unexplainably strange

[onebigskittle]

Second pic is one if not two coons for sure. If you zoom in you can see the rings on the tail. It gets too blurry for me to tell if its one or two. 100% coon for sure.
First pic is a bigfoot pushing a grocery cart full of beef jerky.

I could put up with the Ghost but don't pee bigfoot off or mess with his jerky

[DaGriz]

Second picture is just to show the time and that the thing was not there. First picture is the unexplainable thing It's not a coon,porcupine, owl or other known animal. I am not near any houses or near a cemetary. What ever it is was there for just a moment when the camera triggered at 6:01AM as it is not there in the second picture which was take 11 minutes prior at 5:50AM The camera infrared flash caught it and reflected off it which apparently caused the sparkling look. There was not picture of it when camera activated later and 6:07AM
I did not alter the picture in any way or form. I can only believe it is a supernatural something as myself nor anyone who has seen the picture can provide a better explanation

[JPjunkie]

Second picture is just to show the time and that the thing was not there. First picture is the unexplainable thing It's not a coon,porcupine, owl or other known animal. I am not near any houses or near a cemetary. What ever it is was there for just a moment when the camera triggered at 6:01AM as it is not there in the second picture which was take 11 minutes prior at 5:50AM The camera infrared flash caught it and reflected off it which apparently caused the sparkling look. There was not picture of it when camera activated later and 6:07AM
I did not alter the picture in any way or form. I can only believe it is a supernatural something as myself nor anyone who has seen the picture can provide a better explanation

Call Ghost Busters

[VixChix]

to me it looks like another light shining onto the leaves behind that small tree - could someone else have been out there with a flashlight?

[DaGriz]

Nobody else anywhere near. No roads close enough for it to be headlight. No houses or buildings within 500yds. No explanation of what it was!

[learn2flyfish]

I'm not photo analysis guru but I did notice that when I toggled between the two images, there is a slight alteration in the center of the image.

Going from the raccoon image to the other image, the center and right side of the image seem to shift slightly. But the left side of the image does not move (I was focusing on the two leaves in the tree near the center at 10 o'clock.

[Pydpiper]

Here is another thought, no animal is going to react cosmetically to a black light, or a flash of the same wavelength.
But, urine will.
If animal peed, then walked through it, as they often do, urine would be on its underside, and urine can glow under UV lighting, much like that picture.
My guess, UV flash and a luminesent liquid, likely urine.

[_woods]

Here is another thought, no animal is going to react cosmetically to a black light, or a flash of the same wavelength.
But, urine will.
If animal peed, then walked through it, as they often do, urine would be on its underside, and urine can glow under UV lighting, much like that picture.
My guess, UV flash and a luminesent liquid, likely urine.

Infrared camera. Other end of the spectrum.

[lscha]

I studied both photos and it looked like the sparkle was the same kind of light reflection coming from the ground clutter in the middle.

If I made a story out of the two......whatever animal(s) is in the first pic moved behind those trees and suddenly created a disturbance in the ground clutter (whether fighting or digging) to trigger the flash on the camera. That was free. You're welcome.

[Pydpiper]

Here is another thought, no animal is going to react cosmetically to a black light, or a flash of the same wavelength.
But, urine will.
If animal peed, then walked through it, as they often do, urine would be on its underside, and urine can glow under UV lighting, much like that picture.
My guess, UV flash and a luminesent liquid, likely urine.

Infrared camera. Other end of the spectrum.

In advanced forms of light, you are right. But in the inexpensive LEDs used for this camera, and typical IR wavelengths the similarities will show as much the same in this application.

A useless but entertaining fact..
You can not see UV (effective wavelengths) or IR with the naked eye. Both different waves of light, but sharing similar characteristics.
If you look in the end of a remote control, like a TV remote, you can not see the LEDs flash as they transmit. (IR)
However, a video camera will pick that out with ease. Use your phone set to "video" or and video camera, and look at the LEDs as you push buttons, they light up like a flashlight, typically strobing. Easy way to see if a remote is working or not.
You do not have to record, just view the LEDs through the camera.
This also works on UV flashes, in the real UV world we can not see that wavelength, at all, but the inexpensive UV LEDs we see on cameras are simply standard LEDs with a phosphorus coating. Very different frequencies, but sharing some similar properties.

[prossbow]

As requested already, can we have the originals?(providing these aren't the original resolution) The pics in the post are very small in res.

Kevin

[wabi]

First picture (timewise) looks like a critter on the ground.
Second picture (timewise) looks like a critter climbing the tree.