RIDGWAY, Pa. – It’s furry and walks on all fours. Beyond that, about the only thing certain about the critter photographed by a hunter’s camera is that some people have gotten the notion it could be a Sasquatch, or bigfoot. Others say it’s just a bear with a bad skin infection.
Now, I’m no conspiracy nut; I know the council of Zion folded back in the Fifties, and I’m quite aware of why JFK needed to be put down like a mad dog. I understand these things. I try to make sure I only believe in ghosts when there’s definitely no chance of them being around, and I’m practical enough to not go looking for vampires at night because I don’t want to be rude. Bigfoot, however, has often been a thorn in my sensible side. It’s perfectly reasonable to believe that some sort of parallel to man’s evolution has survived into the modern age. Even considering how deep we’ve penetrated into Mother Nature’s fleshy, wooden womb, there’s still some small chance we’ve missed something. This is doubly reinforced by photos of the above. Can we tell what we’re looking at? No, not at all. However, when the agency spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Jerry Feaser, speaks up and says, “There is no question it is a bear with a severe case of mange”, I just shake my head.
First off, there clearly is a question, otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing the point. Secondly, why couldn’t they get a real conservation officer to make this statement? Now, for comparison, look at that picture, and now look at this one:
Very similar looking, yes? But, please notice, this mangey bear has lost all of it’s fur. The animal in the top photo clearly has fur on it; that’s not the bare (bear?) skin we can see on our poor little ursine. Is it possible that Mr. Feaser is correct? Of course it is. It’s also possible that he’s plumb wrong. The issue I personally have is how he’s not willing to give any leeway; it’s a very dark photo, and not one I’d feel comfortable making any definite statements about. Of course, the Bigfoot nuts aren’t any better. Paul Majeta of the Bigfoot Research Organization stated about the photo that “It appears to be a primate-like animal. In my opinion, it appears to be a juvenile Sasquatch”. I can’t get over this statement. Has the man ever seen a sasquatch? How would he know what a juvenile looks like? If it is indeed a simian, could it not just as easily be a chimpanzee or some other monkey that’s escaped it’s cruel masters and set out for a life of its own in the woods? Absolute statements are poopy, and make baby zombie Jesus cry.
Personally speaking, I like to think it’s a Bigfoot. It sure as hell doesn’t look like a mangy bear to me. This page on the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization’s site about the pics certainly doesn’t help the “bare bear” argument, showing another example of a mangy bear, as well as a very intriguing comparison picture between the mystery animal and a gorilla on all fours. Unfortunately they rather annoy me by having the same “I Know Better Than You” attitude as the agency spokesman, but they get some points back for not being government sock puppets. Further mysteries for our day, long to go unsolved, I’m sure. Certainly is interesting to think about though. Happy Hallowe’en!
Pa. hunter’s images stir Bigfoot debate [Yahoo! News]