I got a number of blog hits the other day from folks looking at an earlier picture I put up of a bear with mange (picture at right).I thought nothing more of it until this morning when I got the Newshound feed from J.R. Absher's excellent blog, where he reports that some bo-ho is claiming his trail cam picked up a picture of Big Foot in Pennsylvania.
J.R. is skeptical, and so am I. Bears with mange (along with coyotes with mange, dogs with mange, fox with mange and goats with mange) are not uncommon, and things without hair DO look rather odd and other-worldly.
Of course, headlines and hype are helped quite a lot by the fact that most "crytozoologists" (who are almost never actual zoologists) have rarely spent too much time in forest or field. Like small children who have just read a book about Kenya, when they hear hoof beats they assume it must be a herd of zebra rather than one small pony.
It helps for good headlines, of course, if you send your blurry photos (and they are always blurry) to the "Big Foot Research Organization" for identification, rather than to the Division of Natural Resources or State Game Commission.
.
3 comments:
I actually have a very clear photo of bigfoot taken in my back yard. However the BFRO rejected it as the clarity is apparently "impossible" to achieve due to the cloud of small flies that constantly surround these beasts and the lingering effects of their magic invisibility cloaks they usually wear to hide from us.
The pictures ran in our local paper the other day, and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "That's a skinny bear."
Think you're on to something. Not nearly as awe-inspiring as a Bigfoot in Pa. though. Besides, everyone knows Pa. is outside their native territory.
bs
You should have sent your chupacabra picture in to a newspaper!
Post a Comment