On September 16, 2007, a game camera located in the forests of Northwest Pennsylvania snapped photos
that has sparked the Media into frenzy.
These photos first became public in late October on the website belonging to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization; and organization who in itself the last few years have been at the very center of controversy. The following is the actual BFRO recount.
From the BFRO website:
“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.
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 smell 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 will be added to this page in coming days.
Various primate experts and bear experts in the US and Canada are currently examining these photos. The ones who have offered initial impressions to the BFRO say the latter two images do not show a bear, but rather a primate.
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 bigfoot 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 bigfoot (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 bigfoot, 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.”
I have no problem with the BFRO toting the suggestion that perhaps these photos may represent a young sasquatch. My problem is the lack of details given to the public after the posting of these photos to the website.
If you possessed such photographic evidence, would you not also be willing to share any supporting evidence?
Listed below are my personal issues with this situation.
1. Upon posting the photographs and subsequently after, no measurements such as height and width of the tree, the posted game camera height, and the distance from the camera to the tree have been given. How can measurements of this “creature” be made if we have nothing to compare it to? We can only estimate which still leaves a large margin of error.
2. Jerry Feaser, the spokesman for the PA Game Commission, stated: “This strange looking animal in the Jacobs photos is "definitely" a "skinny mangy bear."” This statement was posted on the BFRO website, under the Jacobs Photo page, in a text box titled ‘DEBUNKING THE PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION’. From there they go on to derail the PGC’s credibility due to its cover ups of Mountain Lions in PA. This is the only place on the webpage where an official source citing the subject from the photos as bears is listed. By insinuating past discretions of the PGC they hope to invalidate their stance on the photos.
3. Who has more to lose? The BFRO has again put their reputation on the line by making claims that they cannot validate without possessing necessary evidence; or by withholding key information pertaining to supporting evidence.
A Copyright has been registered for these photographs, and licensing deal can be made by emailing THROUGH a BFRO.net email address. Exactly who is receiving monetary gain from these licensing deals? So by debunking these photographs – the BFRO not only takes a financial loss – registering a copyright is not free (http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html), the loss of licensing agreements (a possible major loss of revenue), but also another smack to the face of the organization. That leads to the question of how many times are they willing to sacrifice their public image as “The Scientific Research Organization Exploring the Bigfoot/ Sasquatch Mystery”.
Since the debut of these photographs, I maintained my objectivity, and waited for the evidence. My associate researchers and I have waited for the supporting evidence, even contacted the BFRO offering assistance. It has obviously fallen on deaf ears. The offers are still there.
On numerous editions of “The Sasquatch Experience”, I stated that we should remain objective and wait. It’s been three weeks and no supporting evidence has come to light. I doubt anything new will show light, and if it does… the damage is done. How can we recover as a legitimate field of research if we continually make these mistakes?
More importantly, how can we help the BFRO recover? As many faults as the great organization has, it still has many researchers who are true to the case. Some of who I call friends. Is it fair to let one of the most recognized organizations flounder because of some “PR” problems? I don’t think so. What we should do is send a message. A message that clearly states that as a community we can no longer afford to have these blunders. A message that thanks them for their continuing service and research – but firm in the fact these PR stunts are intolerable.
“The Jacobs Photos” are just the latest focus. We can all go back to Sonoma, Manitoba, Tennessee, etc. How many times will we fall on shoddy photos and video? Bottom line: Take nothing at face value unless you have the supporting evidence to help further your cause. Sometimes, it’s best to leave some things in the closet.
Those are my final words on this, and the last time I will comment publicly on the matter. My Best of luck to the BFRO and their endeavors, and hopefully we will find some evidence that some day may unite us.
+SF
No comments:
Post a Comment