Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Thanks! I think I agree with you as it is the most plausible explanation. I think the other items mentioned just muddy the waters. The simplest explanation is generally the correct one.

Hip Coyote

And to the uneducated on the issue of law, robbery is the same as burglary. But it’s not, regardless of what people think or say.

Because some people think something does not make it right or accurate. To some, speech is violence. It is not.

Murder is the unlawful killing of an human. Which differentiates it from homicide, which is the lawful killing of a human.

The term Murder also has biblical implications. For instance the Commandment (I am not religious) is often mistakenly stated as thou shall not kill when in fact original text uses murder. Which makes the Commandment make sense. When one thinks about it, it makes sense otherwise how could anyone be part of the military, police service or even protect themselves or family from a deadly by using deadly force?

Once cannot murder an animal.

I do find trophy hunting objectionable. Could I shoot a deer and eat it? Yep. Never have but could.

I have killed my fair share of fish and eat them. Can’t say I lost any sleep over it. All eaten of course. Lots of blue fin tuna has been consumed around here the last few months. Sushi mostly.

Would I shoot a giraffe? Only if he were reaching into his waistband for a gun. And tomorrow we will be eating a murdered turkey…or should I say a lawfully killed turkey.

All of this could be wrong too. As Gary Larson pointed out in one of his famous cartoons, Col Sanders was standing before God and was dismayed to find out God was a chicken. If God is a tuna, I’ve some serious damnation problems.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Ghost devil deer. It’s pretty obvious.

JBRIII

Are there any previous images, before this one in which the red deer was present?
Does not seem likely, but sensors can have after-images. I've read where you can take a photo, the take a second with the camera / sensor in complete darkness and get a dim image of the previous photo. Might be more likely in low light conditions of a trail camera?

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Looks to me like it could be a previous image of a deer that didn’t get completely deleted from the card. A ghost image of sorts.

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Now that is very interesting! The after image idea. I will convey this to my friend and see what their neighbor finds in previous photos. I doubt a red one but maybe a doe pointed in that direction. I do agree with the idea that the red focus light on the field cam is the source of the red color.

Thx!

lukevaliant Loc: gloucester city,n. j.

i think you nailed it

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Yes, I am asking them to research the previous photos on their card. Thx!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Of course, we are all guessing, since we have not seen the actual installation and situation, but I have a different theory. Many field or trail cameras have infrared sensors to detect tbe presence of animals or other triggers. Some have infrared capture syatems. I'm guessing that this camera has an infrared light source and that the image is from an earlier infrared capture when the deer was in that different spot.

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

That is possible bc the image of the buck overlaps the legs of the doe.

It just seems too big for a doe compared to a buck, when the doe is further behind the buck? She should be smaller?

The simplest answer is generally the correct one. Just don’t know if we’ll ever know for sure. We’re asking the neighbor to look at the memory card images. Thx!

Mario22 Loc: Albany, NY

Yes, that does make a lot of sense. We will have to see what the neighbor finds when they look at their memory card images. Thx

MJPerini

I think Basil most likely got this right.
The focus assist is separate , and red, The flash on trail cams is weak and falls off fast.
The second deer is reversed (so it is not some kind of optical doubling ) and seems to be a Doe
In the bright flash and the time it takes to recover night vision, it would be easy to miss the second deer while your attention was focused on the Buck.
I certainly cannot know for sure based on limited information, but it is a simple and plausible explanation and if it is NOT that any other explanation for an apparition in red, reversed and without antlers gets pretty sketchy.
If you do come up with more evidence that points a different way , I would be interested to know.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

No. Murder (homicide) is killing another human being illegally. It does not apply to animals. You may disagree with killing animals, but for the majority of humans in this world, it is common. You don't have to do the killing yourself to understand that someone has to.

If you are religious, the Bible supports the eating of meat. If you are not, then please explain to me why homo-sapiens have canine teeth, an attribute found only in carnivores. When you anthropomorphize animal behavior, you do a disservice to the animals and yourself.

I should be clear; I am not opposed to people who choose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. What you eat and why you eat it is a personal choice. I could go on, but I don't wish to offend you unnecessarily.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

-- The sizes are too disproportionate for both figures to be actual animals photo'd at the same time, unless the red one farther back is an Amazon plus sized specimen.

-- The color saturations of the red figure do not seem consistent with an illuminated animal. More like a projected light/shadow pattern in vegetation, that is somehow shaped that way, and seen by the camera in that hue.

-- Animals illuminated by infrared lighting recorded by my trail cam do not show in the images as red figures. They are seen as white and shades of gray. Likewise with other infrared trail cam photos I have seen.
Neither the coloring on the buck nor the area in question farther back, are like that in typical infrared trail cam photos I've seen before.

From just this one image, I'm inclined to think lighting/shadows combined to cause a pattern the camera recorded this way. In person, the human eye may not even pick up on the pattern the way the camera lens/sensor/processor detected and recorded it.

None of my previous points are still valid, probably, if there is some type of double exposure of something that involves a change to focal length or camera-to-subject distance.