- Thread starter
- #501
Quote:
yes,please let us know.
yes,please let us know.
what is this on my game-cam?
- Thread starter dinahmoe
- Start date
My brother saw a kangaroo, called the police, no Son, that was no kangaroo you saw, that was a Wallaby. In Midlothian Va, it had escaped from a man who keeps exotics. Oh the day his Widlerbeast got out of their pasture was kind of exciting, there were police cars parked across the road and several people with really large guns, it was hard to see because my mother was reversing very fast.
. Brother and I about twisted our necks off trying to see. They were rounded up without incident, with the mans hearding dog, but we did hear rumors of a police car being ramed.
Expect the unexpected and never say never.
Expect the unexpected and never say never.
- Aug 5, 2011
- 222
- 0
- 89
A fox, a cat, and a crow is my guess!
Quote:
LOL I love it. Kinda hard to mistake any other animal for a kangaroo or wallaby.
I forgot about this, but a friend of mine had one of those pay-to-see exotic animal zoos in Cape Girardeau, MO, and he said one of his adult 8' kangaroos got away. He never saw it again, BTW.
LOL I love it. Kinda hard to mistake any other animal for a kangaroo or wallaby.
I forgot about this, but a friend of mine had one of those pay-to-see exotic animal zoos in Cape Girardeau, MO, and he said one of his adult 8' kangaroos got away. He never saw it again, BTW.
- Mar 31, 2011
- 33
- 0
- 22
Quote:
Well, we clearly have three different photos here representing three different species.
Team fox believes that the UPA is a fox because foxes are common in Georgia and approximately the same size, even though it doesn't look like a fox.
Team big cat believes that the UPA is a big cat (Puma concolor) because it looks like a cat and big cats, while rare, occasionally are spotted in Georgia, even though the UPA is not big (at the size of three crows) and lacks the markings of an immature Puma concolor (ruling out a young big cat).
Team house cat thinks the UPA is a house cat because house cats are very common, and almost the right size, even though only one specific pure-breed of house cat (Abyssinian) appear to have the same appearance as the UPA.
Team jaguarundi says the UPA is a jaguarundi because it's exactly the same size as a jaguarundi and looks more like a jaguarundi than any of the other suspected animals mentioned here, and because there have been reported sightings of jaguarundis through out the gulf states for decades, even though scientist and government officials will not confirm their existence in the wild, to the east of Texas.
Team canine thinks the UPA is some sort of canine because it displays "canine behavior," (presumably walking while sniffing the ground) even though no displayed behavior is exclusively canine, and canines are pack animals rarely seen alone, as is the UPA... and even though the UPA doesn't look particularly canine.
Now, the comparison photos clearly eleminate big cats and foxes as possible identities for the UPA for all but the visually impaired. Canines have been eliminated with out any comparison photo, because most people already know what a canine really looks like, and we know that nearly all predatory mammals are known to walk and sniff the ground, and that behavior alone doesn't make them canine, especially when they look feline.
This leaves us with only one possible conclusion:
The UPA is a feline smaller than a bobcat, and no bigger than three crows.
The remaining question is:
Is the UPA the rarely but consistently reported jaguarundi, a stray purebred Abyssinian house cat, or an unknown feline of similar size.
Well, we clearly have three different photos here representing three different species.
Team fox believes that the UPA is a fox because foxes are common in Georgia and approximately the same size, even though it doesn't look like a fox.
Team big cat believes that the UPA is a big cat (Puma concolor) because it looks like a cat and big cats, while rare, occasionally are spotted in Georgia, even though the UPA is not big (at the size of three crows) and lacks the markings of an immature Puma concolor (ruling out a young big cat).
Team house cat thinks the UPA is a house cat because house cats are very common, and almost the right size, even though only one specific pure-breed of house cat (Abyssinian) appear to have the same appearance as the UPA.
Team jaguarundi says the UPA is a jaguarundi because it's exactly the same size as a jaguarundi and looks more like a jaguarundi than any of the other suspected animals mentioned here, and because there have been reported sightings of jaguarundis through out the gulf states for decades, even though scientist and government officials will not confirm their existence in the wild, to the east of Texas.
Team canine thinks the UPA is some sort of canine because it displays "canine behavior," (presumably walking while sniffing the ground) even though no displayed behavior is exclusively canine, and canines are pack animals rarely seen alone, as is the UPA... and even though the UPA doesn't look particularly canine.
Now, the comparison photos clearly eleminate big cats and foxes as possible identities for the UPA for all but the visually impaired. Canines have been eliminated with out any comparison photo, because most people already know what a canine really looks like, and we know that nearly all predatory mammals are known to walk and sniff the ground, and that behavior alone doesn't make them canine, especially when they look feline.
This leaves us with only one possible conclusion:
The UPA is a feline smaller than a bobcat, and no bigger than three crows.
The remaining question is:
Is the UPA the rarely but consistently reported jaguarundi, a stray purebred Abyssinian house cat, or an unknown feline of similar size.
- Jul 6, 2010
- 3,524
- 990
- 301
Quote:
So you know what you saw, but since VA does not have mt lions it must have been something else I saw? REALLY? You want it both ways and it is just not flying with me.
harveyhorses--you misunderstood--I should have been clearer and said" I now know what I saw". At the time I saw 4 canines--and adult and 3 pups--my parents and young brother also saw them BTW. I/We did not know what we saw because we did not know there were coyotes in the Catskills at the time--they could have been foxes or dogs that wandered off or were dumped although it was fairly deep in the woods. In the early '50's when it was acknowledged that there were coy-dogs in the area we then decided what we saw that day were coy-dogs. In 56 after I talked to the professor I finally realized that the animals were coyotes. Now I can say that I know what I saw back on V-J Day--a mother coyote and 3 pups. In your case, when there is proof that wild cougars do, in fact, roam VA then you can say for sure you saw them. My point is that one cannot see something that isn't there and just because one thinks they did, there needs to be proof that it is there. I'm not putting down what you say, it is just that, from everything I've read, there is no confirmed proof that wild mt. lions live in VA.
BTW, lest you think I'm skeptical, I do believe there is at least one wild cougar living in IN. I have seen a report with game cam photos of the animal taken in 2010. To me, that's proof. Now whether it is an imported and released/escaped exotic or one that wandered in from further west, without DNA, no one can be sure, but it does exist. Just show me a picture from a identifiable area or dead body.
So you know what you saw, but since VA does not have mt lions it must have been something else I saw? REALLY? You want it both ways and it is just not flying with me.
harveyhorses--you misunderstood--I should have been clearer and said" I now know what I saw". At the time I saw 4 canines--and adult and 3 pups--my parents and young brother also saw them BTW. I/We did not know what we saw because we did not know there were coyotes in the Catskills at the time--they could have been foxes or dogs that wandered off or were dumped although it was fairly deep in the woods. In the early '50's when it was acknowledged that there were coy-dogs in the area we then decided what we saw that day were coy-dogs. In 56 after I talked to the professor I finally realized that the animals were coyotes. Now I can say that I know what I saw back on V-J Day--a mother coyote and 3 pups. In your case, when there is proof that wild cougars do, in fact, roam VA then you can say for sure you saw them. My point is that one cannot see something that isn't there and just because one thinks they did, there needs to be proof that it is there. I'm not putting down what you say, it is just that, from everything I've read, there is no confirmed proof that wild mt. lions live in VA.
BTW, lest you think I'm skeptical, I do believe there is at least one wild cougar living in IN. I have seen a report with game cam photos of the animal taken in 2010. To me, that's proof. Now whether it is an imported and released/escaped exotic or one that wandered in from further west, without DNA, no one can be sure, but it does exist. Just show me a picture from a identifiable area or dead body.
- Aug 8, 2011
- 1,981
- 40
- 141
Quote:
Thanks for the series of photos put together!
Folks - look at the pictures:
1 & 2 - if you ignore the tail and they look like the exact same animal. Skinny legs, white underbelly all the way up to the jaw, white of the inside of the ear, sleak body (photo #2 looks well fed!
)
1 & 3 - look at the heaviness of the body and thickness of the legs, the cougar is also alot less dramatic in coloring, the belly is lighter in color but not a distinct line
I've been lurking on this thread... very interesting discussions. I'm thinking wyoDreamer has it right... I had the same observations when I looked at these 3 images together. 1&2 same color pattern, same leg construction. the leaf blockin the snout in the first photo and giving an artificially cropped view of the face, and the tail with it's visual narrowness and feline curve at the end, combine to give a "cat" impression.
I share wyoDreamer's observations on 1&3 as well... color pattern is *not* a good match, leg construction not so well matched either.
I'm an artist and I try to get both realistic representations, and realistic impressions, of the animals I portray. there's a big difference... in a realistic representation, what I draw or paint looks *precisely* like the animal it is. in a realistic impression, you *know* what animal it is, without a doubt, but it does not look precisely like that animal. in a sense, it is an abstraction of that animal, or if you like, it gives the feeling of that animal, without looking photo-real, or even graphically accurate.
this distinction matters, because most folks don't really *see* what they think they see. they see something, and their brain tries to match it against information that's already in their head... a selection is made... the best fit for what they see, and then whatever they *matched* to is what they "saw". it's why eye-witness testimoney can be wildly unreliable, and why magic tricks are so convincing. we do not SEE accurately because we are INTERPRETING what we see in light of what we KNOW or EXPECT.
while there's a *lot* of natural art talent in my family, I didn't get any of it. I've *learned* to be a good artist by really understanding two things: how to place a line on paper accurately, and more important, how to *REALLY* see what I'm looking at.
so how this applies... in really looking at a thing, sometimes you have to take it in smaller parts to really see what's there. if the object as a whole gives an impression, it can be very hard to really observe the details. in this case, the artificially shortened face (because of the blocking leaf), and the cat-positioned tail give a very "cat" impression, and it can be hard to get past that. but it you start to look at the parts individually, a different story becomes clear.
this is a detailed analysis of the images, so it's a bit long. appologies for the length of this post, but that's what detailed analysis takes. if you want to play along, open each of the three images in a separate browser window, shrink the window down to a quarter the size of the image and zoom in on them until you can only see one part of the animal at a time... try to get the body part the same size in each of the three windows. if you zoom too much, you'll start to lose the ability to differentiate animal from background, so find a size you can still see moderately clearly.
zoom in on the animal's ribs behind it's foreleg in each photo... 1&2 have the same color pattern, light underneath, with a clearly defined color line and darker above. also notice that the white rises above and behind the elbow onto the ribs showing a clear demarkation between the body and the leg. 3 does not have the clear color shift, and while there's a small amount of white behind the elbow, it does not clearly set off the separation of leg and body, or rise as high and as far forward as it does in the first two.
zoom in on the neck of each animal. 1 & 2 show a thick neck with a deep attachment to the chest... that is, the neck joins the chest low on the body. the different sholder position of 3 makes the neck harder to differentiate, but it looks considerably less bulky and attaches higher on the chest.
zoom in on the the head... color pattern is similar on all three, so not much help there. the near ear in 1 appears to be pointed tip back, opening to the camera and light inside. in 2, it's pointed tip up, opening away from the camera, both appear to be set somewhat low on the head with a wide base opening. in 3, the ear appears to be folded more flat to the back, like an irritated cat, but the ear appears smaller and set slightly higher on the head. not definitive, but more similar in 1&2 than in 3.
take a look at the color pattern under the throat. both 1 and 2 show a light chest, and that pattern continues under the neck, onto the throat and up behind the ear. in 3, I see light under the jaw behind the muzzle, and on the chest between the front legs, but not on the entire under-neck area or behind the ears.
zoom in on the front legs. 1 and 2 appear to be darkest on the leading edge of the front leg, and lighter as you go towards the back of the front leg. 3 is darkest on the inside of the far front leg, and ligher on the leading edge of the front leg. 1&2 appear to have lightly boned upper leg(above the elbow) and a lower leg that is as long from elbow to paw as the body is deep (from sternum to back). 3 has a heavier muscled upper front leg, with apparently heavier bone, and a shorter, heavier lower front leg that is a bit shorter than the depth of it's body.
zoom in on the rear legs. the position of the near hind leg in 1&2 is quite similar, with the bone between the hock or heel of the leg and the stifle or knee (the bend where the leg is close to the belly) is almost parallel to the ground in both. in 3, the same bone is much more upright in position. this could be an effect of 1&2 being more in a "creeping" position, and 3 being more in a "striding" position, but the functional angles look quite different to me. because 3 has one hind lower leg blurred, I can't really get a good read on the color pattern of the rear legs.
ok, now to the part that I think creates the strong "cat" impression I respond to... zoom in on the tails.
looking just at the base of the tail where it joins the body... in 1 I see, dark fur on top, and a very narrow band of light fur underneath the tail that appears to join the rump(where the light fur is visible) about half way down the mass of the haunch. on 2, I see the same color, but the tail fur appears to extend almost down to the line of the belly, maybe 40% deeper that the first tail. on 3 I see less dark on top, but the same lighter underneath, however the lower visible junction to the body is only perhaps a third of the way down the body. visible tail attachment of 1 & 2 seem more similar, but by no means identical. visible tail attachment of 1 & 3 do not seem similar.
so now size your browser windows and zoom so you can see from the animal's rear leg through the throat, but not the bend of the tail or the head. my general impression from that view is that 1&2 have similar body language and form, distinctly different than 3. this is especially noticable if you start with your eyes at the hind leg and move them towards the front of the animal... the visual effect of 1&2 is quite similar. 3 is not.
zoom out again and reposition your image so you see hind-leg to head on all 3, no tail in any of the images.
starting with image 2, look from the haunch to the head, I clearly see fox.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I can now clearly see the shape of fox.
do that again...
starting with image 3, look from haunch to head, I clearly see cat.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I do not see cat.
I'm not a game expert, and I've never analized game camera images before. but I have learned a lot over the years about really looking in detail, and about how to filter out what I *think* things look like from what they *really* look like.
just my 2 cents worth: that's my method and what I see in image 1, after studying the parts, is a fox with a not very fluffy under-tail and a decidely cat-like carriage of it. but nonetheless, a fox.
which is *not* what I was convinced I was seeing until I did the analysis.
Thanks for the series of photos put together!
Folks - look at the pictures:
1 & 2 - if you ignore the tail and they look like the exact same animal. Skinny legs, white underbelly all the way up to the jaw, white of the inside of the ear, sleak body (photo #2 looks well fed!
1 & 3 - look at the heaviness of the body and thickness of the legs, the cougar is also alot less dramatic in coloring, the belly is lighter in color but not a distinct line
I've been lurking on this thread... very interesting discussions. I'm thinking wyoDreamer has it right... I had the same observations when I looked at these 3 images together. 1&2 same color pattern, same leg construction. the leaf blockin the snout in the first photo and giving an artificially cropped view of the face, and the tail with it's visual narrowness and feline curve at the end, combine to give a "cat" impression.
I share wyoDreamer's observations on 1&3 as well... color pattern is *not* a good match, leg construction not so well matched either.
I'm an artist and I try to get both realistic representations, and realistic impressions, of the animals I portray. there's a big difference... in a realistic representation, what I draw or paint looks *precisely* like the animal it is. in a realistic impression, you *know* what animal it is, without a doubt, but it does not look precisely like that animal. in a sense, it is an abstraction of that animal, or if you like, it gives the feeling of that animal, without looking photo-real, or even graphically accurate.
this distinction matters, because most folks don't really *see* what they think they see. they see something, and their brain tries to match it against information that's already in their head... a selection is made... the best fit for what they see, and then whatever they *matched* to is what they "saw". it's why eye-witness testimoney can be wildly unreliable, and why magic tricks are so convincing. we do not SEE accurately because we are INTERPRETING what we see in light of what we KNOW or EXPECT.
while there's a *lot* of natural art talent in my family, I didn't get any of it. I've *learned* to be a good artist by really understanding two things: how to place a line on paper accurately, and more important, how to *REALLY* see what I'm looking at.
so how this applies... in really looking at a thing, sometimes you have to take it in smaller parts to really see what's there. if the object as a whole gives an impression, it can be very hard to really observe the details. in this case, the artificially shortened face (because of the blocking leaf), and the cat-positioned tail give a very "cat" impression, and it can be hard to get past that. but it you start to look at the parts individually, a different story becomes clear.
this is a detailed analysis of the images, so it's a bit long. appologies for the length of this post, but that's what detailed analysis takes. if you want to play along, open each of the three images in a separate browser window, shrink the window down to a quarter the size of the image and zoom in on them until you can only see one part of the animal at a time... try to get the body part the same size in each of the three windows. if you zoom too much, you'll start to lose the ability to differentiate animal from background, so find a size you can still see moderately clearly.
zoom in on the animal's ribs behind it's foreleg in each photo... 1&2 have the same color pattern, light underneath, with a clearly defined color line and darker above. also notice that the white rises above and behind the elbow onto the ribs showing a clear demarkation between the body and the leg. 3 does not have the clear color shift, and while there's a small amount of white behind the elbow, it does not clearly set off the separation of leg and body, or rise as high and as far forward as it does in the first two.
zoom in on the neck of each animal. 1 & 2 show a thick neck with a deep attachment to the chest... that is, the neck joins the chest low on the body. the different sholder position of 3 makes the neck harder to differentiate, but it looks considerably less bulky and attaches higher on the chest.
zoom in on the the head... color pattern is similar on all three, so not much help there. the near ear in 1 appears to be pointed tip back, opening to the camera and light inside. in 2, it's pointed tip up, opening away from the camera, both appear to be set somewhat low on the head with a wide base opening. in 3, the ear appears to be folded more flat to the back, like an irritated cat, but the ear appears smaller and set slightly higher on the head. not definitive, but more similar in 1&2 than in 3.
take a look at the color pattern under the throat. both 1 and 2 show a light chest, and that pattern continues under the neck, onto the throat and up behind the ear. in 3, I see light under the jaw behind the muzzle, and on the chest between the front legs, but not on the entire under-neck area or behind the ears.
zoom in on the front legs. 1 and 2 appear to be darkest on the leading edge of the front leg, and lighter as you go towards the back of the front leg. 3 is darkest on the inside of the far front leg, and ligher on the leading edge of the front leg. 1&2 appear to have lightly boned upper leg(above the elbow) and a lower leg that is as long from elbow to paw as the body is deep (from sternum to back). 3 has a heavier muscled upper front leg, with apparently heavier bone, and a shorter, heavier lower front leg that is a bit shorter than the depth of it's body.
zoom in on the rear legs. the position of the near hind leg in 1&2 is quite similar, with the bone between the hock or heel of the leg and the stifle or knee (the bend where the leg is close to the belly) is almost parallel to the ground in both. in 3, the same bone is much more upright in position. this could be an effect of 1&2 being more in a "creeping" position, and 3 being more in a "striding" position, but the functional angles look quite different to me. because 3 has one hind lower leg blurred, I can't really get a good read on the color pattern of the rear legs.
ok, now to the part that I think creates the strong "cat" impression I respond to... zoom in on the tails.
looking just at the base of the tail where it joins the body... in 1 I see, dark fur on top, and a very narrow band of light fur underneath the tail that appears to join the rump(where the light fur is visible) about half way down the mass of the haunch. on 2, I see the same color, but the tail fur appears to extend almost down to the line of the belly, maybe 40% deeper that the first tail. on 3 I see less dark on top, but the same lighter underneath, however the lower visible junction to the body is only perhaps a third of the way down the body. visible tail attachment of 1 & 2 seem more similar, but by no means identical. visible tail attachment of 1 & 3 do not seem similar.
so now size your browser windows and zoom so you can see from the animal's rear leg through the throat, but not the bend of the tail or the head. my general impression from that view is that 1&2 have similar body language and form, distinctly different than 3. this is especially noticable if you start with your eyes at the hind leg and move them towards the front of the animal... the visual effect of 1&2 is quite similar. 3 is not.
zoom out again and reposition your image so you see hind-leg to head on all 3, no tail in any of the images.
starting with image 2, look from the haunch to the head, I clearly see fox.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I can now clearly see the shape of fox.
do that again...
starting with image 3, look from haunch to head, I clearly see cat.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I do not see cat.
I'm not a game expert, and I've never analized game camera images before. but I have learned a lot over the years about really looking in detail, and about how to filter out what I *think* things look like from what they *really* look like.
just my 2 cents worth: that's my method and what I see in image 1, after studying the parts, is a fox with a not very fluffy under-tail and a decidely cat-like carriage of it. but nonetheless, a fox.
which is *not* what I was convinced I was seeing until I did the analysis.
Memphis news tonight had a blip about all the cougar/mt. lion sightings in the Mid South area. They said many of the sightings were confirmed game cam captures. Here's an article that talks about the migration in southern Missouri.
article
Here's the address if the link doesn't work.
http://www.kait8.com/story/15570556/mountain-lions-spotted-in-southeast-missouri
article
Here's the address if the link doesn't work.
http://www.kait8.com/story/15570556/mountain-lions-spotted-in-southeast-missouri
Very nice analysis.
Quote:
Thanks for the series of photos put together!
Folks - look at the pictures:
1 & 2 - if you ignore the tail and they look like the exact same animal. Skinny legs, white underbelly all the way up to the jaw, white of the inside of the ear, sleak body (photo #2 looks well fed!
)
1 & 3 - look at the heaviness of the body and thickness of the legs, the cougar is also alot less dramatic in coloring, the belly is lighter in color but not a distinct line
I've been lurking on this thread... very interesting discussions. I'm thinking wyoDreamer has it right... I had the same observations when I looked at these 3 images together. 1&2 same color pattern, same leg construction. the leaf blockin the snout in the first photo and giving an artificially cropped view of the face, and the tail with it's visual narrowness and feline curve at the end, combine to give a "cat" impression.
I share wyoDreamer's observations on 1&3 as well... color pattern is *not* a good match, leg construction not so well matched either.
I'm an artist and I try to get both realistic representations, and realistic impressions, of the animals I portray. there's a big difference... in a realistic representation, what I draw or paint looks *precisely* like the animal it is. in a realistic impression, you *know* what animal it is, without a doubt, but it does not look precisely like that animal. in a sense, it is an abstraction of that animal, or if you like, it gives the feeling of that animal, without looking photo-real, or even graphically accurate.
this distinction matters, because most folks don't really *see* what they think they see. they see something, and their brain tries to match it against information that's already in their head... a selection is made... the best fit for what they see, and then whatever they *matched* to is what they "saw". it's why eye-witness testimoney can be wildly unreliable, and why magic tricks are so convincing. we do not SEE accurately because we are INTERPRETING what we see in light of what we KNOW or EXPECT.
while there's a *lot* of natural art talent in my family, I didn't get any of it. I've *learned* to be a good artist by really understanding two things: how to place a line on paper accurately, and more important, how to *REALLY* see what I'm looking at.
so how this applies... in really looking at a thing, sometimes you have to take it in smaller parts to really see what's there. if the object as a whole gives an impression, it can be very hard to really observe the details. in this case, the artificially shortened face (because of the blocking leaf), and the cat-positioned tail give a very "cat" impression, and it can be hard to get past that. but it you start to look at the parts individually, a different story becomes clear.
this is a detailed analysis of the images, so it's a bit long. appologies for the length of this post, but that's what detailed analysis takes. if you want to play along, open each of the three images in a separate browser window, shrink the window down to a quarter the size of the image and zoom in on them until you can only see one part of the animal at a time... try to get the body part the same size in each of the three windows. if you zoom too much, you'll start to lose the ability to differentiate animal from background, so find a size you can still see moderately clearly.
zoom in on the animal's ribs behind it's foreleg in each photo... 1&2 have the same color pattern, light underneath, with a clearly defined color line and darker above. also notice that the white rises above and behind the elbow onto the ribs showing a clear demarkation between the body and the leg. 3 does not have the clear color shift, and while there's a small amount of white behind the elbow, it does not clearly set off the separation of leg and body, or rise as high and as far forward as it does in the first two.
zoom in on the neck of each animal. 1 & 2 show a thick neck with a deep attachment to the chest... that is, the neck joins the chest low on the body. the different sholder position of 3 makes the neck harder to differentiate, but it looks considerably less bulky and attaches higher on the chest.
zoom in on the the head... color pattern is similar on all three, so not much help there. the near ear in 1 appears to be pointed tip back, opening to the camera and light inside. in 2, it's pointed tip up, opening away from the camera, both appear to be set somewhat low on the head with a wide base opening. in 3, the ear appears to be folded more flat to the back, like an irritated cat, but the ear appears smaller and set slightly higher on the head. not definitive, but more similar in 1&2 than in 3.
take a look at the color pattern under the throat. both 1 and 2 show a light chest, and that pattern continues under the neck, onto the throat and up behind the ear. in 3, I see light under the jaw behind the muzzle, and on the chest between the front legs, but not on the entire under-neck area or behind the ears.
zoom in on the front legs. 1 and 2 appear to be darkest on the leading edge of the front leg, and lighter as you go towards the back of the front leg. 3 is darkest on the inside of the far front leg, and ligher on the leading edge of the front leg. 1&2 appear to have lightly boned upper leg(above the elbow) and a lower leg that is as long from elbow to paw as the body is deep (from sternum to back). 3 has a heavier muscled upper front leg, with apparently heavier bone, and a shorter, heavier lower front leg that is a bit shorter than the depth of it's body.
zoom in on the rear legs. the position of the near hind leg in 1&2 is quite similar, with the bone between the hock or heel of the leg and the stifle or knee (the bend where the leg is close to the belly) is almost parallel to the ground in both. in 3, the same bone is much more upright in position. this could be an effect of 1&2 being more in a "creeping" position, and 3 being more in a "striding" position, but the functional angles look quite different to me. because 3 has one hind lower leg blurred, I can't really get a good read on the color pattern of the rear legs.
ok, now to the part that I think creates the strong "cat" impression I respond to... zoom in on the tails.
looking just at the base of the tail where it joins the body... in 1 I see, dark fur on top, and a very narrow band of light fur underneath the tail that appears to join the rump(where the light fur is visible) about half way down the mass of the haunch. on 2, I see the same color, but the tail fur appears to extend almost down to the line of the belly, maybe 40% deeper that the first tail. on 3 I see less dark on top, but the same lighter underneath, however the lower visible junction to the body is only perhaps a third of the way down the body. visible tail attachment of 1 & 2 seem more similar, but by no means identical. visible tail attachment of 1 & 3 do not seem similar.
so now size your browser windows and zoom so you can see from the animal's rear leg through the throat, but not the bend of the tail or the head. my general impression from that view is that 1&2 have similar body language and form, distinctly different than 3. this is especially noticable if you start with your eyes at the hind leg and move them towards the front of the animal... the visual effect of 1&2 is quite similar. 3 is not.
zoom out again and reposition your image so you see hind-leg to head on all 3, no tail in any of the images.
starting with image 2, look from the haunch to the head, I clearly see fox.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I can now clearly see the shape of fox.
do that again...
starting with image 3, look from haunch to head, I clearly see cat.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I do not see cat.
I'm not a game expert, and I've never analized game camera images before. but I have learned a lot over the years about really looking in detail, and about how to filter out what I *think* things look like from what they *really* look like.
just my 2 cents worth: that's my method and what I see in image 1, after studying the parts, is a fox with a not very fluffy under-tail and a decidely cat-like carriage of it. but nonetheless, a fox.
which is *not* what I was convinced I was seeing until I did the analysis.
Quote:
Thanks for the series of photos put together!
Folks - look at the pictures:
1 & 2 - if you ignore the tail and they look like the exact same animal. Skinny legs, white underbelly all the way up to the jaw, white of the inside of the ear, sleak body (photo #2 looks well fed!
1 & 3 - look at the heaviness of the body and thickness of the legs, the cougar is also alot less dramatic in coloring, the belly is lighter in color but not a distinct line
I've been lurking on this thread... very interesting discussions. I'm thinking wyoDreamer has it right... I had the same observations when I looked at these 3 images together. 1&2 same color pattern, same leg construction. the leaf blockin the snout in the first photo and giving an artificially cropped view of the face, and the tail with it's visual narrowness and feline curve at the end, combine to give a "cat" impression.
I share wyoDreamer's observations on 1&3 as well... color pattern is *not* a good match, leg construction not so well matched either.
I'm an artist and I try to get both realistic representations, and realistic impressions, of the animals I portray. there's a big difference... in a realistic representation, what I draw or paint looks *precisely* like the animal it is. in a realistic impression, you *know* what animal it is, without a doubt, but it does not look precisely like that animal. in a sense, it is an abstraction of that animal, or if you like, it gives the feeling of that animal, without looking photo-real, or even graphically accurate.
this distinction matters, because most folks don't really *see* what they think they see. they see something, and their brain tries to match it against information that's already in their head... a selection is made... the best fit for what they see, and then whatever they *matched* to is what they "saw". it's why eye-witness testimoney can be wildly unreliable, and why magic tricks are so convincing. we do not SEE accurately because we are INTERPRETING what we see in light of what we KNOW or EXPECT.
while there's a *lot* of natural art talent in my family, I didn't get any of it. I've *learned* to be a good artist by really understanding two things: how to place a line on paper accurately, and more important, how to *REALLY* see what I'm looking at.
so how this applies... in really looking at a thing, sometimes you have to take it in smaller parts to really see what's there. if the object as a whole gives an impression, it can be very hard to really observe the details. in this case, the artificially shortened face (because of the blocking leaf), and the cat-positioned tail give a very "cat" impression, and it can be hard to get past that. but it you start to look at the parts individually, a different story becomes clear.
this is a detailed analysis of the images, so it's a bit long. appologies for the length of this post, but that's what detailed analysis takes. if you want to play along, open each of the three images in a separate browser window, shrink the window down to a quarter the size of the image and zoom in on them until you can only see one part of the animal at a time... try to get the body part the same size in each of the three windows. if you zoom too much, you'll start to lose the ability to differentiate animal from background, so find a size you can still see moderately clearly.
zoom in on the animal's ribs behind it's foreleg in each photo... 1&2 have the same color pattern, light underneath, with a clearly defined color line and darker above. also notice that the white rises above and behind the elbow onto the ribs showing a clear demarkation between the body and the leg. 3 does not have the clear color shift, and while there's a small amount of white behind the elbow, it does not clearly set off the separation of leg and body, or rise as high and as far forward as it does in the first two.
zoom in on the neck of each animal. 1 & 2 show a thick neck with a deep attachment to the chest... that is, the neck joins the chest low on the body. the different sholder position of 3 makes the neck harder to differentiate, but it looks considerably less bulky and attaches higher on the chest.
zoom in on the the head... color pattern is similar on all three, so not much help there. the near ear in 1 appears to be pointed tip back, opening to the camera and light inside. in 2, it's pointed tip up, opening away from the camera, both appear to be set somewhat low on the head with a wide base opening. in 3, the ear appears to be folded more flat to the back, like an irritated cat, but the ear appears smaller and set slightly higher on the head. not definitive, but more similar in 1&2 than in 3.
take a look at the color pattern under the throat. both 1 and 2 show a light chest, and that pattern continues under the neck, onto the throat and up behind the ear. in 3, I see light under the jaw behind the muzzle, and on the chest between the front legs, but not on the entire under-neck area or behind the ears.
zoom in on the front legs. 1 and 2 appear to be darkest on the leading edge of the front leg, and lighter as you go towards the back of the front leg. 3 is darkest on the inside of the far front leg, and ligher on the leading edge of the front leg. 1&2 appear to have lightly boned upper leg(above the elbow) and a lower leg that is as long from elbow to paw as the body is deep (from sternum to back). 3 has a heavier muscled upper front leg, with apparently heavier bone, and a shorter, heavier lower front leg that is a bit shorter than the depth of it's body.
zoom in on the rear legs. the position of the near hind leg in 1&2 is quite similar, with the bone between the hock or heel of the leg and the stifle or knee (the bend where the leg is close to the belly) is almost parallel to the ground in both. in 3, the same bone is much more upright in position. this could be an effect of 1&2 being more in a "creeping" position, and 3 being more in a "striding" position, but the functional angles look quite different to me. because 3 has one hind lower leg blurred, I can't really get a good read on the color pattern of the rear legs.
ok, now to the part that I think creates the strong "cat" impression I respond to... zoom in on the tails.
looking just at the base of the tail where it joins the body... in 1 I see, dark fur on top, and a very narrow band of light fur underneath the tail that appears to join the rump(where the light fur is visible) about half way down the mass of the haunch. on 2, I see the same color, but the tail fur appears to extend almost down to the line of the belly, maybe 40% deeper that the first tail. on 3 I see less dark on top, but the same lighter underneath, however the lower visible junction to the body is only perhaps a third of the way down the body. visible tail attachment of 1 & 2 seem more similar, but by no means identical. visible tail attachment of 1 & 3 do not seem similar.
so now size your browser windows and zoom so you can see from the animal's rear leg through the throat, but not the bend of the tail or the head. my general impression from that view is that 1&2 have similar body language and form, distinctly different than 3. this is especially noticable if you start with your eyes at the hind leg and move them towards the front of the animal... the visual effect of 1&2 is quite similar. 3 is not.
zoom out again and reposition your image so you see hind-leg to head on all 3, no tail in any of the images.
starting with image 2, look from the haunch to the head, I clearly see fox.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I can now clearly see the shape of fox.
do that again...
starting with image 3, look from haunch to head, I clearly see cat.
now on image 1, look from haunch to head... I do not see cat.
I'm not a game expert, and I've never analized game camera images before. but I have learned a lot over the years about really looking in detail, and about how to filter out what I *think* things look like from what they *really* look like.
just my 2 cents worth: that's my method and what I see in image 1, after studying the parts, is a fox with a not very fluffy under-tail and a decidely cat-like carriage of it. but nonetheless, a fox.
which is *not* what I was convinced I was seeing until I did the analysis.
Quote:
Thanks for the article, very cool.
Thanks for the article, very cool.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
I am suspicious this light Brahma is a rooster a lot bigger then my other light Brahma
- Started by Pbush333
- Replies: 0
-
-
Anyone know what gender my 4 week old Seramas are? Thanks!- Started by MCO
- Replies: 2
-
How to protect a duck wound on back?
- Started by thewhimsicalflock
- Replies: 0
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
There is a time and place for shenanigans. (edit: THIS is that time and place)- Started by azurbanclucker
- Replies: 448
-
Caged Bird and Parrot Thread!!!!- Started by ShrekDawg
- Replies: 351
-
This is what a balanced layer feed with no treats delivers- Started by Perris
- Replies: 122
-
-
-
