Is the photo of Kristen Lindsey holding a dead cat with an arrow through the head Photoshopped?

Is the photograph of Kristen Lindsey, a veterinarian, holding up a ginger tabby-and-white cat that she allegedly shot with an arrow photo-edited or not? I think this is a very important question and worth exploring, which I do here.  

Kristen Lindsey and dead cat

Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles: Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

Cat shot by veterinarian Texas
Posted on social media. Is this a fake? I don’t think so.

If it is Photoshopped (photo-edited or fabricated) then it is a very silly stunt because it has cost her her job and we know that for a fact at this stage.  However, the police investigating the matter referred to the possibility of the photograph being Photoshopped.  Incidentally, the police spokesperson said that they have now washed their hands of the investigation and passed the matter on to animal control in a different area because they say the matter is outside of their jurisdiction which doesn’t sound very good to me.

We can look at the question of photo-editing from two points of view, I believe.  Firstly, we can look at the picture itself and inspect it for signs of Photoshopping.  Secondly, we can discuss why she might post on Facebook such an image together with, in her own words, a statement which supports the fact that she has shot the cat with a bow and arrow.

The Photo

Looking at the image in detail – a blown up part of it illustrates this page – personally I cannot see anything which indicates to me that it is a fabricated image.  It is a rather blurred image which is surprising.  It indicates that the photograph was taken with a cheap camera. It may even be a cheap film camera with small format film (110 format) as opposed to a digital camera. The colours are very saturated.  In fact, they are overly saturated while the face of Lindsey is washed out. There is little detail and it is unsharp. I don’t think these points are particularly relevant but they are rather strange because modern digital cameras, however cheap, produce high-quality images.  I suspect that this is an image from mobile phone (cell phone) or film camera.

If the photograph has been created using software then the creator would have two pose Lindsey holding an arrow in the position shown in the photograph and then he/she would have to place a separate photograph of the cat over that background image in the correct position.  The cat is clearly dead.  In order for Lindsey to place a picture of a dead cat in the exact position she would have to had acquired a dead cat somehow or other.  She would then have photo-edit it to remove the background around the cat and then placed it with precision on the background photograph of herself to give the impression that she is holding up the dead cat with the arrow embedded in the cat’s head.

The obvious barrier is finding a dead cat which is in such a position which gives the impression that it is hanging from an arrow embedded into the base of his skull.  I think it is almost impossible to find such a picture which fits in so neatly. Also the cat is very much like the neighbour’s cat, Tiger.

There are no lines or indications around Lindsey’s right arm where it makes contact with the cat which gives the impression to me that an image of the cat has been added to the background image.  Although I will give way to somebody who is better at photo-editing than me if they can provide a good argument.

Slightly bent arrow

Importantly and lastly, the arrow is bowed (bent) slightly due to the pressure from the weight of the dead cat. This indicates the photo is real. If it was fabricated the creator of the picture would probably not have thought about bending the arrow to make it look real.

The Mentality

Turning then to the mentality behind fabricating such a picture, it is difficult to find a good reason to do it when you bear in mind that Kirsten Lindsey is a veterinarian and posing in such a provocative picture and posting it on Facebook is bound to be highly damaging to her career and social standing at least. Why should she want to do that as some sort of stunt?  It doesn’t make sense. It is not rational. It would have taken quite a lot of effort to fabricate such a picture to make it as convincing as it is. Why spent all that time trying to destroy your career?

However, if she genuinely believes that feral cats are pests and creatures to be shot at and killed (many people do) and if people in her social circle think likewise she is likely to believe it is acceptable and perhaps in her confidence (some might say arrogance) she thought she could post the photo on Facebook.  She is bragging. This scenario indicates that the photograph is genuine so from a mentality point of view one comes to the conclusion that the photograph is genuine and not fabricated.

The comments from Facebook “friends” or social media contacts in response to the photo and her words are quite mild and supportive of her. They are amused. This supports the idea that her associates don’t find the photo offensive which then supports the view that she might want to show off to them.

Has anyone got any ideas about this? Please comment if you have.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

34 thoughts on “Is the photo of Kristen Lindsey holding a dead cat with an arrow through the head Photoshopped?”

  1. Don’t forget about the bushes she is standing in. The ground would be about a foot down from her knees giving her obscenely short legs. Also, there is no blood in this pic and the cats paws and tail are not limp. It looks like the person who photoshopped this was very *brightness* happy and over-used that feature through Photoshop.

    Kristen Lindsey was probably not the person who posted this. The main source for KBTX lives about 20 mins from Brenham TX- where KL works/ used to work and refused to give her source of who pointed out the photo to her. She is the only eyewitness to have actually seen the photo on KL’s facebook page. KBTX is a college news station and therefore not fully liable to report fabricated news stories. Any mainstream media reporting this story quotes KBTX.

    Reply
  2. ‘house cats’ are carnivorous predators that have been domesticated by humans. I find it ironic to hear humans say that they have ‘fixed’ their cat. That implies the cat was ‘broken’, before they subjugated it and mutilated its reproductive organs. The only justifiable reason for rendering cats sterile is the belief there are already too many cats. If returned to the wild, ‘house cats’ will quickly revert to their natural state as predators or they will die from starvation and/or they will fall prey to another predator. I have witnessed a ‘house cat’ stalking a sparrow and in the next instant an eagle swooped down and carried it away. I have seen a large owl pursuing my neighbors pet dog at dusk. The dog escaped because the owl broke off the pursuit when it saw we humans.

    If you believe the eagle killed the cat more humanely and less painfully than the archer who shot the cat through the head, then you are living in a fantasy of your own making. The eagle probably started eating the cat before it was dead and the eagle or the owl doesn’t care if their prey is someone’s
    pet.

    Just because the archer shot and killed a cat does not automatically result in a crime being committed. Texas law makes a provision for killing a cat, even someone’s pet cat, under certain conditions.

    TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 42.092 : Texas Statutes – Section 42.092: CRUELTY TO NONLIVESTOCK ANIMALS

    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/9/42/42.092

    (b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:
    (1) tortures an animal or in a cruel manner kills or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
    (2) without the owner’s effective consent, kills, administers poison to, or causes serious bodily injury to an animal;
    (6) without the owner’s effective consent, causes bodily injury to an animal.

    (d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
    (1) the actor had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the actor or to another person by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code; or
    (2) the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific research.

    (e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) (2) or (6) that:
    (1) the animal was discovered on the person’s property in the act of or after injuring or killing the person’s livestock animals or damaging the person’s crops and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery; or
    (2) the person killed or injured the animal within the scope of the person’s employment as a public servant or in furtherance of activities or operations associated with electricity transmission or distribution, electricity generation or operations associated with the generation of electricity, or natural gas delivery.

    (f) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful:
    (1) form of conduct occurring solely for the purpose of or in support of:
    (A) fishing, hunting, or TRAPPING or
    (B) wildlife management, wildlife or DEPREDATION CONTROL or shooting preserve practices as regulated by state and federal law; or
    PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE

    TITLE 5. WILDLIFE AND PLANT CONSERVATION

    SUBTITLE C. FUR-BEARING ANIMALS

    CHAPTER 71. LICENSES AND REGULATIONS

    Sec. 71.001. DEFINITIONS. In this subtitle:

    (10) “Depredation” means the loss of or damage to agricultural crops, livestock, poultry, wildlife, or personal property.
    (5) “Livestock animal” means:
    (A) cattle, sheep, swine, goats, ratites, or poultry commonly raised for human consumption;
    (B) a horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny;
    (C) native or nonnative hoofstock raised under agriculture practices; or
    (D) native or nonnative fowl commonly raised under agricultural practices.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Please see section e, subsection 1. Please do a little work of your own and look up the Texas states legal definition of ‘depredation’.

    There are some folks who claim they can say for a mathematical certainty that the dead cat in the grainy low resolution photo is identical to the Gator riding cat in the video, known as Tiger. If you compare the photo of the female in the dead cat photo with the more recent photo of Kristen Lindsey, who is 31 years old today, then it is highly unlikely that dead cat is Tiger or that the dead cat was killed in Texas less than a month ago, unless Tiger and/or KL are both capable of traveling in space and time.

    KL was born 2-29-1984. She graduated from the University of Wyoming in 2006, but did not complete vet school at Colorado State University until 2012. She went to work as a vet in Texas that same year. Based on the apparent age difference between KL in the photo below I will make an educated guess that KL killed that cat some place other than Texas BEFORE she completed her undergraduate work in 2006.

    Reply
    • It is almost certain that e(1) does not apply. That section must apply to farmers and their livestock. It applies to commercial damage. KL was not in in process of commercial farming. Therefore she has no defence. You have written a very long post to say very little, I am sorry to say.

      Reply
      • Sodbuster — or would you prefer I call you Woody? Or Ed? Or Molly? Or Betty? — you are living in a fantasy of your own making. Dr. Phil McGraw would have a field day with you.

        Reply
          • Publishing his comment also shows how nutty he is. He’s gone from infuriating to irritating to downright boring. I guess his psychosis doesn’t allow him to think before he hits that “Post Comment” button.

            Reply
          • ROFLMAO!!! I’m so glad I clicked on one of those “most recent posts” links at the side-bar. I never read this article of yours before. And I MOST CERTAINLY didn’t post the ACCURATE comments made here by someone calling themselves Sodbuster.

            LOL!!!

            Psychotic doesn’t even begin to describe you cat-licking mentally-defective a**-wipes. LOL!!!

            Reply
      • How amusing that Woody should try to use Texas Penal Code 42.092 to justify killing a pet cat. He clearly didn’t read the announcement made yesterday;

        ““At 7:59 this morning, the Austin County Sheriff has completed the investigation of the Animal Cruelty case first reported to us last Friday,” the Austin County Sheriff said in a statement on Facebook. “The completed case file has been turned over to the Austin County District Attorney for filing of charges under Texas Penal Code 42.092. With the completion of the investigation, the Sheriff’s Office will not release any further comments or updates to this case. Any comments, questions or information requests must be made directly to the District Attorney’s Office.”

        Reply
  3. The navy and airfarce is trying to spur cat sentiment in the wake of people realizing all cats have toxoplasmosis and can not reasonably be kept as pets.(you should have a toxoplasma infected animal in a level 4 biohazard containment room).

    Reply
  4. You can usually buy frozen mice at a reptile pet store. Animal behaviourist Peter Neville also suggests providing dead hens with their feathers still on from local farm shops. These provide cats with an outlet for tearing and shredding (prior to eating) which they just don’t get from ordinary cat food.

    Pica is a craving to eat inedible objects. We mainly associate this behaviour with pregnant women, but some cats (mainly Oriental breeds and indoor-only) can develop these same cravings. For some it begins as wool sucking, which then progresses to eating woollen or cloth items. For others like my Merlin, it’s a distorted version of hunting behaviour, whereby they start eating the items they play with. When he used to toss foam toe-separators around and catch them, I had no idea he was eating them until he regurgitated a whole one! I thought it was a one-off, until several weeks later he produced half of one. Merlin had never been happy being indoors all the times and constantly tried to escape, so we moved to an area with a secure garden to allow him some freedom. Once he had the opportunity to hunt lizards and bugs, he never ate anything unusual again.

    Reply
  5. I appreciate your suggestions. Actually the frozen mice seems like a good solution, and she’d get the benefit of “raw” food. When I used to take her out on a leash, and let her free in the yard, I saw her chase and eat a mouse.

    I’m thinking about a way to hang it on the porch, so she can jump up for it. Just a thought…. Now, to find the mice!

    I have to look up “pica” since I don’t know what that is.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

follow it link and logo