Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization Logo
 






Jacobs Photos - Pennsylvania, 9/16/2007


     
Image 1 : Bear Cubs
Image 2 : Unclassifed Primate?
Image 3 : Unclassified Primate?

Date: September 16, 2007

Location: Northwest Pennsylvania

Camera: Bushnell trail camera (automatic) with infrared (invisible) flash. Camera placed by R. Jacobs.

Time of images: See time stamps on images - click icons above for larger versions.

Figures in images: Bear cubs in first image; Young sasquatch in two subsequent images.

Q: How do we know it's a saquatch and not a bear?

A: The distinction between ape anatomy and bear anatomy is most visible in image 2. The figure has its face pressed against the ground to smell some aromatic deer attractant mix (which the Jacobs brothers said they sprinkled at that spot in order to get a centered photo of a deer). Aside from the obvious limb ratio issue, when a "bear" bends down to sniff the ground, it shoud look more or less like large dog sniffing the ground. If you have a large dog then you'll know intuitively that a dog does not get in this position to sniff the ground, or even to press its ear against the ground. Neither does a bear, no matter how mangey it is. Apes, however, do get in this exact posture to smell the ground.

Various newspapers reported that the creature is a "mangey bear". This assertion originated from the spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. See the article debunking the Penn. Game Commission

Several people who have spent a great deal of time with both primates and bears (mainly zoo veterinarians) have consistentaly told us right off the bat, that it "looks much more like a primate than a bear."

And therefore even though we do not have the corpse of the animal to disect, we say with confidence that the Jacobs creature is not a bear.

Bear vs. Primate

 


Click on the image above for the YouTube video about the analysis of limb ratios.

Click on the image below for local media reaction to the images.



Curiously when some people hear a single scientist has flippantly concluded (without any substantion) that the image shows a bear, they'll figure the case is closed. Then later on some other scientist, who perhaps has some math-statistics in his/her background, may step forward and graphicly described with 3-D CGI some interesting things that are unarguable about the primate-like anatomy of the figure, based on some mathetical probabilities of the limb ratio and shape, and their correctable margins of error, and the substantial delta between bears and apes.






Photo of a mangy bear provided by
the Pennsylvania Game Commission

 

Scientists in fields related to biology, zoology and ecology are formally trained to scientificially examine certain types of evidence, but they are not trained to scientifically examine controversial photographs of wildlife ... Therefore they will tend to avoid making conclusions about controversial photographs. They prefer to comment upon physical evidence.

After the Patterson footage was released in 1967, it took many years before scientists became interested, and decades before they figured out ways to study the footage scientifically.

An English Professor in Vermont was able to apply some mathematics to the Jacobs photos within months of their release. His results showed a scientific way to study the photos, and strengthened the case that the Jacobs creature is a primate rather than a bear. He focused on the different torso/limb ratios of bears and primates, and the torso/limb ratios seen on the Jacobs creatures. He also referenced the limb ratios of the bear cubs seen in the earlier photo taken by the camera. The glacially slow inertia of the scientific community will, in time, be affected by his analysis. See the YouTube video above for his results.

 


The three images at the top of the page were obtained with a Bushnell trail camera in Northwest Pennsylvania on the evening of September 16, 2007 by R. Jacobs.

The same type of camera used to obtain the Jacobs photos -- a Bushnell Trail Sentry.

The unit in the photo is being mounted on a tree in a game preserve in Africa.

Jacobs had placed the motion-sensing camera on a tree along a game trail in a remote forest area in order to photograph any deer that might be using the trail. He did this in preparation for the Fall deer hunt. Jacobs was not trying to obtain images of a bigfoot/sasquatch.

The area in the foreground was baited with a deer attractant mix and a mineral lick block. In the first image (the one with the bear cubs) the mineral lick block can be seen sitting on a large black plastic plate. One of the bear cubs is apparently licking or sniffing the mineral block. In the two subsequent images the black plate is turned over and leaning against the mineral block.

Several minutes elapsed between the image of the bear cubs and the images showing the ape-like animal (see the time stamps in the lower right corner of the images).

The second image shows the ape-like animal from a rear-side angle, with its head obscured by its shoulders. In the third image the ape-like animal appears to be smelling the ground near where the deer attractant mix had been scattered.

Various anatomical elements can be seen upon careful examination of the images, including a bare spot in the fur under the arm.

More details, data, and related images can be found in the discussion forum for these photos.

These recent images from Pennsylvania are very significant to bigfoot research. They likely show a young juvenile bigfoot (smaller than ~5 feet tall), as they have been described by eyewitnesses over the years. Young juvenile bigfoots are typically described as quadrupedal (walking on four legs), with the ability to climb trees or run very quickly on all fours (See the New York Baby Footage). They are sometimes seen alternating between a quadrupedal posture and an awkward bipedal posture. Whereas the larger bigfoots (5 feet tall and above) are almost never described as walking or running on all fours.

It was thought for a long time that any legitimate images of an adult bigfoot would likely be dismissed by the public as showing a human in a costume due to the bipedal posture of adult bigfoots, which is so reminiscent of a human posture. In the case of a young juvenile (quadrupedal) bigfoot, by contrast, the scientific debate would not revolve around whether the figure could be a man in a costume. Rather, the debate would revolve around what type of animal it is ... an entirely different debate.

The BFRO has the privilege of informally naming the apelike-figure captured in these photos. It will be referred to as the "Jacobs creature" (like the "Patterson creature"). Formal, scientific, taxonomic classification, usually cannot be derived from photographs alone, but can be tentatively suggested.

Over the years we have heard of other decent photographs of these animals, in other parts of the country, which have never been released to the public, for various reasons. So we greatly appreciate the decision of the Jacobs family to release these images to the public. If you are inspired by these images as much as we are, please send an email of thanks, along with your impressions and comments, to the Jacobs family, via their lawyer, by emailing Jacobs_photos@BFRO.net

These images have been registered with the U.S. Copyright office by the lawyer for R. Jacobs. The images are available to be licensed for re-publishing. To inquire about licensing please send an email to Jacobs_photos@BFRO.net

All other comments or questions about these photos should be posted on the BFRO's public discussion forum.


More images related to the Jacobs Photos
 
The two images at the top of the page are the only two images of the unidentified animal. The camera obtained other photos that same night, and others earlier that same month. Some of those images are shown below, along with some scale images of the same tree in daylight.
The "Mama Bear" image ::: shows the bear cubs huddling around the mineral lick with a larger bear -- likely the mother of the cubs. Notice the nice shiny thick dark coat of fur on the mama bear. It's not a mangy bear at all. Unlike the strange creature that came by a while later that night -- this larger bear looks, not surprisingly, just like a bear.

Notice also, this image was a color flash image, not an "invisible flash " IR-sensitive image. This model of Bushnell trail camera (Trail Sentry 2.1 -- from Walmart) can take both "invisible flash" shots and color flash shots. It has controls which determine at which hour it should switch from visible flash mode to invisible flash mode.
 

More of the Bear Cubs :::: This was a less clear (color flash) shot of the bears. At some point after the bears the scene, the camera automatically went into "invisible flash" mode.

 

Deer in the same area :::: This image was obtained with the same camera, but at a different spot, and on a different night a week or so prior to the images at issue.

Notice the time/date stamp in this image. It was set incorrectly at this point. This photo was not taken in February 2007. The Jacobs had not even purchased this trail camera at Wal-Mart until August 2007. The image above was taken in early September 2007. The time/date stamp was set properly after this image was obtained.

 

More deer ::: Different spot, different date (date incorrect). The camera was still in IR ("invisible flash" mode) at this hour in this shot. This shot was obtained a week or so before the main three images were obtained.

 

The tree in daylight with scale measure :::: This image was taken from the same position and angle as the main three images above, a few weeks after the creature images were obtained and after the Jacobs family contacted the BFRO.

For more discussion about the scale analysis, see the discussion forum thread about it.

 
 
 
 
 
  Copyright © 2014 BFRO.net