An exploration of our Earth's ever-captivating fauna through musings on the bizarre side of Zoology, Cryptozoology, Paleontology, and Paleoanthropology

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Analysis of the Jacobs Photos by Jarrett Mangus


The two so-called 'Jacobs photographs' showing some form of atypical mammal in the forests of Pennsylvania. (Source)
I recently received an email from an individual named Jarrett Mangus in which he shared an illustrated analysis of one of two images purported by some to show a juvenile sasquatch. The pictures in question were two trail camera photographs taken in the Allegheny National Forest on September 16, 2007.1  The game camera which took the images belonged to R. Jacobs, leading to them being referred to as the 'Jacobs Photos'.1 The photographs show a large mammal with long limb proportions and a sparse pelt bent down to investigate a mineral block. Owing to its superficial similarity to a great ape, it has been suggested that the animal in the photographs is a juvenile individual of the reported mystery primates popularly called sasquatch.1 The images prior to the alleged juvenile sasquatch images showed an adult American black bear (Ursus americanus) with cubs; healthy individuals lacking any signs of illness. Owing to the established presence of bears in the area around the time, several analysts have suggested that the animal in the Jacobs photos was an individual with mange. American black bears have frequently been proposed as a probable source of misidentification in regard to supposed bigfoot sightings, rightfully so considering correlations between bear habitat and the areas in which sasquatch are reported.2 Increasing videographic documentation has shown that upright-walking bears are not distinctly dissimilar from the common profile of reported sasquatch, suggesting that "a vertical walking bear is a more plausible explanation than an unknown human-like primate to explain possible sightings of 'Bigfoot'" with the current lack of substantiated zoological data.3 If the black bear identification is correct pertaining to the Jacobs photographs, they may be interpreted as further examples of the primate-like characteristics which the carnivores can exhibit under certain circumstances.
GIF created from YouTube video showing a black bear walking upright through a neighborhood in New Jersey. (Source)
Jarrett Mangus feels that his interpretation of the second photograph in the Jacobs series supports the ursid identity. His illustrated diagram is reproduced below, in which he suggests that the snout and other facial characteristics of a black bear can be distinguished in the image. He has stated that he feels the feature which he has pointed out is not simple pareidolia, although the position of the feet and apparent backside make me question this inference. The apparent placement of these suggests that the animal is facing away from the game camera, although Jarrett points out that "A bear can rotate their paws inward and I wouldn't put too much stock at the way the knee 'appears' to be positioned in this picture. The photo is relatively dark and if this one is mange stricken (which it appears to obviously be) it's hard to say for sure how much the baldness or thinning of the hair is playing into knee positioning." The analysis by skeptic Blake Smith of the brilliant Monster Talk podcast independently reached the same conclusion as Mangus, and also points out that the object appearing beneath the animal may very well be a nursing cub.
Mr. Mangus's diagram on the second Jacobs photos


Illustrated diagram of the second Jacobs photos, showing the position of the legs and backside as inferred by the author.
Regardless of the position of the animal in the Jacobs photographs, an overwhelming bulk of evidence such as comparative anatomy substantiates the U. americanus identity. My own personal treks through Pennsylvania wildernesses such as the Allegheny National Forest give the impression of the area's ecology being unlikely to support a species of unverified primate, though a wildlife biologist may yet run into something unexpected. With this analysis concluded, I leave readers with Mr. Mangus' final comments:
There is one thing that I wanted to mention and meant to earlier. Just imagine for a moment that it is indeed a known juvenile squatch bending over in the pic. I think people often believe/assume that there should be a foot and toes (on what would be the subjects right leg) extending out towards the 10 o'clock position (of the picture) had it (the foot and toes) not been blocked partially by the subjects left leg. Personally, I think in actuality we are indeed seeing around 95% (or more) of the creatures left hind foot and that the toes are actually facing what would be close to the 6 o'clock position of the picture. If you imagine that my theory is a known fact for a minute, I also think I can see what would be the knee on the creatures left hind leg and thats its left hind leg is also bent slightly which is also the natural posture for a black bear hind leg.
References:
  1. "Jacobs Photos - Pennsylvania, 9/16/2007." The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp.
  2. Loxton, Daniel, and Donald R. Prothero. Abominable Science!: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
  3. Hill, Sharon. "Bipedal Bear Video Is Amazingly Bigfoot-ish." Doubtful News. N.p., 5 Aug. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/08/bipedal-bear-video-is-amazingly-bigfoot-ish/.

30 comments:

  1. Bear have thick fur that is comprised of two layers. Bigfoot have thin hair that is comprised of one layer. Just because the hair/fur covering is thin, does not make it a bear with mange. If Mangus is going to start seeing eyes, nose and a mouth in the rib cage area, why stop there. The buttocks has been shown to have two sores. We can turn those into two eyes and the butt hole into a mouth, and now we have a four eyed monster from hell. With so many wannabe somebody in Bigfoot research these days, a person must come up with something that is really off of the wall in order to get name recognition. Mr. Mangus seems to be following that pattern. I know people who have seen at least a half dozen Sasquatch, and they are certain that the Jacob's photo is that of a Sasquatch. Because that is what they look like. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Stanton Friedman Rule #3 of Socalled Debunkers

      “If you can’t attack the data, then attack the messenger, it’s easier”.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. Whether it is a Sasquatch or not I feel the animal stands as you describe Jay, both back 'feet' have the same form, with a vertical dark line and would have to both be turned inward to fit Mangus' description of a facing animal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  4. My opinion is that the second photo is definitely a bear, two back legs showing on the right side, left foreleg stretched out to the left. there is a rock in the photo that i think might have caused a lot of confusion, as it looks like part of the animal, giving it that 'bigfoot doing yoga' look.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've been hiking and camping in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mts. in Calif, Wash. and Oregon all of my life...so needless to say...I've seen a lot of bears on my adventures (of many different breeds)... Although...I've never seen a Bigfoot...(oh, how I wish I would, some day.)The animal in these pic's does' not look like a bear! Mange or not...the creatures' coat is much too thin everywhere visible, to look like any bear I've ever seen. I'm not buying it. Can't say it's a Squatch...but, what ever it is...it's pretty freeky!It also appears to have very long slender arms. Bears are very stocky, everywhere...also. So...prove me wrong all you skeptic's (for skeptics sake!)You poke fu at people who dont think it's a bear. Staing that we are too anxious to accept that the creature in the photo must be a bear. When you are doing the very same dance...believingthat it must be a bear! LOL!
    I would be very shocked if this turned out to a man in a suit also. The suit itself would have to be a "leotard" since the fur hugs the body so tightly.The look of mange is so realistic that the duit would had to hsve been in a closet for decades...In an area that gets lots of moths!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoops! That's what I get for not "previewing" my post before sending it! I meant to write "...anxious to accept that the creature in the photo must be a Bigfoot.."
      P.S....I do also know how to spell "fun"..and "stating".Please excuse my blunders! I blame old age (59) and the fact, I'm not wearing my glasses, That's my story and I'm sticking to it! Ha!

      Delete
  7. Jay: The Monster Talk crew covered this a while ago. You should read some of the background here. http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/03/the-case-of-the-acrobatic-bear-or-juvenile-sasquatch/ Here is the direct link to the show. http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/12/03/28/

    Monster Talk is THE BEST cryptozoological podcast out there because it concentrates just on the science and all the possible interpretations, not just the ones people like to hear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Sharon, okay thanks very much for the link I will check it out. Thank you also for the comment.

      Delete
  8. My name is steve and i live in the appalachian mountain range in the southwest part of virginia. I have killed 7 bears while hunting in the mountains, the largest 487 lbs and the smallest 161 lbs and i have seen over 50 different black bears in the woods and have never seen a animal with legs as long as this animal has. I do not know that it is a bigfoot but i just dont see a bear in this picture!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well then, you have not seen the photo if the mangy bears limb proportions which line up about as perfect as lining up can get when comparing to the subject in the pic.

      I used to hold out hope (and was convinced at one point) that these photos were of a legit Sasquatch. However, once I saw the mangy bear pics and the face, there's zero doubt in my mind as to what this is.........and that's a bear.

      Delete
  9. that's all fine and dandy for that one picture ...but last time I checked there were two photos....the other photo completely counters the claims...if the "bear is forward facing than the other pic makes no sense....just saying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh yeah, two photos of a thinly haired bear. It could be mange that had not progressed to a sever state at that point in time.

      I don't understand why you are confused? The first pic is of the backside of the bear which is looking away from the trail camera. The second pic is of a bear that is looking toward the camera. Its really that simple. There ARE photos out there of a mangy bear and it is used to compare the limb proportions to the subject in the first pic. Its just about as perfect as it can get.

      Furthermore, I don't understand how people cannot see the face? Its so perfect. Seeing a random face in a pic is one thing, however, when an unidentifiable subject in a pic has had doubt cast upon it as being a known animal and then a face that "perfectly matches" the face of a black bear is pointed out, its pretty good/solid evidence that the film subject is what the face says it is.

      Delete
  10. I found an article on "Germany's bald bears", which has a photo of a bald bear in a very similar position as Mangus has sketched out. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225042/Germanys-bald-bears-Fur-disease-afflicts-Dolores-baffles-vets.html

    I gotta admit... I'm voting for the bald bear

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would be a very wise man.

      Delete
  11. If it is a bear, where's the tail? Just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right there in the pic "if" you study it close enough. No doubt about it.

      Delete
  12. If there is not tail, then the Sasquatch I.D. must prevail. There is no tail.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It was not a bear because scientists in 2008 found the arm was longer than the body when they measured on location using the same game camera as a eye to align a model set to the same angle as the creature. Then you take into consideration the fact that a bunch of honest people seen it running around in that same location.

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27igmYfpH4g Check it out here at 1:00 it morphs into a chimp that's identical and in the same position. I have not seen anyone be able to do that with any bear photos.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/18679/user/331899/472701.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  16. Notice how short the arms and legs are on the upright walking bear. Not like the Jacobs photo that has extremely long arms.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This isn't rocket science people, simply look at the animal. It looks like a chimpanzee, there doesn't have to be a bigfoot around, maybe someone's pet chimp got out. I am not saying bigfoot does or doesn't exist, I love the idea and do believe that it is possible. But facts are facts, it is most likely a primate, but it is not walking bipedal so sasquatch is out already. And that stupid analysis of the "bear face" in the side of the animal while bending over really. All you have to do is look at the first picture of the primate walking up to discredit that. Take it for what it is, a primate, not bipedal sniffing deer urine. Now find out where it escaped from or who has a chimp for a pet that got loose, or for the sake of argument, if there is a chimp family living in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's only "stupid" as you say if you've already made your conclusion that it's a juvenile Sasquatch before you've even taken the time to look at what Mr. Mangus has presented. But that's a typical response from a believer, just assume everything is a "Squatch", even when evidence points to other conclusions. As far as the face is concerned, Mr. Mangus has nailed it IMO. Everything he is presenting in that pic is clearly visible. Hats off to him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The animal cannot be a bear, it is almost impossible;le for it to be a bear. It is clearly a young bigfoot playing with the camera doing a peeka boo like other great apes often do.The structure of the legs, the shape of the thorax and short head all suggest ape. also the way it is bent over with disproportionately long arms also dictates that it must be an ape.There is nothing bear about it, it is as simple as that. It is a great shame that whenever humans are presented with the truth, or obviousness of a matter, all people do not believe and do all they can to discredit and tell lies.This animal is most likely to be a sasquatch. I know they exist because of all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The animal cannot be a bear, it is almost impossible;le for it to be a bear. It is clearly a young bigfoot playing with the camera doing a peeka boo like other great apes often do.The structure of the legs, the shape of the thorax and short head all suggest ape. also the way it is bent over with disproportionately long arms also dictates that it must be an ape.There is nothing bear about it, it is as simple as that. It is a great shame that whenever humans are presented with the truth, or obviousness of a matter, all people do not believe and do all they can to discredit and tell lies.This animal is most likely to be a sasquatch. I know they exist because of all the evidence.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment with your thoughts regarding this post! Please refrain from crude behavior such as name calling, making false claims, or using inappropiate language.