Verde
Muse
Merged Alien Big Cats in the UK?
- Thread starter mummymonkey
- Start date
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.
LTC has posted links to the full size images
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
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
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
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.
No not paranoid.Paranoid much ?
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.
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
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 930
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.
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.
"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.
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
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 930
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?
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
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 930
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
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
I was just commenting on the presence or not of EXIF information on some digital cameras.
sthomson
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 930
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
.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
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,235
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?