The lump to the left is not what I see as the head, as is suggested by the comparison shot of the man in the cammo snuggie. Is that what is throwing people off?

The back of the owl’s head, as I see it, is the topmost part, as the bird is upright with back to camera. There are two small tufts that resemble the horns. The two big fairly symmetrical blurry lumps to the right and left (the left being the “bigfoot head”) look to me like the shouldered wings pointing away from the camera. The white blobs look very much like the spots of a screech owl’s back.

I can definitely see where people are seeing a man in a ghille suit and even a bigfoot. I don’t think that is what it is, but I can see what they are talking about. I am baffled that people cannot see an owl, even if they think it is not an owl…

Cheers.

Can’t say about that guy’s …shoot those could actually be giant coffee stains, couldn’t they? But I’m not sure what perspective he lends to this. It appears to me that whatever-that-is could be closer to the lens than him, and smaller. To say nothing of wearing a wholly different kind of pseudo-military housewear.

But other than the ghillie search, I couldn’t even offer an educated guess what that is. It just doesn’t look like an owl. To me, now.

When I look at it I see the back of the head- even the horned tufts of the screech owl, the correct pattern on the back, the blurred shape of the wings caught on the forward stroke… but as you say, we will never know what it is. I just find it interesting what two different observers see.

At the end of the day we are both speculating, and each conclusion is as valid as the other. Jumping to conclusions is flawed, but it’s all that we can do after staring at an inkblot test.

I suggest we concentrate on what we can see clearly- the photo of the man. Is it my imagination or is he wearing a camouflage snuggie?

Cheers.

“Why, why, why are there no good, quality, trail-cam photos of Bigfoot? Hunters & other outdoors(wo)men routinely capture crystal-clear images of birds, deer, coyotes, bears, people, etc.”

We know where the latter are and how to find them, because we have generations of experience – that everyone listens to because we accept those critters – telling us that.

We don’t have those things for the sasquatch. The clearest thing we have – and I think P/G is pretty clear; you’ll get nothing with that film at that distance clearer – we have because the guys who got it put in the required time in an area of heavy recent activity, measured by sightings and tracks.

There’s significant evidence that even the alpha coyote in an area will avoid a camera trap; the ones that get shot are the transients that don’t know the lay of the land.

With the population density speculated for the sasquatch – itself no better than a SWAG based on sighting reports – I wouldn’t hold my breath to get a good trailcam photo until after the animal is confirmed.

My 15th guess wouldn’t be owl, and I’ve seen a lot of owls.

We may never know what it is.

But we know one thing it isn’t.

That may just be my opinion. But “owl” shouldn’t be anyone’s conclusion.

But on the other hand, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and sh*ts like a duck, your first guess should not necessarily be hippopotamus.

Vermont has many wonderful owl species. Boreals and mature saw-whets will both have spotted backs, but the shaggy nature of the spot pattern declares this to be a screech owl.

On a side note anyone who has ever heard the cries from this tiny bird first hand, can easily believe in cryptids and paranormal ghoulies of the night. They sound for all the world like a woman or child being murdered in a most slow and violent way, and their volume knob goes to 11.

Nobody knows what that is. Nobody has any evidence what that is.

I’d bet money it’s no owl. But other than that, who knows?

It’s really funny that everybody thinks, or seems to sometimes, that every clip and every photo has to be proven to be something.

No it doesn’t.

I’ve heard the arguments that ol’ Sas can sense (see/hear) the cameras but, if that’s the case, we should have NO photos: maybe they’re smart enough to know just how-much/exactly-when to move to foil all attempts for a clear ID? Yeah, right…

Until/unless a clear photo is presented all the might-be/could-be examples will amount to nothing more than opportunities for skeptics/scoftics/believers to endlessly debate the matter. And let’s face it, even an unambiguous pic is gonna have people screaming “FAKE!” because it’s, “too good.” Sigh… As Hapa likes to say it’s “gonna take a body on a slab” to put this to rest.

As for myself? I still feel the same as the first time this trail-cam photo made the rounds: if it is a Sasquatch, then they’ve begun wearing ghillie suits while out and about. Then again, that may be the reason why they’re so hard to spot (or get a good photo of)…