I think it looks like a cow, walking towards the camera!

As many have already stated, I think it's just a leaf. That's the first thing that came to mind when I looked at it.

Whatever it is, it certainly isn't human. It could be from another dimension and the camera picked it up and it was invisible to the naked eye. I photographed a ufo that was invisible to the naked eye and the detail was amazing.

It will be interesting what further info comes out about the creature.

have you noticed how it blurs near the edges of the object in question? looks to me like its pretty photoshopped, like someone pasted another image - possibly one they created themselves - onto it and used a blur tool to hide the edges that wouldnt match.

I agree. I looked at the picture a bunch, and that's what I kept thinking every time I looked at it, that the edges are too blurry.

explain this one? its just an orange suit with blurry edges..or something it doesnt have any sort of texture its just plain orange.. but oh well who am i to say whats real and what not

Interesting post from the past. Well while it's been bumped to the top, might as well take a look.

I can say without a doubt the photo was edited with Photoshop.

EXIF info:
EXIF IFD0

Picture Orientation = normal (1)
X-Resolution = 96/1 ===> 96
Y-Resolution = 96/1 ===> 96
X/Y-Resolution Unit = inch (2)
Software / Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0
Last Modified Date/Time = 2005:12:08 21:36:26

EXIF Sub IFD

Colour Space = 65535
Image Width = 320 pixels
Image Height = 240 pixels

For anyone hoping this is an authentic creature, I hate to break it to you, but this is a leaf blowing in front of the lens.

I have trail cameras myself, and I can tell you that they are NOT heat triggered. I have some that are triggered by motion, and some that simply snap a photo every minute, which can be changed by the owner. I would say this camera could be either one of those types, but I am not sure a leaf would have set off a motion activated camera, so it could have been preset to snap a photo every so often.

I think it is obvious this is a leaf for a few reasons, one of which is the color. The second reason is that anatomically speaking, a creature like this should not exist. I say that because even though the "creature" appears a good distance from the camera, masking certain features, it is obvious that the "legs" of the "creature" end abruptly. Another problem is the square head, the lack of hands and certain limb features, and the overall size and stature.

Anyone who has spent a good deal of time looking at photos of primates should understand exactly what I am attempting to explain, and that is basically what everyone is thinking right? Bigfoot? I would stake my reputation on the claim that this is not a wild, forest-dwelling animal, and I also do not discount the possibility of a hoax.

The ONLY thing that slightly bothers me is upon zooming in on the photo, and paying close attention to the edge of the tree in the center, it is hard to determine if the object in question passes in front of or behind the tree.

Edit to add: Upon further scrutinizing I have decided to change my mind. I do not think this is a leaf anymore. I would like to change my interpretation of this picture, firmly and openly stating that I now believe it to be a doctored image. So basically I am saying it is a fake.

You may wonder why I decided to change my interpretation, and the main reason is the edges of the object, and the edges of the tree located in the center of the picture, just don't sit right with me. I genuinely believe this could have been a leaf at one point, but it was subsequently edited to cast doubt on the object's status as a leaf. You may disagree, but that is what I believe. I didn't just look at it briefly and come to this conclusion, but rather I have scrutinized every aspect of the photo before making this claim, and I ask anyone who disagrees with me to do the same.

If I am wrong, then I suspect that the outlines of the object and the tree in the photograph look the way they do simply because of the freak conditions and timing of the movement and quality of the shot, which in my opinion would be more distinguishable nine times out of ten.

Ehh, the photos are too sketchy to really prove or disprove anything, imo.
I'd really like to believe it's something though.