Merged: Alien Big Cats in the UK?

[Verde]

Originally Posted by Delscottio

Cropped Image

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vl14Fxv1bv...20/zoomcat.JPG

I see a small elephant, but that is quite a long trunk.

V.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by Delscottio

McHaggis, sorry for the split in post but coming back to the FOI request, why would the MOD stall? Are you suggesting a cover up or normal MOD procedures? Why would they not release the information if there was a risk to human life? I can't think of a reason not to release the information especally when it would boost the local economy from the tourism - I would be up there like a shot if there were big cats wandering around.

Regarding the MOD incident, we have statements from people on site at the time. I'm not suggesting any cover up, but the FOI act can be manipulated quite easy. There is a cost limit of I believe £400 per search, which the person making the request is not liable for. If recovering the information requested costs more than that then if the person making the request still wants it done, then they have to cough up the difference.

This is a tactic I've come across with many organisations like the police and MOD. They claim it would cost a certain amount over the £400 and will only look for the information requested if we pay the difference.

Also unless you word the request very carefully they can be quite ambiguous with what they send you back.

The problem is, with any FOI request, even IF they do withold any information, how are we going to know? It's their employees that gather the information, who is to say that a certain file doesn't mysteriously dissappear behind the filing cabinet, or the researcher just happens to place a file in the wrong place. We have absolutely no way of ensuring that all pieces of information are looked for, checked, and then released to us.

It's a great piece of legislation in theory, but oh so easy to manipulate and continue to hide information they don't want released.

But I will persevere and will one day get to the bottom of it.

[McHaggis]

I forgot to say. It was on MOD land, so by its very nature they wouldn't want any "big cat tourists" wandering the area. This may be a reason for keeping the info as quiet as possible.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by EHocking

Any chance of posting the original somewhere with the EXIF data intact (i.e. an untreated copy of the original)?

There's not much that can be gleaned from the 43kb image.

Oh, and how far away is the tree limb, tree trunk and the game trail from the camera?

LTC has posted links to the full size images

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

LTC has posted links to the full size images

Just to be clear, EHocking wants the original EXIF data from the camera with the image. The EXIF data is not present with the image links I posted.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

The problem is, with any FOI request, even IF they do withold any information, how are we going to know? It's their employees that gather the information, who is to say that a certain file doesn't mysteriously dissappear behind the filing cabinet, or the researcher just happens to place a file in the wrong place. We have absolutely no way of ensuring that all pieces of information are looked for, checked, and then released to us.

It's a great piece of legislation in theory, but oh so easy to manipulate and continue to hide information they don't want released.

Paranoid much ?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Just to be clear, EHocking wants the original EXIF data from the camera with the image. The EXIF data is not present with the image links I posted.

.
Depending on the age of the camera, or its functionality, there may be no EXIF information with the images.
Some of my cameras don't attach that stuff.
And if the image is a screen-print, it won't have the original information either.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by Marduk

Paranoid much ?

No not paranoid.

BUT..............I do know from experience that information requested from a certain police authorrity, did not include information that a Police Superintendant actually showed me in his office when he did a search for me on his works pc, (off the record so to speak as he would have been in deep doo dah if he had been caught doing so in the presence of an unauthorised person, ie me)

I think it's a mixture of incompetance, laziness and on rare occasions deliberately.

As I've said, I've made well over 1000 FOI requests and you would be surprised how different the results are from these authorities, even though they were sent the same worded request.

In fact on one occasion, I got a local authority to change their FOI procedures, because they were trying to charge people illegally for FOI requests. After a few emails showing they were breaking the law, they actually thanked me for bringing this to their attention and changed their procedures accordingly.

Most authorities don't really understand what they are expected to have to do when an FOI request hits their desk, so it's very hit or miss as to what you get back.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Depending on the age of the camera, or its functionality, there may be no EXIF information with the images.
Some of my cameras don't attach that stuff.
And if the image is a screen-print, it won't have the original information either.

Which bit of the Exif info do you need

I can look at the properties of the image for you and give what you need.

[sthomson]

I can't see any justification for the position of the cat relative to the camera and the branch. The lighting on the shoulders of the cat make it appear, to me, much closer.

A measure of the height of the grass would give a good approximation of size, if the animal is walking. But as you say, it is too late to collect any of that data.

[McHaggis]

"The lighting on the shoulders of the cat make it appear, to me, much closer"

You've actually hit the nail on the head without realising. The area between the camera and the branch is in shade, due to the tree canopy above, (we are on the edge of a close packed commercial pine forest), and the time of day. It is early in the mprning and the camera is facing southwards out of the forest. All other directions around the camera are under the forest canopy. (anyone who has ever been in a commercial pine forest will know just how tightly the trees are packed together)

The area behind the branch is open to sunlight hence the background behind the branch is very bright and out of focus.

The fact that the cat's shoulders and back show a degree of light reflecting on them would indicate that they are not in the shade and as such, behind the branch.

I don't understand how measuring the grass vertically is more accurate than measuring the branch horizontally. We cannot see the animals feet, (due to it being slightly lower on the stream bank), so we have no way of knowing if the animal is walking normally or crouched down, thus any vertical measurements would be of minimal use. The only measurement we can be accurate with is a horizontal one, as we can see the animal's shoulders, back and tail.

[sthomson]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

"The lighting on the shoulders of the cat make it appear, to me, much closer"

You've actually hit the nail on the head without realising. The area between the camera and the branch is in shade, due to the tree canopy above, (we are on the edge of a close packed commercial pine forest), and the time of day. It is early in the mprning and the camera is facing southwards out of the forest. All other directions around the camera are under the forest canopy. (anyone who has ever been in a commercial pine forest will know just how tightly the trees are packed together)The area behind the branch is open to sunlight hence the background behind the branch is very bright and out of focus.

It appears to me that the hill next to and in front of the camera on the left is also lit on the back side, which seems to correlate to the front of the cat being lit while the rear is dark. If the cat was behind the branch, it should be MORE illuminated, no?

Quote:

I don't understand how measuring the grass vertically is more accurate than measuring the branch horizontally. We cannot see the animals feet, (due to it being slightly lower on the stream bank), so we have no way of knowing if the animal is walking normally or crouched down, thus any vertical measurements would be of minimal use. The only measurement we can be accurate with is a horizontal one, as we can see the animal's shoulders, back and tail.

But the horizontal measurement is useless because we can't establish how far the cat is from the camera and from the branch (besides your guess that it is walking on an established trail). However, we CAN see the height of the grass directly next to the cat, which is why I specified that we must be sure the cat is walking upright and not crouching. I concur that my suggestion is as problematic as yours, given this photo is the only piece of evidence as to size.

[sthomson]

Another problem - your measurement assumes that the branch and the cat are parallel to each other at the moment this photo is taken. There is no way for an observer to tell whether or not the branch is pointing towards or away from the camera, with the cat at another angle entirely.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by sthomson

Another problem - your measurement assumes that the branch and the cat are parallel to each other at the moment this photo is taken. There is no way for an observer to tell whether or not the branch is pointing towards or away from the camera, with the cat at another angle entirely.

The branch is almost perpendicular to the camera, but you are correct in stating that we don't know the angle of the cat. If it was following the animal track to the stream, then it's head is slightly further away from the camera than its rear. This is actually one of the reasons I believe the cat is "at least" three foot on body length. If the angle of the cat corrresponds with the angle of the track, then it may well be slightly larger than three feet, but not by very much I would have thought.

I can understand all you questions, after all, you only have this single image to go by, but I have been on site, I've taken measurements, (and believe me, I have done this sort of thing on numerous occasions in various locations investigating sightings and photographs). In nearly 6 years of doing this, this is the first time, I'm hapopy to accept an image of a cat being over three foot in length. The fact the image is my own, is neither here nor there, I treat all images the same when measuring onsite.

When I first returned home to view the SD card after swapping over cards in the camera, I had no idea of the animals size, and like you, I didn't think it was of any great size. However, I returned back to the site later that day to do the measurements, and only then did I realise it was a little out of the ordinary.

BUT...............I still have no idea what the cat is, nor if it is still in the area. I still have a camera in a location nearby, (I had to move the camera from this location, because of the growth of the vegetation which both blocked the cameras view and gave me hundreds of shots of grass blowing in the wind). This location will remain with a camera till at least the end of the year, Hopefully the animal will return, and we will find out who of us is correct.

Until then, we just wait.......

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

Which bit of the Exif info do you need

I can look at the properties of the image for you and give what you need.

.
I was just commenting on the presence or not of EXIF information on some digital cameras.

[sthomson]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

The branch is almost perpendicular to the camera

"Almost" doesn't seem good enough to me. Have you measured the distance between the camera mount and trunk, and camera mount and tip of the branch? Given that branches sway, it would be reasonable to take several measurements.

Quote:

If it was following the animal track to the stream, then it's head is slightly further away from the camera than its rear. This is actually one of the reasons I believe the cat is "at least" three foot on body length. If the angle of the cat corrresponds with the angle of the track, then it may well be slightly larger than three feet, but not by very much I would have thought.

You are basing your theory that the cat is on the track on experience with cats in this area? As stated above, it seems more likely to me that a predator would stay in the brush, especially as it approaches a watering hole.

Quote:

BUT...............I still have no idea what the cat is, nor if it is still in the area. I still have a camera in a location nearby, (I had to move the camera from this location, because of the growth of the vegetation which both blocked the cameras view and gave me hundreds of shots of grass blowing in the wind).

I see that you have moved the camera, so relevant measurements would be impossible unless you've already taken them. I don't rightly know how you will correlate blurry images of cats if you ever capture one again, but I guess that's why I'm not an amateur big cat enthusiast.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

"The lighting on the shoulders of the cat make it appear, to me, much closer"

You've actually hit the nail on the head without realising. The area between the camera and the branch is in shade, due to the tree canopy above, (we are on the edge of a close packed commercial pine forest), and the time of day. It is early in the mprning and the camera is facing southwards out of the forest. All other directions around the camera are under the forest canopy. (anyone who has ever been in a commercial pine forest will know just how tightly the trees are packed together)

The area behind the branch is open to sunlight hence the background behind the branch is very bright and out of focus.

The fact that the cat's shoulders and back show a degree of light reflecting on them would indicate that they are not in the shade and as such, behind the branch.

I don't understand how measuring the grass vertically is more accurate than measuring the branch horizontally. We cannot see the animals feet, (due to it being slightly lower on the stream bank), so we have no way of knowing if the animal is walking normally or crouched down, thus any vertical measurements would be of minimal use. The only measurement we can be accurate with is a horizontal one, as we can see the animal's shoulders, back and tail.

Out of curiosity, given you know there's a "game trail" in the open beyond the forest, why did you position your camera low to the ground, behind a pile of brush, in long grass, under (what looks to me like) a larch tree?

As you presumably return regularly to check the card, why not cut the grass?
Why not mount the camera up the tree, facing the path to start with?

ETA- You have now passed the 15 post limit and can post links.

[McHaggis]

Quote:

I see that you have moved the camera, so relevant measurements would be impossible unless you've already taken them

The camera was attached to a tree, so unless the tree has got up and walked off, I think I'd be able to take measurements again.

Quote:

Out of curiosity, given you know there's a "game trail" in the open beyond the forest, why did you position your camera low to the ground, behind a pile of brush, in long grass, under (what looks to me like) a larch tree?

No the game trail is IN the forest, and ends at the stream. The stream, (along with a fence on the opposite bank) marks the edge of the forest. Anyone who has any experience with game trail cameras will know that you place the cameras at heights where the IR beam could be trgiggered. There is no point placing a camera 6 foot in the air if the animal you are trying to photograph is only 2 or 3 foot high. It is common practice for the majority of wildlife organisations to place their cameras low to the ground. Cameras are usually placed on trees therefore you are slightly restricted as to where you place them. The idea is that you find the nearest tree to a trail and hope for the best. When the camera was first placed at the location, the grass was not long. Although it certainly has grown now.

[McHaggis]

Quote:

You are basing your theory that the cat is on the track on experience with cats in this area? As stated above, it seems more likely to me that a predator would stay in the brush, especially as it approaches a watering hole.

Unfortunately you havn't seen the location, if you had then you would know that your statement would be totally wrong. The stream has very steep banked sides, (anyone who has been on Forestry Commmision land will understand the type of semi artificial stream I am talking about. This track is the only route down to this stream, otherwise they would fall in. (I had enough trouble getting up the banks, as the only entrance to this location requires me to climb a over a fence and clamber up and down the banks, so I know how steep the sides are.) The stream banks are well over 5 feet high and the stream itself no more than 2 foot wide at most. The "track" is no more than 12"-18" wide and winds itself through lots of low branches and high grass.

[sphenisc]

Okay, so we have a 3ft long dark brown creature, probably no more than 15" at the shoulder, with a long tail that appears to taper from about half way along its length to the tip, photographed on track leading down to a stream. Is there a more typical member of the Scottish fauna that would equally well fill that description?

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

Okay, so we have a 3ft long dark brown creature, probably no more than 15" at the shoulder,

I disagree.

What we have is a photo of a feline looking animal, but have no measurements at all to determine either length nor height.

If we had distances from the camera position to the game trail, to the tree in shot, girth of the tree, camera details including make, model, focal lenght, CCD dimensions (and preferably maker's angle of view specs), we might be able to get an approximation.

But given that we don't know the distance to the subject, given all the above, all we can come up is a theoretical size with estimated error margins.

Quote:

with a long tail that appears to taper from about half way along its length to the tip, photographed on track leading down to a stream. Is there a more typical member of the Scottish fauna that would equally well fill that description?

Domestic cat.

[LTC8K6]

Give us the original file from the camera.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

Unfortunately you havn't seen the location.

True, all we've seen is edited photos

do you have the originals or not ?

[EHocking]

Just thinking about the discussion we're just having.

If I was placing game cameras with the specific aim to capture potential cryptids, my solution to the guessing game on size would be to place markers (such as used for monitoring building movement) clearly in the camera's angle of view and would make sure I measured the distances between them and from the camera carefully.

With 2 in the foreground, mid and backgrounds you could at least be able to calculate relative body sizes of animals in a shot.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Marduk

True, all we've seen is edited photos

do you have the originals or not ?

... and do you have any photos of other identifiable animals at the same location?

If you had, you could (more) directly compare animals to get a relative size, i.e., "bigger than a badger but smaller than a deer".

At the moment I cannot see how 3ft has been determined to be the size of this particular subject.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

No not paranoid.

BUT..............I do know from experience that information requested from a certain police authorrity, did not include information that a Police Superintendant actually showed me in his office when he did a search for me on his works pc, (off the record so to speak as he would have been in deep doo dah if he had been caught doing so in the presence of an unauthorised person, ie me)

I think it's a mixture of incompetance, laziness and on rare occasions deliberately.

As I've said, I've made well over 1000 FOI requests and you would be surprised how different the results are from these authorities, even though they were sent the same worded request.

In fact on one occasion, I got a local authority to change their FOI procedures, because they were trying to charge people illegally for FOI requests. After a few emails showing they were breaking the law, they actually thanked me for bringing this to their attention and changed their procedures accordingly.

Most authorities don't really understand what they are expected to have to do when an FOI request hits their desk, so it's very hit or miss as to what you get back.

I deal with FOI requests fairly regularly and, from my experience, you are being paranoid. You may well get ambiguous answers back but, again only from my own experience, that may well be the way you've phrased the question. I've lost count of the times I've read a FOI request and thought 'Damn, I think I know what he's really after but he's asked the wrong question and what he's actually asked isn't going to be a whole lot of use to him'. This may be exacerbated by my working in IT and most questions come to me from people with a very limited understanding...

We're not allowed to question the request and heavily discouraged from inferring what they really should have asked (in case we get it wrong) so we end up having to answer the question exactly how it's (usually badly) phrased.

As for the time they take and the effort expended - they are given an extremely high priority in my organisation and often lead to us dropping other far more critical (IMHO) work to turn them around so they certainly don't suffer from not being treated seriously enough.

I would alslo say it is the most mis-used piece of legislation I've ever come across. Very few requests seem to match the spirit of the act and most are from people trying to use the info to push their own business. Those that aren't tend to be either extremely trivial or non-sensical.

Wonderful intentions behind it all but most of it seems to have just resulted in a massive waste of everyone's time and resources.

Hmmm, maybe I'll log my own FOI request asking how much resource has been spent satisfying FOI requests and how many hospitals or schools could have been built instead.....

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

Anyone who has any experience with game trail cameras will know that you place the cameras at heights where the IR beam could be trgiggered. There is no point placing a camera 6 foot in the air if the animal you are trying to photograph is only 2 or 3 foot high. It is common practice for the majority of wildlife organisations to place their cameras low to the ground. Cameras are usually placed on trees therefore you are slightly restricted as to where you place them. The idea is that you find the nearest tree to a trail and hope for the best. When the camera was first placed at the location, the grass was not long. Although it certainly has grown now.

I've done work setting up trail cameras for photographing jaguar. It involved making a fair sized clearing around the area each camera was set up in to ensure that anything triggering the camera would actually be photographed, and to avoid exactly the kind of obscured, ambiguous photo that you have presented. There were also no trees involved, although there were certainly plenty around, just stands for the cameras.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by EHocking

I disagree.

What we have is a photo of a feline looking animal, but have no measurements at all to determine either length nor height.
....
But given that we don't know the distance to the subject, given all the above, all we can come up is a theoretical size with estimated error margins.

I'm not sure where we disagree, 3ft was loosely supposed to indicate 3ft +/-0.5ft

Quote:

Domestic cat.

Try another member of the Scottish fauna.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

I'm not sure where we disagree, 3ft was loosely supposed to indicate 3ft +/-0.5ft



Try another member of the Scottish fauna.

I'm assuming you are refering to the Scottish Wildcat. If so, then although the size may be similar, the tail is completely wrong. Scottish Wildcats have thick tails ending in a large rounded blunt tip.

But you may be close to the animals identity. I am of the belief that some of these large hybrids/ferals have a good dose of wildcat genes in then, resulting in cats getting to some impressive sizes.

As for all you others demanding the original photo, the uncropped version was placed unaltered on the blog . And links to it are above.

But no matter what measurements are taken, or comparison animals viewed, it will not solve the identity of the animal. We cannot see it's head, we cannot calculate it's height because we can't see its feet. All we have is an ambiguous feline, of what I believe is approx 3 foot, (although others may disagree with this estimation). Until we get a clearer photograph, no-one can confirm either identity nor size 100%


But I appreciate your input and comments here, although I may not agree with them all.

If anything else comes up in this location, I'll let you guys know.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

I deal with FOI requests fairly regularly and, from my experience, you are being paranoid. You may well get ambiguous answers back but, again only from my own experience, that may well be the way you've phrased the question. I've lost count of the times I've read a FOI request and thought 'Damn, I think I know what he's really after but he's asked the wrong question and what he's actually asked isn't going to be a whole lot of use to him'. This may be exacerbated by my working in IT and most questions come to me from people with a very limited understanding...

We're not allowed to question the request and heavily discouraged from inferring what they really should have asked (in case we get it wrong) so we end up having to answer the question exactly how it's (usually badly) phrased.

As for the time they take and the effort expended - they are given an extremely high priority in my organisation and often lead to us dropping other far more critical (IMHO) work to turn them around so they certainly don't suffer from not being treated seriously enough.

I would alslo say it is the most mis-used piece of legislation I've ever come across. Very few requests seem to match the spirit of the act and most are from people trying to use the info to push their own business. Those that aren't tend to be either extremely trivial or non-sensical.

Wonderful intentions behind it all but most of it seems to have just resulted in a massive waste of everyone's time and resources.

Hmmm, maybe I'll log my own FOI request asking how much resource has been spent satisfying FOI requests and how many hospitals or schools could have been built instead.....

Ethan,

I have no doubt your work with dealing with FOI requests is both professionally done and accurate in your replies.

HOWEVER,

I have contacted EVERY local council in the UK, every police force and many government organisations, all in all over 600 different authorities. Some are very much on the ball, very quick and very thorough. Quite a few are the complete opposite.

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

I'm assuming you are refering to the Scottish Wildcat. If so, then although the size may be similar, the tail is completely wrong. Scottish Wildcats have thick tails ending in a large rounded blunt tip.

....

If anything else comes up in this location, I'll let you guys know.

I'm 95% certain it's

an otter.

Tail length and tapering, overall length, coloration, location and habitat all fit.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

I've done work setting up trail cameras for photographing jaguar. It involved making a fair sized clearing around the area each camera was set up in to ensure that anything triggering the camera would actually be photographed, and to avoid exactly the kind of obscured, ambiguous photo that you have presented. There were also no trees involved, although there were certainly plenty around, just stands for the cameras.

I wish I could make a large clearing in the forests, but the very nature of the commercial Forestry Commision Forests mean that this is almost impossible. We have to find small natural clearings or obvious tracks through the trees to place our camers.

Sadly, we also have to take into consideration whether the location could be visited by walkers or even hunters or poachers. I've had several cameras stolen, and now I restrict myself to locations away from areas when people walk. Sometimes this means a compromise is made where you are forced to place cameras in locations not totally ideal.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

I'm 95% certain it's

an otter.

Tail length and tapering, overall length, coloration, location and habitat all fit.

I disagree with the tail,

Check this tail..........



and compare the thickness of the tail to this tail

[sphenisc]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

I disagree with the tail,

Check this tail..........

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vl14Fxv1bv...00/zoomcat.JPG

and compare the thickness of the tail to this tail

http://www.leopardmag.co.uk/images/101.gif

The only conclusion I can draw, is you didn't read my post very carefully.

[McHaggis]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

I'm 95% certain it's

an otter.

Tail length and tapering, overall length, coloration, location and habitat all fit.

Oh sorry, I didn't click on the spoiler bit.

I'm still getting the hang of the forum

I did consider an otter at the time. However the numbers of known river otters in this part of Kintyre can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and sea otters have been spotted very rarely as well.

To be honest I would be just as happy if this image was an otter, as they are as rare round here as hens teeth.

But I still think its a cat though.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by sphenisc

I'm not sure where we disagree, 3ft was loosely supposed to indicate 3ft +/-0.5ft

Try another member of the Scottish fauna.

[slaps head]Well spotted.

[sthomson]

Couldn't it also be a dog? Or is Scotland also lacking in canines?

[William Parcher]

The image contains at least one optical illusion. A leaf, flower or other plant structure in the foreground is causing a false outline at first glance. You think you can see the origin of the tail at about the genital/butt area but you are really seeing that whitish plant. This causes confusion about the length, thickness and taper of the supposed tail. Look...

[sphenisc]

If it's a regularly used track, which it sounds like it is from your description, there's likely to be spraint around the area near the water.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MRKWPTghF8...int_exmoor.JPG

Have good look round and if you find any let us know.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by McHaggis

...But no matter what measurements are taken, or comparison animals viewed, it will not solve the identity of the animal...

Were there any other animals captured by this camera at that location around the time period of the photo we're discussing?