But there is some evidence on the shape itself that the sun is beyond the black shape to the upper left (not behind the camera left or right, low or high); which would roughly fit an angle leading to the possible shadow on the ground under the feeder, and which ought to be creating a visible shadow, even if faintly so, down-photo-right from the shape if it’s standing on the ground amid grass.

On the other hand, if the day is overcast (also possible, hard to tell from the original photo in the condition we have it) or if the sun is behind the camera (left or right), we might easily not see a shadow from the shape if it’s standing in that grass.

But on yet another other hand {g}, if the sun was throwing shadows that direction instead, the feeder which is certainly not standing in a particular shadow ought to be throwing shadows out away from the camera too, somewhere. Which it isn’t.

The lack of feedershadow thus points either toward overcast (in which case all shadowbets are off, so to speak {g}), or else toward its shadow falling beneath the view of the camera (i.e. toward the camera) in which case we ought to see something similar from the shape if its way over there in the grass. Which we don’t. But we do see a possible shadowmatch, from that kind of angle, if the object is a flying bird approaching the feeder. (Which angle, in turn, matches some hints of high-fore-left-lighting on the shape.)

JRP

(They show establishing shots from the TV station’s camera, but after the area has been planted or harvested or something, which might have removed the smaller single stalk. They show one wide shot from the game cam, but it has the black object around the stalk shape. They show zoom-in shots from the game cam, in order to focus on other animals snapped at various times; those original frames would have given us the confirmation or disconfirmation of the stalk, but the selection shown by the TV station is never wide enough. At most they show the area behind the first and second leg of the tripod, but we need to see the area behind the second and third leg–by accident, they never show this.)

For those who are curious, the slight discolorations which kind of look like a child’s drawing of a scary face are actually less visible in these color-filtered and inverted shots than in the original enhanced shot (and less so than in the inversion and bright-green filtering I did); but it doesn’t matter because the ostensible face is pointing completely the wrong way (up and photo-left instead of down and photo-right, if the object is supposed to be going after the single stalk with the one flower.) Compare with the helpful photo of the gorilla: it doesn’t require heavy color-filtering to barely make out a non-natural face. (And this would have to be the furriest-armed hominid on record for a late south-Kentucky summer, albeit we’ve had a cooler summer this year than usual. I live about three hours away, only slightly farther south.)

JRP

http://www.wave3.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=4109058&h1=Fairdale%20man%20says%20automatic%20camera%20snapped%20photos%20of%20%27Big%20Foot%27&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=144200&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=55024024

So, unless someone goes to the trouble to contact that guy in Kentucky to ask him if he kept the other shots, so that we can get a comparison shot (and unless he actually kept the other shots {g}), what we have is all we have.

JRP

I am reasonably sure that when I spent several comments hoping for a comparison shot without the black object so that the question of the stalk-shape could be finally settled, while going into detail several times in different ways about why confirmation or disconfirmation of the stalk shape is so important to the analysis, that I was neither dishonestly parroting what other people were saying (since no one else in the thread was saying those things in that kind of detail, or even at all for the most part) nor making only a cursory (instead of a detailed) analysis of the photo.

Yes, I have looked at the photo with green frequencies highlighted; and there is nothing I would care to point to as “eye sockets and a nose ridge”. There are discolorations which might (with some squinting) look like a three-year-old’s scribble of a scary-nasty face, but nothing that looks natural–and facial features shouldn’t be that difficult to discern. Notably, the green highlights the pinion-appearances for the right wing (photo left) while also making the bottom limit of the object not appear to be standing behind grass. (Rather, the tail-feather impression of the bottom of the shape is increased instead.)

Yes, I have looked at the photo with inverted colors. The one thing in its favor is that the stalk shape does look more relatively solid, like the obvious plant next to it. The pinion shape on photo-left looks more pronounced, too, though; and the thinner piece of grass that would also have to be in front of the object (along with the ostensible ’stalk’) to create a ‘pinion’ impression, shows no similar inclination to be solid.

I can’t tell if you emailed Autumn the photo variations you were talking about (after her asking for such several times), so I’ve sent them to her myself this afternoon.

[Editor's note: Just uploaded the ones Tookra sent me yesterday. Sorry for the delay, guys. Lots going on here. :)]

Scott’s analysis is fairly well qualified and nuanced; and he’s gone to the trouble to show us what he’s talking about, too. (I don’t entirely agree with how he’s limned the bird-shape, but what I would consider ‘corrections’ would be very minor and wouldn’t result in altering his overall gist.) We know for a fact that there were crows on site which were capable of setting off the camera; the photo does show some serious appearance of crow-like features; and there is no clear evidence of hominid activity (per se) on site aside from whatever the photo may be.

JRP

I would love for it to be a Bigfoot. :)

As far as this being a “lesson”… you just described EXACTLY what I was trying to accomplish in my approach to publicly examining this. I even mentioned that to Autumn in an e-mail. A little background info on me: I’m a digital artist and I’ve been working with digital photo/art software for over 10 years now. This helps me occasionally spot a hoax from a digtially manipulated photo. I often help Autumn evaluate purported Bigfoot photos and videos.

That said, I feel there are no Bigfoot experts, including myself. How can one claim expertise in something that hasn’t even been proven to exist? :) So, ultimately my analysis are just my opinions based on my years of working with the aforementioned software and studying alleged Bigfoot photos. That doesn’t mean I’m right though… I occasionally make some boneheaded mistakes. We all have. :)

My point being though… that in analyzing this publicly… I wanted to give everyone a glimpse into the process, and the multitude of things Autumn (and myself by proxy sometimes) have to consider when we are evaluating a possible Sasquatch photo. There are often MANY things to consider other than just what we see in the image.

I wanted everyone to understand that when it comes to purported Bigfoot photos/videos; (A) things aren’t always what they appear to be… even when it seems obvious, and (B) we have to examine ALL the evidence surrounding the photo/video, not JUST the photo/video itself. I’m very happy that you got that out of all this and I hope others did too. Thanks for telling me that. :)

I’m glad you enjoy the Blog & Website. I hope everyone does. :)