Mystery Cat in Maine?

[kitakaze]

From the cryptomundo website:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sidney-cat/

To be honest, the first thing I thought when I looked at the photo was 'photoshop' but who knows, I don't see any reason why one or more cougars couldn't be in Maine. Of course there's also the possibility of it being an escaped or freed animal. I have recently seen photoshopped cougars on that site. See here (http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/wisconsin-cougar-sighting4/).

[Oakheart]

Seems logical we have them in Missouri, but not officially some of them have huge ranges.

[tube]

I wish that everyone who discusses "Alien Big Cats" would at least take the first and reasonable step of using correct terminology. From this website:

http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/cougar-pc.cfm

"The Cougar (felis concolor) has one of the largest habitats of any feline species, thus their many names. Although, depending on were you live, you may be more accustomed to calling them Panthers, Mountain Lions, Pumas, or even Catamounts. At one time they were found from the tip of Florida where the are so named the “Florida Panther”, to California where they are known as the “Mountain Lion”, and from the bottom of South America were they are called the "Puma", and they range all the way up into Canada. Depending on the range they inhabit, the Cougar may be called by many names."

I should like to add that I find the term "catamount" vaguely ribald and salacious....

Yeah, the cat in the Cryptomundo photo does look like felis concolor.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.waza.org/virtualzoo/factsheet.php?id=112-007-001-009&view=Cats&main=virtualzoo

Could one have wandered there? Sure. Could one have escaped/been-released from someone? Sure. Does it qualify as a cryptid? No.

[kitakaze]

I should like to add that I find the term "catamount" vaguely ribald and salacious....Like tit mouse? Wait, that's not so vague.

Update:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sidney-cat-2/

From the Lewiston Sun Journal:

Maine officials taking big cat photo seriously

By Kathryn Skelton , Staff Writer

Friday, June 29, 2007

A photo making e-mail rounds Thursday [June 28, 2007] that shows what looks like a big, rare cat in a Sidney backyard is real, according to the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife spokesman.

Whether that’s actually a mountain lion leaning on a rock wall is up in the air. The cat’s tail, the easiest way to tell a bobcat from a mountain lion, is hidden by a tree.

“That’s why we’re sending someone out there,” said Mark Latti. “Maine doesn’t have a wild population of mountain lions.”

The picture came in to IFW on Thursday. He said the homeowner wants to be anonymous. A biologist will go out soon to look for other evidence, like tracks, and measure the size of the rocks where the cat stood to get a sense of scale.

Maine hasn’t had wild mountain lions since the late 1800s, Latti said. Vermont and New Hampshire don’t have them either.

“We do receive a handful of sightings a year,” he added. The last significant one was about six years ago in Monmouth. Plaster casts were made of what turned out to be mountain lion tracks, “but we never saw it again.”

In the mid-1990s, mountain lion hair was found in Cape Elizabeth.

The animals live mostly out West and sometimes make headlines with vicious attacks. According to SanDiegoZoo.org, the male mountain lion can get up to six feet long and 227 pounds.

Central Maine Medical Center spokesman Randy Dustin had a friend send him the photo with a note that read, “This thing ran in front of me the other night in Sidney.” It was on the Turnpike and the friend thought he’d been seeing things.

“I think it could be real,” he said. “It’s exciting.”
Lewiston Sun Journal, Lewiston, Maine, June 29, 2007

And the Portland Press Herald:

Curious photo prompts investigation

Could this be a mountain lion? A Sidney resident thinks it could and a biologist is investigating.

By Joel Elliott/Blethen Maine News Service

Sidney — A state biologist is investigating a claim that someone here sighted a mountain lion.

An anonymous resident sent a photo of the animal to the state Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Department, and experts there have yet to determine its validity, according to department spokesman Mark Latti.

“The photo is inconclusive, just because of the perspective, and it only shows part of the cat,” he said.

Latti said it would be easier to determine the type of cat if the back end were visible in the photo, because long tails are a distinctive feature of mountain lions.

The department receives similar calls sporadically from residents across the state, but biologists have not found evidence that they consider to be conclusive proof of the cats’ presence, Latti said.

“There is not a wild population of mountain lions or cougars in the state,” he said. “However, there’s a very real possibility that someone could have brought it in from another state and released it. Or it could be an escaped domestic one.”

If wild mountain lions were in the state, Latti said, there would be more sightings or hard evidence, like road kill.

“While it is a possibility, we just don’t have enough evidence to substantiate it,” he said. [Contributed photo]
Portland Press Herald, Portland, Maine, June 29, 2007.I would say that the anonymous sender has my radar up as that was the case in the photoshop hoax I linked in the OP. Still, very cool if it's real.

[William Parcher]

That is not a cougar. The morphology and pelage is all wrong for cougar. It looks like no known species of cat.

It's a photoshop creation. The cat is not a pasted photo of some real cat, but is instead a CGI.

Expect Loren Coleman to support this hoax as being real.

[supercorgi]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are mountain lions in New England. We seem to have had a resurgence in wildlife here in the last 20 or so years. And new species, like the coyote, have moved into the area and are now everywhere. The black bear population has exploded. The population of white tail deer here would provide mountain lions with an abundant food source.

[Foolmewunz]

The pic looks suspiciously like one of the "prehistoric" (CGI) cats in a series that I watched parts of on Discovery (over here anything from History Channel, Animal Channel, Nat'l Geographic, et al shows up on Discovery eventually). I think the series was supposed to be on the evolution of mammals but I'm really not certain.... I just know the pic is very familiar.

[pchams]

That looks nothing like a cougar.
That said, I did see one at my cottage in northern Ontario.
The MNR says they are usually escaped exotic pets, but some people believe
that a breeding population has been re-established in Ontario.
http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/surveys/cougars/comments.asp

I believe they have been shown to be genetically identical to the southern US puma.
http://www.ontariopuma.ca/describe.htm

[rrhoad2376]

That entire picture looks like a painting to me. I'm not an art person, just my opinion.

[kitakaze]

Expect Loren Coleman to support this hoax as being real.Oh look:Loren Coleman responds:
June 29th, 2007 at 8:36 am
You know, what’s incredibly funny to me is how people want photos, want proof, and want images of these cryptids. Then when one is obtained, people nitpick and complain that it’s not enough, it doesn’t show the tail or the feet or isn’t a rapidfire presentation of a flow of pictures of the animal walking or running or attacking something.

For us to place motives on why someone would only submit one photo, or wish to remain anonymous in this age of media madness, is unfortunate.

Why it is all well and good to be skeptical, to be careful, and to be highly analytical, it is also worth our congratulations sometimes that someone, apparently, and finally, got a clear photograph of a seemingly cryptic animal - just like most people demand when “only” a sighting comes in.

[William Parcher]

That entire picture looks like a painting to me. I'm not an art person, just my opinion.

You're right, and that's a clue to the hoax. The image looks like a painting because the hoaxer wanted to make the CGI cat look natural. A pasted CGI would look too obvious, so this person applied an effect (like an impressionistic painting) to the entire image.

It's a pretty sophisticated fake in that respect. Unfortunately, it seems that the State of Maine has already been duped and is sending a biologist to the site. The hoaxer deserves to get busted for this one and charged for any state expenses. It's similar to an intentional false report to police or a fire alarm.

[William Parcher]

Oh look:

Coleman, you dope... nobody should want a faked cryptid photo. No, he's not a dope - he's a modern-day PT Barnum who has a career based on people believing in zoological absurdities.

He still would like people to believe that this is some kind of wild primate living in Florida that visited some (anonymous) old lady's backyard. Rock on, Loren Coleman! :p

http://www.lorencoleman.com/images/MAPhotosm.jpg

[Correa Neto]

Lets suppose its not a fake and its a real felis concolor – no chance of mistakes using the scientific name.

It indicates at least one specimen managed (naturally or artificially) to return to an area where it once dwelled. I fail to see where is the cryptozoology here. I see, however, something to be celebrated -if real-. If it is not an artificial introduction, a top predator returned, meaning the environment is recovering.

Anyway, one should always be aware of the possibility of hoaxes.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/smilodon_032.jpg
It is amazing how realistic some creations can be.

The first red flag is raised by the anonymous photographer. Also, the animal does not looks exactly as a felis concolor, but it may be due to pixelation. The others are (i) the positioning of the animal (hidden pawns, dark background, etc.) favoring photoshopping (OK, the animal might just as well have been in that location/position); (ii) lack of additional data (where are the other pics of the sequence, camera used, etc.). None of the above excludes the possibility of a real pic of a real feline taken where it was claimed to have been.

Way better than Bigfoot pics, BTW…

[William Parcher]

Lets suppose its not a fake and its a real felis concolor – no chance of mistakes using the scientific name.

Whoops. Felis concolor is a synonym. The valid scientific name is Puma concolor.

[Correa Neto]

Damn...

That's what you get by being old...

[William Parcher]

I might be older than you. ;)

The significance of Puma, is that this species is the only member of its genus. There are a number of subspecies.

The issue of the anonymous photographer (or the one who presented the image to the state) does not seem so sinister. From the article it appears that this person only wants to be anonymous to the public, but not to the government. "The picture came in to IFW on Thursday. He said the homeowner wants to be anonymous. A biologist will go out soon to look for other evidence, like tracks, and measure the size of the rocks where the cat stood to get a sense of scale."

One poster on Cryptomundo has already found that the image is digitally tagged as being from Adobe Photo Shop. That doesn't automatically mean it's a definite fake, but it is a red flag to be investigated.

[BlackKat]

Actually there once were mountain lions living in Maine although it is thought development and such have largely driven them from the area and few if any live there now. I wouldn't completely discount possible mountain lion sightings there.

When I was younger we were camping at Acadia National Park (circa 1984). During our stay there were reported mountain lion sightings including by some of the park rangers. Whether they were ever verified I never found out but just in case the rangers gave everyone the standard warnings of don't leave food out, don't approach if you see one, etc.

[Correa Neto]

I only remember felis concolor... You may even be older, but I'm more outdated!:p Uhm... Should I be proud of it?

The photoshop tag is perhaps a "pink flag". If I were to hoax a pic, I would make sure to erase such traces. On the other hand, it might just mean the image was cropped after a larger pic via photoshop. Anyway, for clarity purposes, this should have been stated. OK, Loren Coleman's board's purposes may not require such precision level.

An interesting tidbit is that it was enough to trigger what bigfoot proponents always ask for- an official investigation. By now, they should start asking themselves why PGF, MDF, Skookum cast, etc. failed while a simple pic did was successfull.

Anyway, if we were to blindly believe in photos, someone has a saber-toothed tiger at home...

[LTC8K6]

Tube, how does "Nittany Lion" strike you? :D

[supercorgi]

Also, the animal does not looks exactly as a felis concolor, but it may be due to pixelation.
Its head doesn't look exactly like a puma's head but the mottled color could occur if it was a juvenile though I'm not sure at what age puma cubs lose their spots.

[William Parcher]

The photoshop tag is perhaps a "pink flag". If I were to hoax a pic, I would make sure to erase such traces. On the other hand, it might just mean the image was cropped after a larger pic via photoshop. Anyway, for clarity purposes, this should have been stated. OK, Loren Coleman's board's purposes may not require such precision level.

Erasing this data from a digital image would only create another red or pink flag. The APS tag is innocent or not and begs investigation. If it had no APS tag at all (only expected data from the digital camera) then there would be no flag, as I believe that stuff cannot be forged (it's embedded in the image file at the moment the shutter is pushed). I guess we don't even know if it was a digital or film camera at this point.

Central Maine Medical Center spokesman Randy Dustin had a friend send him the photo with a note that read, “This thing ran in front of me the other night in Sidney.” It was on the Turnpike and the friend thought he’d been seeing things.

So there is a multiple chain-of-custody thing going on. The friend says it ran in front of him on the highway at night, then later photographs it in a forest setting during daylight. Hmmmm...

An interesting tidbit is that it was enough to trigger what bigfoot proponents always ask for- an official investigation. By now, they should start asking themselves why PGF, MDF, Skookum cast, etc. failed while a simple pic did was successfull.

Well, we know that cougars exist in the first place. A genuine photo of one in Maine is significant because there are no recent confirmations of this species from that state. Trace evidence (hair & tracks) was confirmed in 1995 and 2000. The state believes that they have had cougars, but suggests they are likely of captive origin (once were pets). A population of truly wild origin cougars has not been established there by any authority.

Regardless, if the photographer is suggesting that this is a cougar - they are wrong or hoaxing. It has some resemblance to a bobcat, but looks more like a CGI than anything else.

That perfectly rectangular black "slot" is supposed to be the nose? If so, it's in the wrong place!

http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/stabigcatp06292a.jpg

[Buckaroo]

If this is a real photo, why didn't the photographer forward the raw, lightly-compressed output of his camera? Instead, we get a photo that by the artifacting looks like it went through about 20 rounds of jpeg compression, obscuring all detail. This was clearly either deliberate, or the result of hoaxster who is a novice in Photoshop and didn't realize that such high levels of compression artifacting point to multiple successive rounds of saving in a jpeg format. Either way is pretty damning.

It really isn't a very good, or as others have suggested, a very sophisticated, hoax.

[Correa Neto]

Maybe its a cropped and amplified piece of a larger pic; compression for www publishing may also have decreased resolution.

It may be a hoax, but compression (and evidence of photoshopping) by themselves are not diagnostic of it.

[William Parcher]

To me it looks like a filter effect was applied, rather than the result of only compression(s).

It would be nice if the state can get their hands on the original image (straight from the camera) and have it examined by both a forensic image expert and a wild felid expert. Those two people working on this in a lab ought to be able to give a decent evaluation as a preliminary to a site visit. Sounds like the location visit has already been launched.

[William Parcher]

Update:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sidney-cat-2/

From the Lewiston Sun Journal:

And the Portland Press Herald:

This update entry was removed from Cryptomundo a few hours ago. Along with it went many comments, including ones that were critical of Loren Coleman's attitude on how to treat "crypto evidence photos".

[Hamradioguy]

I wouldn't be surprised if there are mountain lions in New England.

There have been some sightings in Northern Vermont of what may be a mountain lion (or perhaps Cougar) by generally reliable people. No solid proof, but the possibility exists based on sightings over the past couple dozen years.

That said, the photo here seems almost too perfect. And it bears no resemblance to the last authentic specimen of a mountain lion in Vermont, the stuffed remains of which are on display in the State Museum.

[cloudshipsrule]

The chest of the animal is wrong for a mountain lion, and as someone else pointed out, the nose is entirely wrong. The shading would be very different if it were a cougar.

http://www.joe-town.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/mountain_lion_01.jpg

I'll say this with authority: The image is a doctored fake.

[William Parcher]

The second blog is back on Cryptomundo.

I looked at the SunJournal.com (http://www.sunjournal.com/story/218938-3/MaineNews/Maine_officials_taking_big_cat_photo_seriously/) that originally ran the story in Maine and found this in the comments...

Posted By:deerhunter at June 29, 2007 1:57 PM
I am a close friend with the owner of these pictures. They did not want this photo out in public. They have 6 pictures of this mountain lion on there digital camera that I have seen first hand. The picture that is out in public is a scanned copy of a printed picture that someone shouldn't have let out yet. The actual photo is extremely clear and Maine biologist have seen and confirmed the photo to be taken in Sidney Maine.

But it's not a mountain lion/cougar/puma.

[cloudshipsrule]

So someone scanned the photo, applied a filter affect, altered the animal so that it appears fake (CGI) and then released it?

Here's my theory: Someone had a large cat as a pet. The cat escaped and got captured via photographs. The owner of the large cat found out images were taken of his/her illegal pet, so they snuck in to the home of the photographer, copied at least one of the images and took it home to process it to make it look fake so no one would believe an actual large cat was roaming around Maine. That way the actual cat would never be traced back to the negligent owner because no one is going to follow up on a fake photograph.

Yeah.:rolleyes:

For those unsure of the photo's authenticity try this: Go to google images. Type in cougar, puma or mountain lion. Look at actual photographs for a few minutes, then immediately look at the photo in this thread. It's so obvious it's fake it hurts!

[cloudshipsrule]

One minute (literally) in paint and I made the image look a little more realistic. (The muzzle/nose)

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=myimages&pp=9&page=1

[Metullus]

One minute (literally) in paint and I made the image look a little more realistic. (The muzzle/nose)

http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=myimages&pp=9&page=1

Odd. When I clicked on your link it took me to my pictures.

[cloudshipsrule]

Odd. When I clicked on your link it took me to my pictures.
I assumed the link would take people to the image I posted, since that was it does when I click on it. I hadn't copied the correct link.

Here's a proper link:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/91604687233081143.jpg

[kitakaze]

Loren Coleman on photoshopping:Loren Coleman responds:
June 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
With regard to the issue of “Photoshopping,” it actually goes without saying that the photograph you are seeing here is not directly from the photographer.

If we backtrack, the photo came from the homeowner to the personnel at the Maine Fisheries and Wildlife Department, which then was shared with the media via various reporters.

One reporter passed one version (at top) on to me directly, another was temporarily posted at an online news location (bottom), and both were uploaded by techologically-aware people at Cryptomundo central, where the first one received was also enlarged (and now is the middle version).

I am certain all kinds of pixel infractions, resizing, and more, some of which might have added all kinds of editing tags, took place with this jpeg. This attempt to dissect fakery via looking at the jpeg tags here, I fear, may be a waste of your time.

BTW, on another matter, this photograph was taken by a Maine resident who wishes to remain anonymous. This is different than someone who is totally anonymous and unknown.

And on Maine crypto weirdo:Loren Coleman responds:
June 30th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Regarding JMV’s comment above: The Mystery Beast (Maine Mutant) that was killed on the road happened in Turner, Maine, and this incident occurred in Sidney, Maine. Those locations are not the same, and 40 miles from each other.

However, the “Maine Mutant” (which was extensively discussed via my blogs here last summer) was a misidentified dead dog on the road. Meanwhile, the large unknown predator seen in Turner-Greene area apparently is still out there, and who is to say that this couldn’t be the Sidney photographed cryptid?

Sidney is also known, in the not too distant past, for its reports of migrating Bigfoot leaving 22″ tracks in the area.

Maine is a wild state, that’s for sure. I’m glad to be living here.This story has really piqued my interest. It's probably just subjective but the more I look at this image the more I feel I've seen it in some form somewhere before.

[cloudshipsrule]

So the original was sent out to Maine Fisheries and Wildlife, and then to reporters and all the web has to show is this lousy FAKE photograph?

Additionally, all the stories on this talk about a Spokesman from the Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, but no name is ever given.

So far, no names have been given in the stories. Some anonymous poster keeps adding "I'm friends with the person who took the photograph and they want to remain anonymous blah, blah, blah."

This story has all the earmarks of a hoax.

I still can't believe people can look at the photograph we've been presented and think it's real. The muscle structure doesn't even look convincing.

There must be a video game nut out there somewhere who can identify this CGI kittty.

[William Parcher]

Just for fun. Found this on Cryptozoology.com.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/955fc51b.jpg

[cloudshipsrule]

That's better!

[cloudshipsrule]

I just discovered something about the original photograph. I enhanced the black levels and reversed the compression algorithms to reveal something on the left side of the image in the shadows. I believe the large cat was actually the guardian of an alien creature, which can now be seen in the image below:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/916046885e92b6794.jpg

[kitakaze]

Update with claim of multiple shots from photolab:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sidney-cat-3/

[Checkmite]

An interesting tidbit is that it was enough to trigger what bigfoot proponents always ask for- an official investigation. By now, they should start asking themselves why PGF, MDF, Skookum cast, etc. failed while a simple pic did was successfull.

Namely because mountain lions are real.

[Diogenes]

Whether that’s actually a mountain lion leaning on a rock wall is up in the air. The cat’s tail, the easiest way to tell a bobcat from a mountain lion, is hidden by a tree.


Well yeah, that might be the easiest way, but I kind of think there are a couple of other clues..

http://library.thinkquest.org/11234/media/sbobcat1.jpg

http://www.linsdomain.com/totems/pictures/cougar.jpg

Oh and, one of them usually weighs about 100 lbs more ...

[William Parcher]

Our lab at Elm City Photo processed this image straight off from his digital camera chip with no enhancements other than to lighten it. This was the best shot in a series of 4 or 5. Manipulated photos are generally brought in to us on CD roms or on USB Mass storage devices and not on camera chips as was this image. Hopefully we will be seeing more of these beautiful animals in our forests someday. Keep your cameras ready.
John Goodine of Fairfield, ME; Jun 29, 2007 11:19 PM.

Did the dude really have to take the memory card to a photo lab for "processing"?

Hopefully we will be seeing more of these beautiful animals in our forests someday.

So the lab technician determined it is a cougar? It doesn't look like a cougar at all.

[cloudshipsrule]

Uh yeah, photographs. Well, let's see the real, multiple photographs instead of this fake one.

Of course photoshopping additional photographs will take some time, and announcing them ahead of time will provide some buffer.

Here's what I don't get.

When you look at the doctored image on the crypto site it is obvious it is NOT a cougar, yet people replying on that site are saying "Yup, definitely a cougar. My uncle was hunting and saw one once. There are reports all the time. Finally a GOOD, CLEAR photograph."

Sorry folks, this is NOT a good, clear photograph. I'm a photographer, and I've taken good, clear photographs. The animals in even a decent shot (even a little over or under-exposed) look like real animals. Even enlarged. This image, blown up, looks nothing like a real-life animal from an actual photograph.

How can these people be so willing to accept this as proof, when it is clearly a poor image? Great if there was an actual sighting of a cougar somewhere in Maine, but this isn't proof of it.

[cloudshipsrule]

If this was a good photograph, as claimed by cryptofreakologists, there wouldn't be all of this controversy. If it was a good photograph I'd say "Yup, that's a cougar alright! Great photo. I guess there really are cougars in Maine."

However, this photograph does not make any rational person automatically agree. Therefore, it is NOT a good photograph.


I will say this (Not that it really matters.), that just maybe the image on crypto is just a cropped portion of the actual photograph. If that's the case, then maybe we're seeing artifacts from enlarging the original image by like 300 or 400%. From reading the comments, it sounds as if this is the actual image, and not just a cropped portion of it. If that's the case it was either taken with a camera phone (ruled out because the lab says it came from a camera's memory card), or it was taken with a circa 1995 1.2 megapixel piece of crap (by today's standards) camera.

Even lousy cameras back in 1994 took better photos than this! Look at the photos at the bottom of the page.

http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.epi%2Dcentre.com/reports/9403cdi.html

[LTC8K6]

Did the dude really have to take the memory card to a photo lab for "processing"?

No, and that says nothing about the authenticity of the photo.

Photos can be uploaded into digital cameras and they will show up on the memory card just like any other photo taken by the camera.

[Dogdoctor]

From that single picture, how can one tell it is a cat? I think it could be a dog or some other species from that photo. The photo has too little detail.

[kitakaze]

From that single picture, how can one tell it is a cat? I think it could be a dog or some other species from that photo. The photo has too little detail.I'm going with created image of big cat. What makes you think dog?

[Gryphus-1]

Is it me or does the pic that cryptomundo is showing off look more like a painting than a real pic?


I guess in the field of cryptozology any pic whether it be painted, taken, or hand drawn with a pencil is credible evidence of mythical creatures.

[sackett]

Derail alert! Nobody move!

Did any of you poopy old no-fun skeptics know that a mountain lion can

1) Purr
2) Meow

Heard 'em do both here:

http://www.exoticfelinerescuecenter.org/home.html

Worth a visit, but be prepared for a LOT of lions and tigers and leopards, oh my!

Well, maybe this is not entirely a derail. Far too many big cats, including mountain lions, are kept, sometimes legally, sometimes not, in private hands. An occasional escape is perfectly plausible.

Although that pic is a pretty lame try at creating a new species of big cat. Any taxidermist could do better.

[cloudshipsrule]

Update:

Well, I emailed an individual from the Maine Fisheries and Wildlife Department and asked about the authenticity of the photo. He believes the photograph was real, but he did not get the one from the Crypto site. He said the photograph he saw was a little better, but not much.

The original photographer gave a 3X5 to a friend. That friend scanned the 3X5 photo onto his/her computer and the result is the image we see at Crypto.

A biologist was sent to the site and found no evidence of any large cat, so the sighting was ruled inconclusive.

So, I guess we're seeing an enlargement of an already lousy photograph, which makes the cat look fake.

I still KNOW it is not a cougar simply by looking at other cougar photographs. One doesn't have to be a biologist to determine this!

I'm still not convinced this was a real photograph to begin with. Maybe even the experts were duped by some good photoshopping???

[LTC8K6]

Well, we will just have to await the other pics I guess.

The pic we have is awful quality. Was the guy using a Polaroid?

[kitakaze]

Update:

Well, I emailed an individual from the Maine Fisheries and Wildlife Department and asked about the authenticity of the photo. He believes the photograph was real, but he did not get the one from the Crypto site. He said the photograph he saw was a little better, but not much.

The original photographer gave a 3X5 to a friend. That friend scanned the 3X5 photo onto his/her computer and the result is the image we see at Crypto.

A biologist was sent to the site and found no evidence of any large cat, so the sighting was ruled inconclusive.

So, I guess we're seeing an enlargement of an already lousy photograph, which makes the cat look fake.

I still KNOW it is not a cougar simply by looking at other cougar photographs. One doesn't have to be a biologist to determine this!

I'm still not convinced this was a real photograph to begin with. Maybe even the experts were duped by some good photoshopping???Way to go, cloudshipsrule! The plot thickens. This is turning out to be quite the intriguing little mystery. You and everyone else that has said so is right, I believe, that the photo is clearly not a cougar. I also agree in thinking this is a manufactured image, regardless. My gut tells me I've seen the image in some form and it just screams photoshop to me.

BTW, if I may ask, was it spokesman Mark Latti that you e-mailed?

[cloudshipsrule]

Kitikaze,

It was Mark, as it was his name I had seen in various articles. He responded very quickly and seemed very cordial, but didn't really make a judgment on the photograph itself. He simply said the photograph was not fake, but I'm not sure what convinced him of that.

Clearly (pun intended) the photograph we have been shown via crypto has been doctored to some degree, even if it was scanned from a 3X5. (Unless the photographer was simply suffering from severe nicotine withdrawal.)

The face of the 'cat' simply does not look real compared to any other crappy photograph of an animal I have seen. I just can't see how scanning a 3X5 would have added the effects we're seeing.

I'd really like to see the other photographs that are supposedly out there. Mark did not indicate that he had seen any other photographs other than a slightly better version of the one we've seen.

[Correa Neto]

My mystery cat is bigger than yours...
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/ghost_panther.jpg
No photoshop here.

Actually this is what some cryptobuffs want it to be...

[William Parcher]

Big fun! Now let's see one with the Tourist Guy in the scene.

[Correa Neto]

Or a bigfoot!

There are reports of bigfeet with phantom panters, after all...

[William Parcher]

Image from the Mars Exploration Rover...

http://images.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/01-09-04-space/NoteToSelf.jpg

[William Parcher]

This is a good .pdf article on the situation with "Eastern cougars" and the strong potential for misidentification.

Cougar Hysteria: Addressing Mountain Lion Mania in the Midwest and the East (http://www.easterncougarnet.org/Assets/CougarHysteria.pdf)

[Gryphus-1]

I think I figured the picture out. Its a painting of a Fox. A larger than average fox. I think this because of the face, google images of foxes the face looks quite similar. I don't buy that the image was originally a 3x5 and that scanning and enlarging made it look as it does now. It has to be a painting.

[sackett]

Only Correo Neto has the right idea. SABERTOOTH! YEEEEAH!

During the Pleistocene, there were lions in North America the size of Shetland ponies. Not that the cryptoanimalists care -- oh Rule8, what have I done?

[Correa Neto]

STOP THE PRESS!!!

BREAKING NEWS!
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/sas.jpg
Bigfeet at the next still!!!
It was there, twisting sticks and branches to mark its presence and warn puny humans of its presence!!!

[Dogdoctor]

I'm going with created image of big cat. What makes you think dog?

I don't really think dog but can't rule out dog from the photo or deer for that matter. It seems like the head has a different resolution than the body.

[cloudshipsrule]

Correa is turning this into the next Star Wars Kid!

I want to see The Matrix edit next, Correa.:D

[Correa Neto]

Well, its my crypto game cam. I set it up at a secret location.

Here's the second pic of the bigfoot. Its not as good as the first one, but helps counter skeptics' claim about "just one pic".
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/sas1.jpg
It is still carrying the broken branch while moving back to the forest. Note how well it blends with the shadows. No wonder so few of these masters of camouflage are seen!

A few hours later, another cryptid triggered the montion sensor. A goatsucker! Since it is too fast, the camera's activation time and shooting intervall allowed a single still. Note the creature stands over the rocks, thus refuting the common "you can't see its feet" photoshopping argument from denialists.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/goatsucker.jpg

Unfortunately, it seems no more cryptids will be around that location, since an assassin was also captured by the cam. Its such a shame that this individual is allowed to destroy these unique and rare creatures and is still considered a heroic monster slayer by many.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/ultra.jpg

[kitakaze]

:D :D :D That Ultraman... smug SOB.

[tube]

I suspect this story is in the "petering out" phase. I should like to add that I find the term "petering out" to be obliquely ribald and salacious.

If we have not seen further photographs by now, I suspect we never will.

BTW, in carefully reading other people's posts, I can see now why the animal does not look exactly like Puma concolor.

I have to wonder if still photos of cryptid animals have replaced still photos of UFO's as mysteries worthy of consideration. I don't follow the UFO thing very closely, but I understand that by the 1960's still photos of UFO's had kind of lost their impact, due to the realization of how easilly they can be faked. But as Mr. Neto has demonstrated, in the 21st century new tools of photographic manipulation enable a whole new generation of people to put forth bogus photographs.

[Correa Neto]

Thanks, Mr. Tube, but I guess photoshopping and CGI are not the best way to go when it comes to stills. OK, it took me less than 15 minutes to make each cryptogame cam still and many people here could make (much better) better works. But it’s a two way street; since there are plenty of very good people around the www (I suspect some could pull a hoax or two to serve as portfolio for FX studios), chances are someone would catch the manipulations quite easily. CGI is easier to do for inanimate objects (check the "drone" pics); living animals (specially the furry ones) are harder and take too much rendering time (nowadays).

As I said before, if I were to pull out a cryptohoax, personally (perhaps due to my background) I would go for a “real” model. Most likely I would use a scale articulated model (1:4, for example) under forced perspective and if possible, against a known background.

I could then take a short series (3 or 4) of pics, using a digital camera or conventional film. Absolutely no evidence of “tampering with the negatives” or digital manipulation would show up- because there would be none! I could add any desired shaking or blurring to simulate quick, unexpected shots under the emotional shock of seeing the cryptid. Alternatively I could take a scenario shot, claiming I have not seen the cryptid.

Check the works of this guy:
http://www.ophys.com/Portfolio.asp
Here are some examples of his work:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/smilodon_big.jpg
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/varanus_salvator_020.jpg
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/deino_big.jpg
That smilodon is amazing. Check the other pics of it at his site.

Those are realistic sculptures, museum-quality expensive 1:1 scale models. OK, that guy is a pro, but I am pretty sure a good amateur could come up with a cheap (scratchbuilt or kitbashed) scale model good enough to create a sequence of hoaxed stills quite better than the “mystery cat” in question. One guy, one scale model, one camera, one backpack. That’s all it takes to get something way better than the average weekly Youtube Bigfoot footage.

Some will use the above to say “only a body will convince skeptics”. Yes, only a specimen would be totally, completely convincing, undisputable evidence. But a series of pics or movies with a nice “pedigree” would help a lot the cause of cryptozoology and make many a skeptic change their minds. But quality, traceability, reputation and responsibility are needed for a piece of evidence be labeled as “reliable”. Regardless of how good they may be, pics from anonymous sources are useless. Those who are convinced by pics from anonymous sources should rethink their parameters.

I’m sure you will (and/or other people with interest in cryptozoology) find some interesting smoking guns in that link.

ETA: In case someone wants to know, the "bigfoot" source is
http://www.monsterjones.com/Godzi/Godzilla%20Gallery.htm

[kitakaze]

Update from the Portland Press Herald (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=118630&ac=PHnws).

Fur, skin, and flesh sent for DNA analysis by state.

State checks mountain lion report
An Oakland man provides fur and skin from what he says was 'a big cat.'





July 4, 2007


By JOEL ELLIOTT

Blethen Maine News Service

OAKLAND - State biologists on Tuesday began investigating the second reported mountain lion sighting in the area in a week.

Mountain lions, also referred to as "cougars," "catamounts," "pumas" and "panthers," disappeared from Maine in the 1800s, victims of indiscriminate hunting and trapping, habitat changes, and declining deer, moose and caribou populations, according to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The cats are listed on the federal endangered species list.

The last documented mountain lion seen in the wild in Maine was killed in 1938, but reports of sightings still surface on occasion, according to department spokesman Mark Latti.

"But in my eight years, it's always come back as something different than a mountain lion," Latti said.

Adult male mountain lions weigh 175-200 pounds and are about 8 feet long from nose to tail. Adult females weigh about 75-175 pounds and average about 6 feet in length.

On Tuesday, Oakland resident Kelvin Higgins provided a sample of fur and possibly some skin to state biologists. He said a big cat shed the fur while grooming itself on a snowy rock in his wooded backyard in April.

"I'm not 100 percent sure it was a mountain lion, but it was a big cat, believe me," Higgins said.

Higgins' lawn extends a little more than 30 yards from his back porch, from which he said he spotted the cat.

"He was just down there preening," he said. When the cat saw him on the porch, it "just stood up and stretched really casually" before loping off.

Higgins said the cat's body and tail each were about 4 feet long, and he estimated its weight at around 100 pounds.

Higgins later collected a pinch of fur from the rock, but didn't turn it in until reading a news story last week about a possible sighting in Sidney.

In that incident, an unnamed resident provided a grainy photo of what appeared to be a large cat to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Latti said the photo was inconclusive.

The Oakland sighting is different, according to state biologist Keel Kemper, who said the sample appears to include both hair and flesh, and is large enough for DNA testing.

"This does not look like deer hair, to be honest with you," Kemper said.I might have to get a bib ready for a heap of crow because this in no way changes my opinion the photo we have seen is fake.

[LTC8K6]

Skin and fur from grooming? Follicles are follicles, but to say he gave them skin and fur from where the cat was grooming itself sounds fishy to me.

[LTC8K6]

Then there's the problem for footers if this is a lynx or cougar. Only a few in the state and we get a picture and a valid DNA sample...

[rrhoad2376]

The photo gets worse and worse. The latest version of it on cryptomundo has brighter colors but is more blurry than before.

I don't know why they didn't just use the same copy they already had.

Last weeks copy. (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/sidney-cat/)

This weeks copy. (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/oakland-cat/)

[kitakaze]

Skin and fur from grooming? Follicles are follicles, but to say he gave them skin and fur from where the cat was grooming itself sounds fishy to me.Well, the tongues are pretty rough, you know.:D Seriously, that is rather weird- fur, skin, and flesh? And why keep it till now? The whole thing smells fishy to me.

[sackett]

Didn't I say that Correo Neto has the right ideas? Let's show the fakers how it's really done!

My suggestion that a taxidermist could run up a good crytoanimal plays into this. A full-scale or nearly full-scale fake animal would be easy to contrive using hides and horns, combined with the plastic hooves, teeth, and eyes that are normally installed in stuffed animals. No need for forced perspective or photoshopping, and plenty of hair samples (how about a mixture of species, just to fog the picture?) to "submit to government labs for analysis; results are expected shortly."

I'm sure that you could create quite a flurry in the believers' little chicken coop. Then, at the right moment, you could reveal the whole scam in tiresome detail -- and watch in quiet amazement as they went right on believing.

I say that last part remembering how Randi pulled an analogous stunt many years ago with a make-believe psychic. The man unmasked himself VERY publicly in Australia, after filling some auditoriums and gathering quite a following. In the midst of the furor over his revelation that it was all a hoax, at least one of the faithful approached him and said, "Don't listen to them. We still believe in you!"

Correo and I have evil minds.

[DGM]

Seems the story has made the Boston Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/07/04/mountain_lion_sighting_investigated_by_state/

OAKLAND, Maine --State biologists have begun investigating the second reported sighting in a week of a mountain lion in central Maine.
On Tuesday, Kelvin Higgins of Oakland provided a sample of fur and possibly some skin to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The animal shed the fur while grooming itself on a rock in Higgins' backyard in April.

Higgins said he collected a pinch of fur from the rock, but didn't deliver it to biologists until reading an account last week about another possible sighting in Sidney.

"I'm not 100 percent sure it was a mountain lion, but it was a big cat, believe me," Higgins said.
In another sighting this week, a resident in Sidney provided a grainy photograph of what appeared to be a large cat. Latti said that no conclusions could be drawn from the photo because it didn't show the entire animal and no tracks or scat samples could be found.

"It's hard to put a number on (the annual sighting reports), but many times," said Inland Fisheries spokesman Mark Latti. "But in my eight years, it's always come back as something different than a mountain lion."

[Correa Neto]

A taxidermists' chimera could do the trick, but it may be cumbersome to carry around and quite possibly it can not change pose, limiting the number of shots.

A scale model kitbashed from action figures and movie monster kits, on the other hand, is poseable, allowing for several shots and showing it was a "live" creature.

What about lake or sea monsters?

Even easier to do. Nothing but water and tiny ripples in what may look like a lake surface... I advise adding a small floating twig (leafless) to serve as a clue for scale. You may say, if its a film, something like "look at that log, it must be 2m-long" to induce a sense of scale. As any scale modeller will tell you, dry twigs may pass for trunks quite easilly.

http://www.x-tremegeek.com/templates/searchdetail.asp?productID=10825
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXNFJ8http://www.plesiosauria.com/toys.html

OK, sooner or later I will be accused of being responsible by a propaganda campaign against cryptozoology... A timber/mineral industries shill!

[sackett]

I'd be in favor of a taxidermst's chimera simply because, as I once heard a special effects man say, it's always best to photograph a real object.

An internal armature to vary postures is no problem: heck, we're not working to high standards! I mean, look at the field to date!

[Correa Neto]

Yeah, the standards are not that high... I am actually a bit puzzled by the lack of "quality" hoaxes! Maybe mystery animals are actually fuzzy paranormal critters, after all...

Check these "actual" pics of sea & lake monsters .
http://www.plesiosauria.com/hoax2.html
One can use a cheap child's toy.

Oh, last shot of my cryptogame cam:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/gojiraaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg
Ultraman is in trouble, and nature will return to its ballance...

[sackett]

While we're yaffing and joking, the hoaxsters are lurking. And taking notes.

[William Parcher]

Oh, last shot of my cryptogame cam...

Neato Corry Dude, your renditions are top notch. Please don't stop until you do one more. Skeptics need the Tourist Guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy) placed into this Maine forest scene. It is so that all their base are belong to us, for great justice.

[William Parcher]

In that incident, an unnamed resident provided a grainy photo of what appeared to be a large cat to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Latti said the photo was inconclusive.


Drum roll...

[Cuddles]

The whole thing smells fishy to me.

Nessie maybe?

[Correa Neto]

Neato Corry Dude, your renditions are top notch. Please don't stop until you do one more. Skeptics need the Tourist Guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy) placed into this Maine forest scene. It is so that all their base are belong to us, for great justice.
Hired some guy to dismantle the cryptogame cam. He happened to trigger the sensor motion and three shots were taken. One of them showed a mothman hidden in the bushes (that place must be some sort of vortex or portal).
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/tourist_guy.jpg
We can safely conclude motion sensors are not triggered by mothman's presence. The guy, however, complaining about feeling a creepy sensation of being watched and said he would never return there.

Cuddles:
Some cryptozoologists say Nessie is a mammal; therefore she can't smell fishy!

[kitakaze]

Good catch, LTC:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/cat-not-fox/

Mystery big cat DNA sample is actually common red fox DNA sample...

[LTC8K6]

Before DNA evidence comes in:

On Tuesday, Oakland resident Kelvin Higgins provided a sample of fur and possibly some skin to state biologists. He said a big cat shed the fur while grooming itself on a snowy rock in his wooded backyard in April.

"I'm not 100 percent sure it was a mountain lion, but it was a big cat, believe me," Higgins said.

Higgins' lawn extends a little more than 30 yards from his back porch, from which he said he spotted the cat.

"He was just down there preening," he said. When the cat saw him on the porch, it "just stood up and stretched really casually" before loping off.

After DNA evidence comes in:

Reached at his home on Wednesday, Higgins said he remains convinced that the animal he saw on a snowy rock in his yard was a mountain lion, also known as a cougar, or panther.

“There is no doubt whatsoever,” said Higgins. “It (the rock) is so close and my eyesight is very good.”

Higgins said he believes the large cat was cleaning itself after eating the fox when it left the scrap of fur on the rock.

The Oakland man said he was standing about 100 feet away when he saw the animal and watched it for 10 or perhaps 20 seconds until it spotted him and moved off into the woods behind the rock.

The animal was perhaps six or eight feet long from nose to tail and probably weighed well over 100 pounds, said Higgins.

“That is not your average house cat,” he said.