Not if she just ate them. I doubt he was there just to have her picture taken. That is what deer eat.

For the photo not to include the deer’s eyes, or any of it’s other markings, only a very small portion of it’s forehead could be photographed, and therefore, would have to be at extremely close range…within inches, I’d say.

Look at the close up deer pic on the “Update: Mt. Hood Bigfoot” article. How much closer would the deer have to be, to photograph JUST a small area of it’s forehead?

I noticed something else. The branches/leaves in the foreground would obviously have to be even closer to the camera lens than the deer, yet they don’t appear to be large enough in the photo to be at that close a range.

Also, where these leaves are visible in 3 of the 4 photos, including the “sasquatch/deer/horse” photo, they are absent in the shot of the deer I linked to above. If they were that close in front of the camera, surely they would still be in this shot?

Let’s just say that deer is hard enough to get from that shot for all of us to be wondering, well, what the heck it is.

I guess the only problem with sasquatch is that a lot of opinion seems to be that those guys are highly nomadic, such that it might not be likely for cameras put in that spot to ever catch another one.

But then, where else would you put one? I’d at least try another camera from another angle, eh?

Oh well, so much for popular opinion, huh?

The image of the unidentifiable hairy mass should be enough incentive for a true believer to expend some effort in the immediate area… and if someone actually does, maybe we’ll get a second chance to ogle whatever it was.

Maybe not.

Had a laugh at your adolescent sasquatch line!
Annie (57) - there are some interesting insights there.

I still think it can be motion blur. The “bulge” may be the axis on which the deer’s head rotates. That is - if for a moment we run with the idea that the bulge is the base of the deer’s ear, then the deer has lifted it’s nose up whilst keeping its ear still. The nose would be just out of frame to the bottom.

It’s a bit like watching a car tyre roll, from a forward angle. The tread of the tyre (which is nearest to you) seems to go through a large range of motion - from the bottom to the top; the full height of the wheel - but the centre of the hub-cap would not go through a large range of motion.

As you note - the tree is behind the creature. That led me (earlier) to the conlusion that the left side of the creature (as we look at it) slopes at the same angle as the right side (notwithstanding the bulge) - and in my opinion these are symetrical sides to a deer’s forehead. The bulge, as I mentioned, I think is the base of an ear.

And then there is the question of how can a deer’s head be framed like this. In earlier comments (perhaps on the other threads) I’ve linked to photos of close-up horses heads to show how the whole body can be obscured if the horse’s head is close enough to the lens.

Recall too that the night before, and 5 minutes later, there are several deer in the area. The most likely animal to be captured on film is a deer, and the fourth photo posted (of the close-up deer) shows that the colours of our cryptid do in fact match a deer when it is close up to the camera (in the shade and blocking the light by being so close).

It also isn’t at all consistent with any part of a deer, or bear I can see. It could be a horse’s head, but something just doesn’t sit right with me. I have to agree with nightspy. I too have worked with horses for years, and although I can’t say it’s impossible, I have never seen this thick, long, or fine a forelock, or mane. It would also be a near miracle for it to remain this well groomed while on trail, or running wild in the bush. Not a hair seems out of place. I can only imagine this being possible with very fine hair, similar to a human’s.

Also, look at the tree trunk in the top left corner. Note the sun shine reflecting off of it? This is behind the figure, not beside it (as has been already mentioned)…Where is the rest of the horse? One would have to assume that the horse is at an angle, being that you can’t see anything of it’s shoulder, chest or leg on the right side, not to mention a bridle, or reins. This being the case, would you not have to see at least something of it on the left? There isn’t even a bulge to match the one on the right of the head… It’s not symmetrical.

For anyone not able to enhance the photo themselves, here it is with the contrast, and brightness increased. Enhanced Mounthood Photo

Note the bottom left…In the other two pics, there is nothing there, and you can clearly see the background. It would appear that the hair continues there as well, and no this can’t be motion blur either, as none of the “hair” is consistant with any components in the background seen in the other two photos. What I am unsure about is the color difference…Could this be a thin layer of hanging hair, so that the light from behind shows through?

In both of the examples you include in your post, I’d be able to tell what the subject was, without your telling me.

And the recently added photo of the deer with its nostril right up against the lens looks, well, like a deer.

THAT’S my point. The “c” shot looks to me like a slightly out of focus shot of long, reddish-brown hair. Not at all like a deer in any kind of motion, extreme or other. If my use of the word “extreme” caused a problem, my bad. My point is simply that in one of those shots there is something that looks NOTHING like the deer in the other shots.

But it sure looks like — ok, like part of something else.

Hey, it’s Cryptomundo, not Deer-o-mundo! Let’s have some fun with this! I say adolescent sasquatch, grown fat on a winter of deer liver. Wot say ye?

You say you won’t believe a (motion-blurred) deer could look like that, but then you say your understanding of motion blurring is “extreme”.

A quick search for “motion blur” nets a photo of a human showing distortion just as extreme as the cryptid in question.

And a search for “slight motion blur” shows us that motion blur need not be “extreme”. In this photo of a rose, look at its right edge near the top part of the green background.

What’s in the pic, as captured by the camera at the time?

I see: reddish-brown hair. Long, reddish-brown hair. It’s an ever-so-slightly out-of-focus shot of long, reddish-brown hair.

I’m a little concerned that one reason little progress gets made on figuring out whether yeti or sasquatch exist is that there’s a rush to rationalize that actually, well, takes leave of rationality. I mean, we say that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s a duck, right? How about if it looks like a sasquatch? OK, how about if it just looks like long, reddish-brown hair?

Whatever it looks like, it is NOT a deer. That’s not motion blurring, at least not until someone shows me a clear example of how, well, motion blurring would make a deer look like THAT. I’m no photographer. But my experience is that motion blurring shows extreme evidence of extreme motion.

That’s a slightly out of focus picture — with little if any blurring from motion — of long, reddish-brown hair. Any other explanation, until someone shows me otherwise, is an overeager effort to put something there that just ain’t there. Just look at the picture, as is.

Slightly out-of-focus, long, reddish-brown hair.

Which narrows down the possible culprits. A LOT. Sasquatch. Horse. Julia Roberts in a crouch. Take your pic(k).

OK, a little wishful thinking on the precise ID of the homo sapiens. She may or may not be a dear. But she’s no deer.