Taking photo 14, for instance, I think trying to interpret individual groups of pixels may be prone to error, particularly away from the center of the image where lens quality isn't best. Are raw (uncompressed) versions of the photos available? If so, we could avoid confusion from JPEG artifacts, and we'd have more confidence that what we see represents something real.
That's not to say the images are poor quality. However, when you zoom in to inspect individual pixels in any photo, even higher-quality JPEG compression comes up short. For example, throughout the image, you can see edges introduced at the boundaries of the 8x8 pixel blocks from this compression. Within each block, fine details get blurred away, distorting the hue/saturation which we rely on to distinguish objects, especially in regions of low contrast such as the shady area in question here.
To me, the dark greenish areas resemble shrubs/foliage similar to what you see in other parts of the photo. It's less clear what the brighter white specks (shoes?) may be, but because similar white specks are scattered throughout the photo, it seems more likely that they are something more prevalent in that environment, like leaves, litter, or freshly weathered rocks.
I am not ruling out that the image is a body, but just sharing my interpretation from a photography standpoint. I do think it would be helpful to see the raw version of this particular photo, although maybe that would be difficult to upload online since it would be such an enormous file?
