I’d say nice try… but it wasn’t even that good of an effort. LOL

By the way, you bring up a very valid point. I think you have done a pretty good job of soundly debunking my platypus dressed like a man in a raincoat hypothesis.

I think what the figure is, is a quickly constructed joke, knocked up a few days before halloween and the result is something strange looking that we cannot quite rationalise and thus almost like an art form piques our attention.

But could it be one of these werewolf type creatures, is there a history in this area ? Or another creature that gave rise to these type of sightings.

I think its the job and joy of cryptozoology to follow the less mundane explanation even where it only equally fits the facts. The less mundane explanation may often not be so readily appreciated by those with a more mundane outlook!

We do not know the full facts of this photo and shouldn’t we not keep an open mind?

I could take that analogy even further though, and ask what if the “duck” was seen in North America, or any of the many other places where platypus are not known to exist? I suppose you could add in new factors and say that someone lost a pet platypus or that it escaped from a zoo, but this is adding unnecessary and unsubstantiated complexity. In the end, given the data you have, which is more likely? That it is a duck in this North American lake or a platypus?

And that is what all of this stuff about Occam’s razor is about. It’s about which is more likely given the data that we have to work with. It is about not adding unneeded complexity or unknown factors if a mundane explanation could equally fit. If you have two hypotheses fitting the data you have, one known and one that is not, then it is probably better to go for the mundane explanation until something new turns up that challenges that. Otherwise, why not say this is a ghost, an alien from another planet or an inter-dimensional fairy passing through?

Now like I said before, all of this doesn’t mean that the more complex or unknown explanation is wrong or that the mundane explanation is always right. It basically just means let’s stick with the mundane explanation that matches the facts for now. In other words, in this case it is better to stick with the data and avoid adding in new factors such as matted fur and such when a raincoat fits what we see just fine. The data we have so far matches a person in some sort of suit, so the rational thing to do is stick with that until we are shown otherwise.

Regarding the difficulty in getting the shot, all I can say is that after all, we expect the camera to take a pic like this of a sasquatch don’t we? Why could it not take a pic of a human in this position? The person doesn’t have to know where the cam is, they just have to trip it like a real sasquatch would do.

I would say this is a person in a suit, and probably not an intentional hoaxer. But I’d like to see the other webcam pics too. If they turned up something that was obviously out of the norm for a human being, then we could be on to something. I’d eat my words. As it stands, we don’t that, and so it is more logical to stick to what we know. It was raining, we see something fitting the description and characteristics of a person in a rain suit, and we know people in rain suits exist, as opposed that this is a sasquatch that just has matted fur making it look like that.

Until we get more data and can dispute that, it is the more likely explanation here.

Or it’s a platypus on vacation dressed up like a man.

Ideally, I’d love to see every pic from the trail cam to see if there was any “monkey” business going on before this picture was shot. Unless all the facts, as we know them are bogus, and that possibility also exists, it still seems a bit interesting to me how someone in a rain suit could get the perfect pic, walking through woods in the middle of the night, during rain. Particularly after the witness said that no one would have known where that trail cam was to begin with.

We already have one person here who vouches for the honesty of the witness, and yes, witnesses aren’t always on the up and up. So, if someone was wearing a rain suit, and if they knew where the cam was, and if they understood exactly where to position themselves for the perfect shot, they would need to do it in one take, because if they didn’t, there would then be more than one pic of some goof standing out in the pouring rain trying to figure this out. A lot of “if’s” in this scenario too, however.

The witness and the rest of the trail cam pictures are the key to this, and until we can have access to them, I agree with you, if it walks like a duck, or looks like a duck, or dives like a duck it must be a…well, it could be a platypus I suppose. They do waddle and look like ducks and they dive really well too.

I am leaning your way Mystery Man, but I sure as heck would love to see the rest of the trail cam pics.

I am not sure about the camo pattern you see, its a matter of interpretation. One important thing about the figure it does rather look propped up much like a window on a building site where plank with a nail in it is used to prop it up until it is fixed.

Also the right arm should be back not forward if the creature were walking. I think it is the right arm we can see with the blue looking hand. I think we have someone having a bit of fun at haloween. But being the way of things without all the facts it might just be a real amazing creature.

I think it is going to be difficult to completely convince everyone that this is a 7 foot tall creature.

If we had something more to show us that this is not precisely what it appears to be, such as proportions, musculature, or a height beyond plausibility for a human in a hooded jacket, then I would be more open to this being a sasquatch. As it stands, it just looks like a person in a bulky jacket walking around in the rain.

Most of the time if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, waqlks like a duck, and smells like a duck.. well…

It all comes down to the law of parsimony, or Occam’s Razor, really. When faced with something like this photo, when considering the mundane explanation and the unknown explanation, it is typically better to go with the mundane unless there is very good evidence to suggest otherwise. This doesn’t mean the unknown is always wrong , it just means that given the information we have, it should not be taken as the first option unless the mundane one doesn’t hold water.

DWA pretty much illustrated this concept with his statement-

“My rule is this: if it looks like a human, and it is not otherwise OBVIOUS that it is not, it IS human.”

Or at least it’s most likely a human.

So let’s look at how this applies to this photo.

You said, “So if no one doubts that it was training that night, how can we doubt the 7 foot tall measurement?”

It is established it was raining this days. We can check that and demonstrate that irrefutably with a check of the weather report from that day in that area. It is a fact. Is that 7 foot tall estimate a fact? Really? And how can we be sure of that? Where did that figure come from?

I look at this photo and can’t tell that this is 7 feet tall. Did someone go out and measure it? Perhaps someone could go to the location and photograph themself in the same location and we could see for ourselves whether that is accurate. See, the thing is we have no way of knowing at this point if that is a fact or not to everyone’s satisfaction.

You said it yourself when you stated “If we take that as a true and reputable measurement, there is a slight problem here with this being some person in a rain suit.”

The key word is if . True, that would change the way we look at this photo, but we just can’t know that for sure. However, we can be sure that it was raining.

That brings us to the rainsuit. It is in human dimensions for all we can tell, save a 7 foot figure that is unsubstantiated. It displays all of the characteristics of a rainsuit, with the bagginess and what appear to be gloves. Nothing really falls out of the norm to any degree.

So why bring up the characteristics of wet, matted fur, when it looks just like a person in a rainsuit should look, and we know that what we see fits in with the characeristics of a raincoat? The glove looks like a glove, why rationalize it to look like anything other than that without good reason? Why add all of these unknowns when the known fits just fine? Fur is a conclusion that we have no real reason to jump to with the information we have.

There would have to be some good reasons for us to suspect that this was anything other than what it appears to be, which is a figure of human dimensions exhibiting the characeristics of someone in a raincoat.

If the 7 foot tall measurement is correct, and that can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, then we could talk about this being a sasquatch. That would be something to give us reason to think this might be something else.

As it stands, which is more likely given what we know for sure? That this is an undocumented, 7 foot tall bipedal ape? Or that it is a guy out in the rain in a rain suit?

Just some thoughts.