New Intriguing Trail Cam Pics out of New Jersey??

[NatFoot]

The peeping Tom behavior is seriously creepy.

 

No other animal seeks out humans to watch unless it's predatory behavior.

 

Seriously bad stuff, IMO.

 

[Airdale]

I ran both of these photos through PhotoZoom Pro-6 to clean them up and remove artifacts as much as possible, then ran the results through Topaz Adjust 5 to bring out detail. I couldn't use the same adjustments for both due to the difference in resolution. I finally cropped both images and enlarged the color photo of the poster so that the diameter of the tree in the right foreground was roughly the same. The focal length of the cell phone and trail cam lenses are significantly different and I suspect the cell photo was digitally zoomed in the camera. It makes it very difficult to make any realistic comparisons between them.

 

I agree that the larger figure, at least from the neck up, looks like a human female with long flowing hair, though if it is a Sasquatch it's possible the generally well developed trapezium muscles could contribute to that. Definitely concur that the smaller companion is weird.

 

   

[Twist]

Something about it feels wrong.  It feels like the kind of wrong where its another animal in some weird position.  What we see as a face and hair is actually some leg or rear end of a bird, maybe closer to the camera than we think.......  I feel like once its explained I"ll be able to see it and not unsee it.  

[wiiawiwb]

I can easily understand the reflection  of light even if a sasquatch has a highly unusual ability to pick up every bit of light unseen to our eyes. I'll need to learn more about bioluminescence as I have no idea what biochemically can be going on to cause the manufacture and propelling of light from within the eye outward.

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

Something about it feels wrong.  It feels like the kind of wrong where its another animal in some weird position.  What we see as a face and hair is actually some leg or rear end of a bird, maybe closer to the camera than we think.......  I feel like once its explained I"ll be able to see it and not unsee it.  

 

I agree, which is why I've been studying the thing. Now I know, as was stated before that perspective can be off since the two cameras obviously hadn't been positioned exactly. But still even with that there are things that are odd. For instance why does the witness look so much taller? I really tried to line things up, such as the cutoff tree limb/stump in front and to the left of both subjects, as well as the rock formations and the size/thickness of the bent tree to the right of the subjects in the left frame. IMHO there is no question that the "suspects" on the trail cam are quite a bit smaller. For instance, check out the curve in the bent tree in relation to the individuals in both frames. And one more thing, there's a couple of very faint, thin, horizontal crossing branches/long twigs about knee height in both frames that each subject is behind. 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by hiflier

[wiiawiwb]

Wow, Hiflier. Very high-powered skills when viewing these pictures. I completely missed the crossing branch. 

 

It reminds me of something Sherlock Holmes once said,  " As ever, Watson (wiiawiwb), you see but do not observe." 

[hiflier]

27 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Wow, Hiflier. Very high-powered skills when viewing these pictures. I completely missed the crossing branch. 

 

It reminds me of something Sherlock Holmes once said,  " As ever, Watson (wiiawiwb), you see but do not observe." 

 

Thank you wiiawiwb.  One more thing to notice. There are two larger diameter trees to the right of the witness. The second furthest has a kind of faint small branch/twig on its left just above the height of the witness's head. Those same two trees are behind the subject's head in the cam shot. You can barely see that same thin branch sticking out the left of the tree on the left and it's much higher than its relationship in the witness's image.

 

The alignment of the two frames is fairly close. You can tell because just to the right, and further back, of the large tree in the foreground there is a smaller diameter tree to its right (birch?) that has a branch about part way up and sticking horizontally out from its right side. So the camera angles in the two shots are slightly different but the "landmarks" that match in each are still in view and almost in the same places..

Edited December 17, 2019 by hiflier

[NCBFr]

5 hours ago, Airdale said:

I ran both of these photos through PhotoZoom Pro-6 to clean them up and remove artifacts as much as possible, then ran the results through Topaz Adjust 5 to bring out detail. I couldn't use the same adjustments for both due to the difference in resolution. I finally cropped both images and enlarged the color photo of the poster so that the diameter of the tree in the right foreground was roughly the same. The focal length of the cell phone and trail cam lenses are significantly different and I suspect the cell photo was digitally zoomed in the camera. It makes it very difficult to make any realistic comparisons between them.

 

I agree that the larger figure, at least from the neck up, looks like a human female with long flowing hair, though if it is a Sasquatch it's possible the generally well developed trapezium muscles could contribute to that. Definitely concur that the smaller companion is weird.

 

   

 

I encourage everyone to look closely at the right arm of the BF in the background.  That is a very impressive bicep and extremely impressive  forearm.  The abs are pretty impressive as well.  I have known some big dudes in NJ, not this big.

 

I will admit the female is confusing.  However, if you look very closely you will see the weird hair is actually a baby holding on to momas head.  The front is as I said earlier a very young Juvy (1-2 Years) holding on to the front which explains the long thin arm.  

 

I believe this to be real.  Not in Sayersville, but western NJ.  Damn cool.

 

Great use of a reverse sloop camera BTW.  

Edited December 17, 2019 by NCBFr

[WSA]

I certainly can’t weigh in on the probabilities here without contextual information, and that is completely absent as far as I can tell. Having lived in rural NJ I can attest there are large tracts of farmland and forested areas that would be a surprise to those who have not seen it. This photo though might have been taken out back of the local strip mall, for all we know, in a place where human traffic is common. Although this is a weird and strangely eerie photo, it may be nothing more than that. Without more context, I am not all that curious about it. 

[NatFoot]

So this is now a mother of two very young ones, one clinging to the front of her and another sitting on her shoulders....along with a teen?

 

Got it.

[NCBFr]

Genius, you got snark.  Fing brilliant.   Better ideas B

 

 

[NatFoot]

I've seen that video. It's very interesting but it doesn't explain what you seem to be seeing.

 

Maybe some red lines would make sense here?

 

Of course they have babies. 

[hiflier]

42 minutes ago, NCBFr said:

Juvy (1-2 Years) holding on to the front which explains the long thin arm.

 

But it doesn't explain the thin back leg (right leg). If you look closely at that you'll see that the trunk of the tree is actually present. Follow the left line of the tree trunk down and you'll see that the trunk's edge can be seen coming down behind the front of the rear back "leg".  There's also some odd striations running horizontally down the thicker left "arm" between what some see as the shoulder and hand- striations that appear nowhere else on the body, other limbs, nor anywhere else in the image. My summary? Don't know what the image is showing but is but NOT a BF. Too many things are off.

 

If you say the thin back leg belongs to a baby clinging to the mother/juvy's back? Then the mother/juvy has NO legs showing which makes no sense at all for the position of the upper body

Edited December 17, 2019 by hiflier

[NCBFr]

15 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

I've seen that video. It's very interesting but it doesn't explain what you seem to be seeing.

 

Maybe some red lines would make sense here?

 

Of course they have babies. 

 

Not sure why, but I cannot ignore you.  Can you please do me a favor and try to ignore me,

[Airdale]

36 minutes ago, NCBFr said:

I encourage everyone to look closely at the right arm of the BF in the background.  That is a very impressive bicep and extremely impressive  forearm.  The abs are pretty impressive as well.  I have known some big dudes in NJ, not this big.

 

What you're seeing as a bicep fooled me too until I cleaned the image up. It is actually one of the two small branches/twigs hiflier mentioned crossing between the game camera lens and arm. I certainly wouldn't dispute the possibility of a baby clinging to mom's shoulders but I'm not seeing it. The disparity in point of view between the game camera lens and cell phone used to take the color photo is not the only issue in comparing them. Cell lenses are typically fairly wide angle designed for landscapes or group photos (I know several of the flagship models now have multiple lenses but the quality of this photo suggests it is not the latest and greatest). I'm convinced the cell photo was digitally zoomed which not only increases pixelation but alters the perspective and makes judging the relative distances between objects very difficult. The trail camera photo is also wide angle but not only appears to be taken from a lower angle but is at the native focal length of the lens. To make an accurate comparison of size would require some on-scene measurements and control photos, basically photogrametry as Bill Munns explains in "When Roger Met Patty".