People see what they want to believe.There's no way anyone can say how big that animal is.Sproul says it's big and over 100lbs but it actually looks small to me.The camera was obviously set low on the tree and the vegitation doesn't appear to be high,yet it's taller than the animal.No one can make the determination from a picture aboit how much an animal weighs.In the original picture,you can see small black spots on the animals stomach.It doesn't have a long thick tail that would be seen if it was there.It has white patches on the back of it's ears and a tuft of fir on it's face.These are all defining characteristics of a bobcat.Bobcats look much sleaker in their summer coat than they do in their winter coat.I'm sure the original picture is much clearer than this picture and I'm willing to bet you'd be able to pick up more defining characteristics of a bobcat in it.There's no way that's a picture of a mountain lion and it proves once again how poor people are at identifying certain animals,especially the ones that probably don't exist in this state.

Look at the picture of the bobcat in Susquehanna county that was posted on here a couple months ago.That debate went on for 20 some pages and it was obviously a bobcat just like this picture.I couldn't believe the number of people that were convinced it was a mountain lion.Some actually thought it was a cross between a mountain lion and a bobcat.

What's really disturbing is that the media actually portrayed this as proof that mountain lions exist in this state.