Looking for an image of a small creature

[George Ford]

The photo I'm looking for is around Victorian times maybe a bit more modern though.

From what I remember (bit hazy) it is a shot of a road or path in a park maybe. With trees at each side. There is a horse maybe in the picture and a well dressed gentleman. In the back ground waling from right to left is a small little creature. It's blurry and you can't quiet work out what it is or if its just a piece of paper blowing about or something. I think the photo is sepia in colour.

[Carnivorous Entity]

The photo I'm looking for is around Victorian times maybe a bit more modern though.

From what I remember (bit hazy) it is a shot of a road or path in a park maybe. With trees at each side. There is a horse maybe in the picture and a well dressed gentleman. In the back ground waling from right to left is a small little creature. It's blurry and you can't quiet work out what it is or if its just a piece of paper blowing about or something. I think the photo is sepia in colour.

That's not it, is it? It's obviously not from Victorian times, but I figure details in memory could get fuzzy.

[George Ford]

That's not it, is it? It's obviously not from Victorian times, but I figure details in memory could get fuzzy.

]

Thats the one!!! LOL my mind must have just made the rest of it up! Well done for finding it with my rubbish description.

[George Ford]

What do you think it is?

(LOL just reading back through my original post.. " A well dressed gentlemen".. HAHAHAH!)

Edited December 19, 2011 by bulveye

[+ouija ouija]

I think it has been added to the original photo. Why? because the horses don't appear to be spooked by it.

[Junior Chubb]

bulveye, it looks like your very own 'Thunderbird Photo' was found in record time!

Its a good example for me why we may never find the missing thunderbird photo or agree that it has been found.

I had a tinker in PS to see if any clarity could be shed onto the 'figure' in the image, I have removed some of the blur from the image (as much as my limited skill could achieve) and attached it to this post.

This doesnt shed much new light on things, if anything it adds more questions as the 'creature' appears to have a tail. A small monkey walking upright for a second or two? ( I know the legs are long, just taking a shot in the dark)

@ouija I think the horse on the right may be spooked slightly, looks slightly of its upright position, feet moving away from the 'creature'.

But as usual not much can be proven or debunked from a single image. Could be Photoshopped, could be a trick of the light on a mundane object, could be a monkey, could be a model placed in the scene, could be a two foot alien semi-spooking horses for fun in the park.

Could even be the missing "Well dressed gentleman"

Did you have any ideas what it was form memory, are they different now you have seen the image again?

[Carnivorous Entity]

No problem, mate. We had a very comprehensive thread on it a couple years back, maybe less then that but eh. Was when I had my old account still. I think it was generally concluded to be a dog photographed at an odd angle.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Carnivorous Entity

[psyche101]

]

Thats the one!!! LOL my mind must have just made the rest of it up! Well done for finding it with my rubbish description.

I have seen it before, there is a thread here in crypto somewhere, it's a puppy front on. It's just badly blurred. If you look carefully, you will see three legs even in this blurry depiction.

No problem, mate. We had a very comprehensive thread on it a couple years back, maybe less then that but eh. Was when I had my old account still. I think it was generally concluded to be a dog photographed at an odd angle.

Edited December 20, 2011 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

That's not it, is it? It's obviously not from Victorian times, but I figure details in memory could get fuzzy.

That is the first pic I thought of too.

Good work.

[+DieChecker]

I have seen it before, there is a thread here in crypto somewhere, it's a puppy front on. It's just badly blurred. If you look carefully, you will see three legs even in this blurry depiction.

I think it might be a duck or large pigeon... a bird anyway.

[psyche101]

I think it might be a duck or large pigeon... a bird anyway.

I think the photo I presented a long time ago was more convincing, however, one thing we can be agreed on is that it is a perfect example of very bad photography!

[+DieChecker]

I think the photo I presented a long time ago was more convincing, however, one thing we can be agreed on is that it is a perfect example of very bad photography!

Another classic example of people seeing what they want to??

I've forgotten what was in that long ago thread. Maybe I'll look it up.

My "duck" was just a thought.

[VvROMULUSvV]

It's one of those little monkeys that old time street entertainers used to have - that steal your money!

[George Ford]

I'm finding it really hard to see as a duck or puppy? Sometimes on threads with a weird looking creature, when someone points out what it is you say 'Oh, yeah. Its's obvious now!' But with this I just have no idea which part of the puppy is supposed to be what. I appreciate the duck drawing as an explanation but I'm sorry I cant see that either.

[Blues Girl]

All I see is an attempt at adding something to an original picture that was not there. This is CLEARLY not a puppy, no matter how many angles you look at it. And it is not a bird. I think someone just added a human figure to the picture after it was taken to make it look like they caught a creature on film. This is a hoax, I'm afraid

[+ouija ouija]

Whatever it is, it hasn't got a shadow.

I can't see a puppy or a duck there ...... the legs are bending the wrong way for it to be a duck.

[The Unseen]

OMG,No telling what it is,Not everything spooks horses and it seems like whoever took the picture didn't say a word about the creature and why did it come out transparent ,It is almost see through and everything else is solid and shows up better,could it be a fake?

[Rafterman]

Clearly fake.

[George Ford]

I don't think it looks fake. The creature has the same 'blur' as the rest of the picture. I don't know what it was ever claimed to be? Maybe the photographer saw the picture and thought WTF? and just posted it and was open to suggestion.

[Blues Girl]

It has the same blur as the rest of the picture because the faker wanted it to look natural. With photoshop and the ever advancing technology these days, people can make anything look like what they want

[gnostic-deity]

looks like a kid

[+DieChecker]

It has the same blur as the rest of the picture because the faker wanted it to look natural. With photoshop and the ever advancing technology these days, people can make anything look like what they want

Except this photo has been floating around since 2004. Taken in Chile I believe. True, they had photoshop back then, but unless you knew what you were doing it was easy to spot.

While photographing the state police on horseback in the Parque Forestal of Santiago, Chile, civil engineer Germán Pereira notices something unusual. On the left side of the photo, near one of the horses, something resembling an alien being can be seen apparently crossing the road. What could this creature be, and how did it manage to survive on our planet for so long without being spotted?

http://thetruthbehindthescenes.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/accidental-alien-sighting-in-parque-forestal-chile/

This is interesting...

Nine Possible Explainations

Here is the photographers testimony.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case380.htm

[Alaskanangel]

I think this photo is a fake. Just because it's blurry like the rest of the picture doesn't mean it's real, especially since Photoshop exists!

[Rafterman]

Except this photo has been floating around since 2004. Taken in Chile I believe. True, they had photoshop back then, but unless you knew what you were doing it was easy to spot.

I have to disagree with this statement. The commercial version of Photoshop was pretty sophisticated even in 2004.

[+DieChecker]

I have to disagree with this statement. The commercial version of Photoshop was pretty sophisticated even in 2004.

I originally had a much earlier date in my post, but had to edit the post when I found out the pic was from 2004. I thought originally it was from like 1990. Please forgive me??

Edited December 22, 2011 by DieChecker