Unfortunately, there are those who visit sites like this, and beat up on the photographer instead of taking the evidence presented at face value. That only disuades the photographer from presenting any other evidence in the future that they may capture. So I made a point of explaining and emphasizing, that this was not a hoax attempt on your part. I wanted to head off the naysayers and troublemakers at the pass. Apparently, I succeeded. LOL

Anyway, keep bringing your camera out with you and keep taking digital images! If you get something interesting again, send it in. As you can see, you got a pretty warm reception and Cryptomundians analyzed the photos supplied and did not take pot shots at you personally.

Keep on shooting! Digitally that is!

I am familiar with these sorts of apps and indeed they are pretty cool. You can hook up to live cam feeds all over the world and just sort of be a fly on the wall watching life go by in a place you may never go to. I always thought it was a bit of an entertaining novelty, but I never really thought about what it could mean for cryptozoology.

If there were cameras set up in areas of known cryptid activity, who knows what could turn up? Apparently there are already live cam feeds set up at Loch Ness, and it seems like this idea could have some merit. I doubt that anything other than an undeniably clear image would ever be accepted as worthy as evidence, but it could at the very least point whoever had the funding to go look in the right direction.

Remote cameras and camera traps are already proving useful with studying and tracking known species, so it seems that this could provide one more avenue in the pursuit of unknown species. The potential seems to be there.

I really wanted it to be something other than a human, but facts are facts! Hopefully, I’ll have better luck next time!

Thanks again!…

Lightening or increasing the contrast, the previous would apply here, just a waste of time.

However, we need not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is some knowledge to be gained, even with poor resolution images. Since the photographer was able to take a series of photographs, it does shed some light on the subject.

I did slightly enlarge each photo to the same exact size. Too much enlarging just shows pixels, but slight enlargement, does not degrade the photograph or make it unusable. So I did a slight enlargement.

I then stacked the photos, in progressive order, putting photo 17 on top of the stack and then lining up the rest of the photographs in numeric progression. Photo 17 was followed by photo 25, followed by photo 32 and photo 42 was the last in the progression. It made the images like one of those old flip books we use to see as children–a choppy movie if you will.

Those resulting flipped images show an animate bipedal figure moving from right to left in the background of the photos. So the photos do show something. However, given the distance covered in the time increments between each photo, it does not show movement outside the parameters of a normal sized human being walking through snow. The distance covered is what one would expect to see, even for a nonathletic human walking that path.

I would say what the photographer captured a subject that was human. This human was simply out for a walk in the snow as I or others would do and have done many times. There is nothing unusual about the stride length or more accurately stated, the distance covered by the subject given the time parameters in which the series of photos was taken.

To say this was a Bigfoot would be jumping to wrong and inaccurate conclusions.

I do not think the photographer is trying to hoax anyone. I think he just captured images, which might be considered unusual because seeing a solid dark figure walking in snowcovered territory, might seem out of place to some–given their frame of reference. From my and others frame of reference, walking on virgin snow through the woods or by a river or creek, is just something to do. I take my camera with me and get some photos of untouched snow. So this would be normal for me and to others. But maybe not so normal to him.

It was not an intentional hoax by the photographer. I do not believe it was an unintentional hoax perpetrated on the photographer either. I do not think someone would go out of their way to dress in a uniform dark color or don a gorilla suit, in hopes that their was someone there by chance, at that particular location, trying to fool the photographer.

So I am ruling out intentional hoax by the photographer and unintentional hoax perpetrated on the photographer.

What I think we have here is just a simple outdoorsman, wearing what they normally wear, and taking a walk through the countryside. Plain and simple, the photographer captured an ordinary event with his camera or app. But because of his frame of reference, it seemed a bit unusual, so he supplied the photos for further analysis.

Unfortunately, do to the low digital image quality, I can not say with 100% assurity, that it is not a Bigfoot. I have no enlargements or data to go by to definitely say that. However, I can say because of the distance covered and time parameters, that the subject of this photo is most likely human, and say that with 99.9999999% of assurity.

If the subject had been wearing a yellow or orange coat or blue jeans and a red coat, the photographer would come to that same conclusion as well–we all would. But because of the uniform dark color scheme and the photographer’s frame of reference, it made the subject seem more unusual than just a human being. Fortunately stride length and parameters of time constraints versus distance covered tells us with overwhelming assurity that it most probably is human, with a very miniscule amount of error.

Good try and thanks to the photographer for supplying those images to Craig. Sorry, but no Bigfoot or should I say, no cigar. Keep on shooting!