Comments on: Kenny Mahoney Game Cam Photo… Is it Bigfoot?

By: Joisey Gene

Joisey Gene — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:14:54 +0000

Donna Stocking Cohrs says” I’m sticking with my Bigfoot theory. If that’s a crow, it’s a GIANT crow. Look at the video of the interview. The plant next to the squatch is about 4 feet tall….

…Why is it that people are so hell bent on proving these objects in these pictures are NOT Bigfoot??????”

I don’t think anyone is “Hell Bent” , I Can a BF/Sasquatch in the photo. As a matter of fact it was my first impression.I think we all wish it was a Squatch, But I can also a bird/Crow in flight, and after reviewing all the available evidence,the Crow became the more likely scenario.
As I stated on the “Revisited “post;
I believe the overwhelming evidence is certainly leaning towards the Crow theory. 1.) The photo itself,eg;NO SHADOW? 2.) The additional photos clearly showing a flock of crows in and around the Camera. 3.)The lack of any evidence to the contrary eg; Footprints,hair,etc.. 4.) The excellent work by Dave & Scott.
I can see both BF & Crow in this photo,just like everyone else. But which is more likely based on the evidence we have. Just OPINIONS based on the evidence at hand.

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:01:04 +0000

Larry Spiry says: “Thanks Scott for the youtube site. I can now see the crow. But I can still see that darn bear image. Let’s say for example that it isn’t a crow, or a bigfoot. That dark patch would have to be a large rock, a plastic bag, or just plain old earth. If a new photo of this area does not show the dark patch, then you are looking at either a crow or a BF. In other words the dark patch will not be there. If it is a BF, you most likely will find other signs like footprints. I think these guys found a foot print.”

Hi Larry,

I completely agree with you about needing more photos, I’d love to see comparison photos taken from the same distance with the same camera.

Regarding the “footprint”… all they ever show in the video is a deer track. What they show out in that field is some trampled down vegetation and “impressions” that IMHO could have been made by anything reasonably sized; human, animal or Bigfoot. So, to me, that evidence is even harder to confirm than the photo we’re discussing. :)

By: Dave Conover

Dave Conover — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:58:36 +0000

No footprints have been found. Mr. Mahoney notes that. He simply mentions a lot of vegetation had been pressed down. This is probably due to the deer who are eating his beans: He even points to a deer track in his garden.

By the time this was reported on KTLA on the west coast, the story had acquired “footprints” so it’s an interesting study in loose reporting by the media as well.

By: Larry Spiry

Larry Spiry — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:33:51 +0000

Thanks Scott for the youtube site. I can now see the crow. But I can still see that darn bear image. Let’s say for example that it isn’t a crow, or a bigfoot. That dark patch would have to be a large rock, a plastic bag, or just plain old earth. If a new photo of this area does not show the dark patch, then you are looking at either a crow or a BF. In other words the dark patch will not be there. If it is a BF, you most likely will find other signs like footprints. I think these guys found a foot print.

By: Fairdale, Kentucky “BackYard Bigfoot” photo revisited | Oregon Bigfoot Blog

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:22:06 +0000

[...] Oregon Bigfoot blog reader, Dave Conover, has offered the following enhancement of the Kenny Mahoney photograph (my original post on this subject can be found here). [...]

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:33:16 +0000

Here is the link to the video Dave is talking about : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6jmMvt9Qjg

You’re right Dave, it is a very good analysis of what we’re seeing… and does change my opinion of the direction in which it’s flying. The only thing I would differ with is his opinion of the position of the head looking right (left from our POV). In doing so, think he’s misidentifying a piece of the background foliage as the beak.

I think the bird’s head is looking at the camera, and tilted at a slightly upward angle, (which would make sense if it is coming in low to go up to the feeder). The beak is the little light colored speck at the top of the head… we don’t see all of it as the view is foreshortened because the bird’s head is facing almost directly at the camera.

I agree with your philosophy as well. I do believe Bigfoot exists… but I also believe the burden of proof is on the evidence and the person presenting it. I’m very hard on Bigfoot photo evidence because I’m a digital artist and I work with digital images all the time and I know how easily they can be manipulated by someone who knows how to use the software.

I don’t think Mr. Mahoney is trying to hoax anyone… I think he simply saw something in his picture which he didn’t understand. His local media took it and ran with it.

So, I simply judge the evidence here and to me it just doesn’t add up to Bigfoot. People will often see only what they want to see though. I think this is an excellent example of how a photo can be deceptive even when there is no intent to deceive.

By: Dave Conover

Dave Conover — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:12:46 +0000

Thank you for the game camera information, Luke! Your math goes a long way towards proving the point that the “creature” is indeed much closer to the camera than 50 yards. I was looking at the video today and trying to make out any manufacturer’s copy, but couldn’t. My own “cheapie” gamecam is only good for about 40′ and I’ve never picked up anything at the distance claimed by Mr. Mahoney, who I continue to believe is an honest man who’s just misread a picture. If anyone will simply look at the various versions of the WAVE/CNN report running on YouTube and pause the image when you *first* see the full-frame picture taken by the cam (which is rapidly zoomed in on by the editors) you will see that the struts visible in the picture support a large animal feeder in the foreground and that the “creature” is mid-frame. Its density and contrast are closer to the feeder than the garden. The lack of sharp focus is due to the motion of a bird’s wings. The reporter also sets up the belief that it’s something very different by saying it is “…a BIG black figure in the DISTANCE of one of his photos..” and this is simply an opinion. There is a very effective analysis of all of this on YouTube right now entitled “Kentucky Bigfoot DEBUNKED – A BIRD – Kentucky backyard bigfoot 2009 CNN” and it points out a number of issues with the picture quite well. As far as proceeding from the assumption that something’s “real” first, that goes against my own practice of critical thinking and verges into the territory of true belief. I don’t have issues with my own belief as I’ve seen a bigfoot. I’ve stood, quaking in my boots, within 100 feet on one that was yelling its head off at me. I even think there’s a good chance that there is a small population in the Fairdale area, or at least a possible seasonal migratory movement through it. I live within 15 miles of where this picture was taken. I just can’t think this is an image of a bigfoot when my eyes and experience are telling me otherwise.

By: John Dickey

John Dickey — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:02:00 +0000

“how it’s not”….it’s taken by a digital trail camera, which really opens the door to all types of conjecture and manipulation of the photo/video. Most trail cameras that are better than average in quality will produce a much clearer picture than what has been presented. Even lower quality cameras that have a video mode, will take much clearer pictures. So….whatever is in the focal point of the picture, has to be moving very rapidly. It’s shape and form strongly suggest that a bird, probably a raven, has flown in front of the camera, triggering the photo.

Analyze the picture in this link and see what you think….

http://www.pbase.com/norman/image/64892700

By: Luke Gross

Luke Gross — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:28:13 +0000

The game camera being used looks like the Moultrie Game Spy D 40 Digital Trail Cam. During the interview with Mr. Mahoney he mentions the distance between the camera and where he thinks the subject in the photo was at. He said the distance is between 50 and 55 yards. This is between 150’ and 165’. The sensor distance on the camera being used is approx. 60’. If the subject in the film was that far away it could not have tripped the sensor on the camera not unless a bird or something else was close enough to trip the cameras sensor. There were photos of crows taken by the camera while they were feeding in the garden.

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:02:30 +0000

Larry… I still can’t find your bear either. :) It’s okay… we’ll likely never know for sure anyway. Like is said… maybe the higher res version of this pic will appear and then it will become more clear (no pun intended).