're interested in the paranormal as a whole.

Siani 22 October 2007 at 07:10  

Thanks for the heads-up re: the book, Dustin. I'll look it up on Amazon. At the moment, I'm unconvinced by the bigfoot/UFO theories, but I tend to approach things with a pretty open mind, so who knows how I'll feel, after a bit more research?

dbdonlon 24 October 2007 at 01:57  

Howdy again, Siani.

Everyone is talking about the Jacobs pictures. I've seen a lot of people who should know saying it could be a sickly mangy bear. It doesn't really look like it has lost all its hair, but apparently there are different kinds of mange. Not my specialty. But the short feet, and the fact that the "head" from the last photo is (say these folks) not part of the creature means emaciated short-haired bear is a reasonable hypothesis.

Skinny bears do look a lot like what is on the pictures, but bears that small have very large ears.. hard to spot any ears there. And where's that little stubby tail we should see?

Siani 24 October 2007 at 06:19  

Hi Blogsquatcher - it's certainly a curious one, isn't it? I've seen images of mangy bears on a couple of sites discussing the Jacobs photographs, and the creature certainly has a lot in common with a mangy bear. But, as you say, there's enough ambiguity about the images to suggest they could show something else. I'm leaning towards it being a bear at the moment, but I'm refusing to close my mind to other possibilities.

  © Blogger templates Psi by 2008

Back to TOP