NCBFr Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, hiflier said: 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 The right leg of momma seems right to me. Looks to be a pretty long femur. The calf is just angle. If you look closely you can see both legs of the second child. We all see what we see. It will never advance the ball. Many thanks for the work as my first read was lazy.
hiflier Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) The right leg is too thin to be a leg. In the image of the witness the angle is different but there is a branch/piece of wood angling down off the tree right next to his chest/stomach that is angling down toward his left thigh. Because the angle is different in the cm photo that same downward branch actually looks like the thin right "arm". That artifact is in both images. Because the camera angles are different, and one is day and the other night and apparently an IR it's east to get confused. But there's no doubt that the thin arm is the stick in the daytime image that is angled down toward the witness's left thigh. Click on this uploaded image, look carefully and see for yourself: Edited December 17, 2019 by hiflier
Airdale Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) Just to stir the pot a bit more, I ran the original image through the Topaz Adjust-5 and selected a color negative filter (the sensor in the trail camera is a color sensor but the night images illuminated by IR appear as black and white). If you thought the smaller figure looked unearthly in the original have a look at this fellow. Enjoy! Edited December 17, 2019 by Airdale Error correction 2
Madison5716 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) Looks like some alien from Star Wars. Why are they so dang creepy? Edited December 17, 2019 by Madison5716
7.62 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 51 minutes ago, Madison5716 said: Looks like some alien from Star Wars. Why are they so dang creepy? Cause they are not human Either the hunter decided to play a hoax or those things aren't human. These are night time photos , who decides to walk in the woods with no light in terrain like that with your child . It's either a hoax with the hunter in on it or they are not human . Bigfoot ? I don't know but what ever they are they are not like us. 1
NCBFr Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 The man is not in the same position as the BFs. I think he needs to move forward 2-3 feet and maybe a little to his left to be an accurate comparison which in rough terrain like this could make a huge difference in what you see. The easiest way to see this is to compare the stump pointing towards the camera and looks like a big O in each picture relative to the subjects. The females right arm is indeed blocked by the stick. Her right leg is partially obscured by the big rock which also casts a shadow from the camera flash/IR on the back of it making it look too thin. Whatever that create is, it certainly has 2 legs. You can see a little piece of the male's lower right leg below the fallen log. I find it interesting the difference in color of the two creatures. I wonder if it is simply a trick of the camera lighting or if the male is indeed a lot paler (white or grey) than the female and her baby(s). The other thing that interests me is the difference in their faces. The female looks more human like and the male looks pure ape. Of course I have only a few good pixels to work with but there sure seems to be a huge difference in size and shape. If I get the time today I will try and illustrate what I am seeing.
7.62 Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, NCBFr said: The man is not in the same position as the BFs. I think he needs to move forward 2-3 feet and maybe a little to his left to be an accurate comparison which in rough terrain like this could make a huge difference in what you see. The easiest way to see this is to compare the stump pointing towards the camera and looks like a big O in each picture relative to the subjects. The females right arm is indeed blocked by the stick. Her right leg is partially obscured by the big rock which also casts a shadow from the camera flash/IR on the back of it making it look too thin. Whatever that create is, it certainly has 2 legs. You can see a little piece of the male's lower right leg below the fallen log. I find it interesting the difference in color of the two creatures. I wonder if it is simply a trick of the camera lighting or if the male is indeed a lot paler (white or grey) than the female and her baby(s). The other thing that interests me is the difference in their faces. The female looks more human like and the male looks pure ape. Of course I have only a few good pixels to work with but there sure seems to be a huge difference in size and shape. If I get the time today I will try and illustrate what I am seeing. To me an interesting aspect is they can see in the dark where it's very easy to break an ankle walking down an incline with downed trees . If it's not a hoax . I've walked to my known treestands before in the early morning darkness with no light but I had an established path that I knew was clear . The woods just are dark even with a moon so these things are navigating through there with no flash light ? I don't see them being human. Edited December 17, 2019 by 7.62
hiflier Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 38 minutes ago, NCBFr said: The man is not in the same position as the BFs. I think he needs to move forward 2-3 feet and maybe a little to his left to be an accurate comparison which in rough terrain like this could make a huge difference in what you see. The easiest way to see this is to compare the stump pointing towards the camera and looks like a big O in each picture relative to the subjects. I agree and the daytime camera needs to be repositioned more to the right by a two or three feet depending on it's distance from the tree in the foreground 11 minutes ago, 7.62 said: To me an interesting aspect is they can see in the dark where it's very easy to break an ankle walking down an incline with downed trees . Also agreed..
DrBunsonHoneyDew Posted December 17, 2019 Author Posted December 17, 2019 This came from a Facebook group, I am happy to invite this gentleman to the BFF. He has had other weird experiences and this is at his Cabin in PA, he lives in NJ. He thinks during the summer they pass through at a certain month.
NatFoot Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 15 minutes ago, DrBunsonHoneyDew said: This came from a Facebook group, I am happy to invite this gentleman to the BFF. He has had other weird experiences and this is at his Cabin in PA, he lives in NJ. He thinks during the summer they pass through at a certain month. Sure! Invite him over. He believes they are BF, right?
DrBunsonHoneyDew Posted December 17, 2019 Author Posted December 17, 2019 Just now, NatFoot said: Sure! Invite him over. He believes they are BF, right? Yes, but he agrees the photos look a lot like someone in a gilly suit at 12:30 am
hiflier Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 A careful replay of the daytime camera image distance/angle and his position would be helpful. Why would a guy in a gilly suit be out at that time of night unless poaching. But if out there at night, and using IR to get around, it might explain why the figure on the right is so well lit up? In other words, the apparent eyeshine may not be from the trail cam but from an IR device the "traveler" is using.
NatFoot Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, hiflier said: A careful replay of the daytime camera image distance/angle and his position would be helpful. Why would a guy in a gilly suit be out at that time of night unless poaching. But if out there at night, and using IR to get around, it might explain why the figure on the right is so well lit up? In other words, the apparent eyeshine may not be from the trail cam but from an IR device the "traveler" is using. Why would he need a ghillie suit at night? Why would a hunter need one what so ever? Was he turkey poaching? Surely don't need one to deer hunt.
NorthWind Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 I think a ghillie suit is a stretch. A ghillie suit is not needed at that time of the night. And if they were poachers, then where are their rifles? No. Not poachers, IMHO. As for the small size, Madison and I have found many prints from what we believe to be smaller ones. Certainly they exist.
Twist Posted December 17, 2019 Posted December 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, NorthWind said: As for the small size, Madison and I have found many prints from what we believe to be smaller ones. Certainly they exist. WHAT?!? They are not born 8' tall ? 1
Recommended Posts