Dr. Anthony Ciani
For my take of the UHS subject, it is probably a uniform color, although the
pixels in the scan are about the width any camo pattern would have, which
could blur the pattern across pixels, but not by much. The transparency
slide I saw appeared to have no patterning at all, and looked uniform. I
tried searching through some camo patterns in a couple of catalogs, and
there were none which had that overall dark gray color. Almost every pattern
possessed high contrasts, and very few had colors different from greens and
earth tones, usually being blues. The only "gray" camo patterns were
digital camos, like those used in ACUs, which are light in color. The color
is very much a dark color, likely a gray, possibly a slightly silvery
black, but not the jet black used in clothing.
The raised foot appears to be bare. There appears to be nothing covering the
face, and the area around the face looks to be a lighter color, but still
grayish and dark.
After studying the slide and high-res scans, it seems that the UHS itself is
a dark color. The coloration of leaves hanging behind the UHS is visible,
particularly red-orange tints. The scene lacks much in the way of green and
blue objects. If the UHS had color, the flash appears to have been sufficient
to show it.
The UHS appears to be carrying another UHS, but this could be a trick due to
a color variation on the UHS object itself. Still, the right arm appears to
be beneath the second UHS, supporting it.
The sources of the bright spots are still unclear, but may be due to dust
adhering to the film, possibly during processing. These could also have been
dust particles nearer to the camera when the picture was taken, although they
do seem to be on the UHS.
As for being a human, outside of a costume, the face appears to have
characteristics which are outside normal human traits. The eyes are visible
and appear large and dark. The nose also appears to have rather large nostrils.
There is enough clarity to make comparisons of anatomic ratios. The legs are
too short, comprising about 40% of the total height. A human leg should be 50%,
or a little more. The arms are too long. If relaxed at the sides, the tip of
the fist would be midway between the crotch and the knee. A human fist should
be close to the crotch. The total length of the arm and fist is approximately
the same as the length of the leg from the hip. The humerus to femur ratio is
approximately 1.1:1, a human should be 0.7:1. The femur to tibia ratio is
difficult to determine, but may be 1.2:1, which is consistent across humans and
all of the great apes (although gorillas and orangs tend to have slightly longer
femurs). If the subject were 5'6" tall, then the shoulders would be 27 inches
across. The hips also seem wide for a human, but could be on the upper end for
human females. If this is a human, it is a very deformed one. The ratios are
consistent with "less evolved" apes.
As for being a hoax. This does present a possibility, although difficult. To
obtain the ratios measured in the image, the head of the actor would need to be
beneath the head of the costume, between the large "trapezium" muscles. The
shoulder width is fully outside a human capability, so the arms would be entirely
prosthetic, with the actor's arms inside the torso. The hips would likely have
require padding. The feet would be simple to do up. The figure is clearly not
in a stable position, and so must have been walking (or anchored).
It is also possible that this is a mannequin, a construction, which is easier to
build for a still photo than a complicated costume. I was furnished with a
Picture CD that contained all of the pictures from that film strip. There were
25 images (typical for a 24 exposure strip), and they seemed to be in order, in
sets of 4, as is typical of 35mm film. The image with the UHS was at the
beginning of a strip. Unless they were conveniently cut at a boundary, or the
camera deactivated, there were no images of someone setting up a mannequin.
There were images from the camera being setup and removed (it was relocated at
one point), but not every time. Also, at some point, an additional game camera
was added in the view of the first (it can be seen on a tree to the right of the
UHS). No pictures were taken of that camera being setup. That second camera did
take some pictures, but failed to advance the film properly. So a mannequin
could have been setup, without any pictures of it, either by the owners
deactivating the camera, or by hoaxers who stayed out of sensor range.
As for being an unclassified ape species. No problem, if you will allow yourself
to accept that such a thing has remained hidden from scientists, or scientists
have been obtuse to its existence, for such a long time. Although, if you
consider that such a thing only remained hidden from science for about 100 years
mid 1850's until 1967), then it does not seem all that implausible, as there are
species which evaded the hunter's bullet during several hundred years of
exploration, on all continents. That such an animal remained hidden [from science]
for 100 years seems an unimpressive feat. That science has chosen to ignore it
for over 40 years, is truly disturbing. I may prefer the idea of a hoax, lest
science be shamed.