It was very helpful to see a human crouched in the same spot - especially the black/white picture of a human.
That provided a great distance and size reference, as well as an angle reference which helps clarify the body posture of the main subject.
Considering the general size difference between human and BF, everything does seem properly proportioned.
It was also nice to learn that there was a road just beyond/behind the figure (which I was wondering about in my earlier post).
It'd have been great if tracks could have been photographed - but not knowing the whole story behind this pic - it could be that the person thought it was people stealing apples, and would not have thought to look for prints.
I'm still thinking "mange" for the white patches. The skin under the black fur of my cat is white.....so I could see that as a reason for this on the subject.
I don't think it's an owl. No tail, beak, eyes, or even ear tufts. No individual feathers. I think the subject would be blurrier if it was a faster-moving owl. The subject is too scruffy all over and the head shape seems wrong (conical as opposed to flat).
Also, if an owl flying by a camera, wouldn't a larger shadow be cast on the ground behind the subject as the light source is small and the figure is close? Feedback on that from game-cam experts here?
So, it's either a person in a really, Really, REALLY big suit (or prop set up in front of the camera) - or it's a BF. I'm leaning towards BF on this one ("leaning" - as nothing is 100% without a body/DNA/etc.)
-Mike in NC
(P.S. - Personally, I don't care for "Occums Razor" - which basically says that if you can't explain something, it - therefore - must be something we already know or can identify. By that definition, even a legit BF picture or video would, by default, be a "man in a suit" because BF has not been recognized by the scientific community or any government entity. Juuuust my .02 cents).
Posted on Apr 20, 2011, 8:48 AM from IP address 72.37.171.204