poor bobcat, too bad it couldint fend for its self

He claims Maine has NO cougars, yet cougars have been documented in a Feb, 1994 picture by Wayne Perri & supported wholeheartedly by the late Dean of Sportsman Gene Latourneau.

#2) In 1995, Caribou Firefighter Owen Jackson took pictures of a puma drinking from the southside of Cross Lake.

#3) Maine Forest Ranger Dean Wiggins filmed a cougar the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in 1994. Maine Wildlife Officials were so fearful of it being verified, they tried to confiscate his videotape to which he threatened court action. When forced to returned it, state officials decalred it as “inconclusive”.

#4) Brunswick resident Niki Lund filmed a huge cat with long tail crossing her yard. 2 local wildlife officers identified it as a cougar, but state Biologist Sandy Eldrick claimed her “photos being inconclusive”.

#5) In 1981 George Matula found cougar tracks in the Allagash Wilderness & put dogs on its trail, which promptly picked it & chased the cat to Canadian border.

#6) In November 1982, Deer hunter Tony Fuscaldo discovered a cougar devouring a recently captured bobcat along a loggig road in NE Maine. He got 1 quick picture, before cougar fled into underbrush. There were numerous teeth bite marks on the bobcat, but state biologists later claimed, “the teeth marks on the bobcat wer inconclusive” to being that of a cougar.

Since every piece of evidence is incloclusive to Maine Officials, I’d say they need to go to a tracking or animal identificatiion course to refresh their abilities in identfying evidence. Of course, there is a strong probability, they have NO idea how to make proper identification for cougar evidence now.

However, the “Maine Mutant” (which was extensively discussed via my blogs here last summer) was a misidentified dead dog on the road. Meanwhile, the large unknown predator seen in Turner-Greene area apparently is still out there, and who is to say that this couldn’t be the Sidney photographed cryptid?

Sidney is also known, in the not too distant past, for its reports of migrating Bigfoot leaving 22″ tracks in the area.

Maine is a wild state, that’s for sure. I’m glad to be living here.

to me it looks more like a jaguar that was my first reaction and it still is, could be a cougar, but i wouldint be suprised if it was a jag

If we backtrack, the photo came from the homeowner to the personnel at the Maine Fisheries and Wildlife Department, which then was shared with the media via various reporters.

One reporter passed one version (at top) on to me directly, another was temporarily posted at an online news location (bottom), and both were uploaded by techologically-aware people at Cryptomundo central, where the first one received was also enlarged (and now is the middle version).

I am certain all kinds of pixel infractions, resizing, and more, some of which might have added all kinds of editing tags, took place with this jpeg. This attempt to dissect fakery via looking at the jpeg tags here, I fear, may be a waste of your time.

BTW, on another matter, this photograph was taken by a Maine resident who wishes to remain anonymous. This is different than someone who is totally anonymous and unknown.

One reason may be that the photographer had a film type camera and only had one shot remaining at the end of the roll.

If it were a digital camera being used, perhaps the amature photographer had a full memory card, had time to delete only one shot, and then took the photo befor the cat left.

Yes, a professional might have taken a few shots of the subject in the same position. But we are not talking about a professional here. We have an average person who at least had the presence of mind to obtain a camera and get a photo, if indeed the photo is not manipulated digitally. Kudos!

Let’s imagine that the photographer had a full unexposed roll of film or a new memory card. Perhaps the photographer tried to get the best angle as the cat was watching him. And as he moved into the perfect position, he found it and took the shot. Like someone else previously stated, the recycle time may have taken a few seconds and the cat departed. If the “image review” was on, it takes time on amature digital cameras.

Perhaps the photographer was somewhat apprehensive or feared for his life. The photographer gets one shot but wants to keep his eye on the cat too. You can’t rule out emotion on the part of the photographer at the time the photograph was taken. Everyone has different knowledge levels and fear levels. Just because you or I would not be afraid, does not mean someone with less knowledge or apprehension would not be and want to keep their eye on the cat. I understand this completely.

So one good shot is better than several blurry ones and perhaps this photographer only had time for one good shot. Don’t dismiss the photo based on the one shot theory. There are several reasons for only getting one.

If the photograph is indeed authentic, the photographer should at least be congratulated and not criticized. At least it is not a blobcat. That is not a mispelling of bobcat but a direct reference to blobsquatch photos that we continually see. If a BF photo was obtained and had this clarity, we would all be rejoicing. LOL

Now for the Photoshop tags. That is really not an issue for me personally and most professional photographers or media type people. The photo could have that tag if it were resized. Perhaps the photo came from a film type camera and needed to be scanned in and it went a shade or two off in density and needed density correction. The Photoshop tag being there is of only minor concern. It should not be dismissed. However, it should not be the basis for not considering the photograph as authentic.

With that being said, it appears to look more like a lynx or bobcat than a cougar.

As for the authenticity of the photograph? I have not sat down and looked at it carefully enough yet. I just got home from work as any photographer worth their weight in gold will be working on a Saturday in June.

Some people made interesting posts about the authenticity of the photograph. Some justified it as being real and others justified it as being a probable fake. But we all know, real photos can sometimes appear to be fake no matter how much analysis is done on them by experts. Heck, experts will contradict one another. I have been in court as an expert witness and analyzed photographs for the judge overseeing the case. The opposition will bring in another expert with the same amount of experience and that expert will give a conflicting analysis to the photograph. Sometimes, even when being as objective as we can, and as professional as we can be, the facts are inconclusive and both sides could be correct.

This may be the case with this photograph. In cases like this, the jury is still out and subjective points of view overtake objective points of view. However, if there is more evidence to back of this photograph, then that should swing the pendulum back into the realm of objectivity.

So let’s see where the evidence points as it is gathered. But one thing is for certain, we should not discredit the evidence just because one shot was taken and that a Photoshop tag is associated with the photograph. We should see where this goes! Remember the recent Loch Ness video discussion? The video was pretty good initially but opinion changed as more was discovered about the videographer and the pendulum started swinging the other way.

Let’s see where it swings on this one since there are objectively two camps on this and both could be right at this point in time given the evidence we have been presented with.

Just my two cents.

Also, I think that it is important to keep in mind that mountain lions are highly adaptive creatures. If there are tracks, hair samples, and photos coming out of the northeast, then it is proof positive that there is at least a small population trying to survive there. Of course, the same could be said for Bigfoot. But, unfortunately, I doubt that a state funded biologist would ever be sent to an area to investigate that evidence.