The possibilities so far seem to be, in order of probability:
1 - juvie squatch
2 - chimp (which is certainly a possibility, as norsman proved with those links to exotics caught on trail cams)
3 - a flexible mange bear with beautiful black fur
For those that say it's improbable that it's a chimp in that area and it's a bear, how probable is it a squatch making a mistake and caught on camera? We have two possibilities that are both infrequent, yet have precedent.
I'm also curious as to any weighting being given to the improbability of it being a bear. Example:
"it's a bear!"
but it doesn't look like a bear
"it's a bear with mange!"
but it doesn't look like a bear, and mange has been ruled out
"it's a bear, because what would a chimp be doing in PA?"
norseman had links to just a few examples of animals being where they weren't supposed to be
"it's a bear, because other bears were caught on camera!"
those were cubs, and look nothing like the subject
"it's a bear, dammit!!!"
OK, but why does that have a higher probability than an exotic or a juvie squatch?
It's the same line of thinking where you ask if moose tracks prove a moose is in the area.. "Yes!" Do deer tracks prove deer are in the area? "Yes!" Do bear tracks prove if bear are in the area? "Yes!" Do squatch tracks prove squatch are in the area? "NO!!!!!!!!!!"