Ignoring the above exchanges....
T's.g.'s picture come through on my computer as a little dark, but, having been to the location in good daylight, I see what he is suggesting. The problem is that, to put it bluntly, we are probably screwed in the process of analyzing this particular photo. Is the Spencer Creek Image in the photo a Big Foot? It may be; it may not be. We can't know because we know too little about the photo itself:
On what tree was the game camera located?
In which direction was it pointed?
Was it tilted with one end of the camera higher than the other?
Was the lens pointed upward or downward?
How far from the camera was the "critter" in relation to the background?
What was on the film before and after this photo was taken.
Was the photo cropped? (I know one man's answer to this question, but I can't post it--and that's OK and understandable.)
And more questions could probably be added to this sequence of questions.
Soon after the photo was first posted, someone raised the question, "How can it show creek bank on one side of the "critter" and sky on the other. Because I knew that the camera was mounted aimed down into and across the creek, I jumped to the conclusion that the camera was tilted and therefore captured the creek bank on the lower end and the sky on the higher end. G.B., quite correctly, posted that, if the "critter" was standing upright and the camera was tilted, the "critter" would have been at an angle to the horizontal axis of the photo--which it isn't. After that post, I spent a little more time looking at the photo and decided that the camera was NOT tilted end to end. It may have been pointed up and down but not tilted with one end higher than the other. I looked for a perspective in which the camera could have captured both bank and sky, and came to the conclusion that the dark area to the "critter's" left is not bank but the large oak tree shown in one of the pictures posted May 24. I believe that the posed picture posted June 5, illustrates this perspective. But I encountered a problem: the striations in the bark shown in the photo are angled down from left to right, not vertical. The only place that this occurs on the oak is on a large root. But there is another problem: if the "critter" was next to the root--It appears to be in the photo!--it could be not much more than 24 inches tall. If the "crtitter" was right at the camera and the root in the background, the camera might have captured the two with a perspective that made them look the same size. If this had happened, would the photo have required cropping?
B.M. thinks the image is a Big Foot.
G.B. thinks it might be a hoax.
I think it might be either a Big Foot or a Beaver.
Let me add one thing that perhaps should go on the thread asking the question, "Would you shoot a Big Foot if...?" I really don't like to kill anything. I have, and I will, but I don't particularly enjoy doing it. I. if they exist and if I encountered one, would not shoot a Big Foot unless it was to protect myself or another person. What if it were the last one? I don't really enjoy killing things, but I enjoy hunting and being in the wild. What better thing for me to do than hunt Big Feet? I'll enjoy roaming the woods and will probably never have to kill anything. As I have posted in another place, Big Feet hunting is the best excuse since Men's Prayer Meeting to get out of the house and with the guys! And there might be one out there!!!
Did yuo see the cartoon showing the two cave men reclined on a hill side with all the stars of heaven arrayed above them? One said to the other, "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?" The other answered, "Of course!" The first asked in response, "Why?" The other replied, "Are you crazy? There might really be one!"
