-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Seeing Cryptids: The Problems
- Thread starter jerrywayne
- Start date
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
Godfather, II.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
Last edited:
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
David Thompson's "Bigfoot" Track Find
This isn't a sighting. It is a historical account (a track find) that was culled and used by Bigfoot enthusiasts to give Bigfoot a historical grounding.
Here is the story: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/davidthompson.htm
I was never impressed with this information as evidence for Bigfoot, primarily because Thompson himself calls the find a large grizzly track.
Something did cause me to wonder, though. Thompson mentions that other members of his party thought the tracks may belong to a "young mammouth."What exactly did that mean? Surely, not the woolly mammoth?
Over at BFF the Thompson story has recently appeared again. This time I looked a little deeper and found a definitive solution to the "mammouth" question.
http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860
This at least shows what may have troubled Thompson about the track. He was looking for evidence of surviving mammoths. Also, given his work with First Nation peoples, it is telling that he apparently hears nothing about a sasquatch-like animal from them.
(Over at BFF I was told the link doesn't work, although it works for me. If it doesn't work, try Googling --Maps and Mammoths -- it is part of the "Discovering Lewis and Clark" page.)
This isn't a sighting. It is a historical account (a track find) that was culled and used by Bigfoot enthusiasts to give Bigfoot a historical grounding.
Here is the story: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/davidthompson.htm
I was never impressed with this information as evidence for Bigfoot, primarily because Thompson himself calls the find a large grizzly track.
Something did cause me to wonder, though. Thompson mentions that other members of his party thought the tracks may belong to a "young mammouth."What exactly did that mean? Surely, not the woolly mammoth?
Over at BFF the Thompson story has recently appeared again. This time I looked a little deeper and found a definitive solution to the "mammouth" question.
http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2860
This at least shows what may have troubled Thompson about the track. He was looking for evidence of surviving mammoths. Also, given his work with First Nation peoples, it is telling that he apparently hears nothing about a sasquatch-like animal from them.
(Over at BFF I was told the link doesn't work, although it works for me. If it doesn't work, try Googling --Maps and Mammoths -- it is part of the "Discovering Lewis and Clark" page.)
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
The Thetis Lake Monster
Thetis Lake Regional Park is located on the British Columbia island of Victoria, within the municipalities of the city of Victoria.
It is a small recreational lake and a very unlikely place for a creature such as this to live undetected: http://www.monsterbelievers.com/thetis-lake-monster.html
However, in the summer of 1972 there were two sightings of something unusual at the lake. In August, two teenagers, Robin Flewellyn, age 17, and Gordon Pike, 16, told police officers they saw a strange creature on the lake beach on successive nights. Two newspapers gave two conflicting accounts of what they saw. One paper claimed the animal "was roughly triangular in shape, about five feet high and five feet across the base." Another paper stated "the creature was described as 5 feet long, three inches high." One of the teens sustained a small scratch while leaving the area (a serious cut after being attacked by the creature, according to some rumors.)
When the story broke, a local man came up with a possible solution. He told authorities that he had lost his pet lizard a year earlier, and though he thought it probably didn't survive the winter, maybe it did.
His lost pet was a tegu lizard, which can be over three feet long.
A tegu lizard (with apologies to Beethoven): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g5gQUKTIFw
The Thetis Lake Monster really took off a day after the newspaper reported "THETIS MONSTER SEEN BY BOYS." The day after that headline, two other boys claimed to have seen the monster. Mike Gold, 14, and Russell Van Nice, 12, said they saw a humanoid creature, something sounding similar to The Creature From The Black Lagoon movie. They said it came out of the lake, looked around, and re-entered the lake.
A few years back, Daniel Loxton investigated the Thetis Lake Monster for the Junior Skeptic supplement to SKEPTIC magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/junior_skeptic/issue35/
Loxton took to task the cryptozoologists who expanded this tale and gave it more gravity than it ever deserved.
Loxton noticed that the creature's appearance as described by Gold and Van Nice seemed to be cribbing Universal's Creature. But they added a strange appendage, a "point sticking out of its head."
Loxton looked at TV listings to see if Creature had been shown in Victoria around the time of the "sightings." He found that little over a week earlier a Victoria TV station did indeed show a monster movie, one similar to Creature, called Monster From The Surf (also released as The Beach Girls and the Monster.) This movie did have a monster with a pointed head.
The Beach Girls and the Monster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnlL4yKrD2s
Loxton investigated further and did what none of the cryptozoologists did, he managed to interview one of the original eyewitnesses. He managed to secure the phone number for Russell Van Nice.
He interviewed Van Nice 37 years after the encounter. According to Loxton: he told me the one thing I couldn't learn from newspapers or books---the one missing fact that could definitively solve the mystery of the Thetis lake Monster.
After all these years, Russell Van Nice cheerfully told me it was a hoax.
Van Nice stated that "it was a big lie." He said he and his friend were trying to get attention, and his friend, who has since passed away, was always making stuff up.
Cased closed, Loxton concludes.
Yet the Monster won't die a mundane death. Here is a breathless, imaginative retelling of the Thetis Lake story, with the added benefit of ignoring Loxton's work and presenting a sasquatch advocacy-like linking of the Monster to Indian lore: http://www.americanmonsters.com/site/2010/10/thetis-lake-monster-canada/
Thetis Lake Regional Park is located on the British Columbia island of Victoria, within the municipalities of the city of Victoria.
It is a small recreational lake and a very unlikely place for a creature such as this to live undetected: http://www.monsterbelievers.com/thetis-lake-monster.html
However, in the summer of 1972 there were two sightings of something unusual at the lake. In August, two teenagers, Robin Flewellyn, age 17, and Gordon Pike, 16, told police officers they saw a strange creature on the lake beach on successive nights. Two newspapers gave two conflicting accounts of what they saw. One paper claimed the animal "was roughly triangular in shape, about five feet high and five feet across the base." Another paper stated "the creature was described as 5 feet long, three inches high." One of the teens sustained a small scratch while leaving the area (a serious cut after being attacked by the creature, according to some rumors.)
When the story broke, a local man came up with a possible solution. He told authorities that he had lost his pet lizard a year earlier, and though he thought it probably didn't survive the winter, maybe it did.
His lost pet was a tegu lizard, which can be over three feet long.
A tegu lizard (with apologies to Beethoven): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g5gQUKTIFw
The Thetis Lake Monster really took off a day after the newspaper reported "THETIS MONSTER SEEN BY BOYS." The day after that headline, two other boys claimed to have seen the monster. Mike Gold, 14, and Russell Van Nice, 12, said they saw a humanoid creature, something sounding similar to The Creature From The Black Lagoon movie. They said it came out of the lake, looked around, and re-entered the lake.
A few years back, Daniel Loxton investigated the Thetis Lake Monster for the Junior Skeptic supplement to SKEPTIC magazine: http://www.skeptic.com/junior_skeptic/issue35/
Loxton took to task the cryptozoologists who expanded this tale and gave it more gravity than it ever deserved.
Loxton noticed that the creature's appearance as described by Gold and Van Nice seemed to be cribbing Universal's Creature. But they added a strange appendage, a "point sticking out of its head."
Loxton looked at TV listings to see if Creature had been shown in Victoria around the time of the "sightings." He found that little over a week earlier a Victoria TV station did indeed show a monster movie, one similar to Creature, called Monster From The Surf (also released as The Beach Girls and the Monster.) This movie did have a monster with a pointed head.
The Beach Girls and the Monster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnlL4yKrD2s
Loxton investigated further and did what none of the cryptozoologists did, he managed to interview one of the original eyewitnesses. He managed to secure the phone number for Russell Van Nice.
He interviewed Van Nice 37 years after the encounter. According to Loxton: he told me the one thing I couldn't learn from newspapers or books---the one missing fact that could definitively solve the mystery of the Thetis lake Monster.
After all these years, Russell Van Nice cheerfully told me it was a hoax.
Van Nice stated that "it was a big lie." He said he and his friend were trying to get attention, and his friend, who has since passed away, was always making stuff up.
Cased closed, Loxton concludes.
Yet the Monster won't die a mundane death. Here is a breathless, imaginative retelling of the Thetis Lake story, with the added benefit of ignoring Loxton's work and presenting a sasquatch advocacy-like linking of the Monster to Indian lore: http://www.americanmonsters.com/site/2010/10/thetis-lake-monster-canada/
Last edited:
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
Moosefoot
In a post above I lay out a hypothetical about how a Bigfoot sighting could originate from a moose sighting.
Check out the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rPsUJH3NHY&feature=player_embedded
The fellow commenting on the video mistakes the back end of a moose for a sasquatch. He remarks about the "upright" stance of the animal, and even infers that the Bigfoot dropped something, implying a grasping hand, when all it is is a moose stepping on some debris.
In a post above I lay out a hypothetical about how a Bigfoot sighting could originate from a moose sighting.
Check out the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rPsUJH3NHY&feature=player_embedded
The fellow commenting on the video mistakes the back end of a moose for a sasquatch. He remarks about the "upright" stance of the animal, and even infers that the Bigfoot dropped something, implying a grasping hand, when all it is is a moose stepping on some debris.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Impossible! You can't make discoveries by accident!
"BOSTON—Chalk yet another fossil find up to roadcut science. Thanks to a highway-widening project in California’s Laguna Canyon, scientists have identified several new species of early toothed baleen whales. Paleontologist Meredith Rivin of the John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center in Fullerton, California, presented the finds here today at the annual meeting of AAAS (which publishes ScienceNOW)."
"BOSTON—Chalk yet another fossil find up to roadcut science. Thanks to a highway-widening project in California’s Laguna Canyon, scientists have identified several new species of early toothed baleen whales. Paleontologist Meredith Rivin of the John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center in Fullerton, California, presented the finds here today at the annual meeting of AAAS (which publishes ScienceNOW)."
George T. Jefferson's profound work "A Catalogue of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California" includes over a hundred pages of exactly this (it may be higher--I've only thus far been able to track down Volume 2). I want to say that I've worked with the John D Cooper firm before; at the very least their name has come up as a subcontractor for some work my firm was doing (happens all the time; you hire competators as subs). Interesting to start seeing institutions I work with in the news.
Given the work that goes into preconstruction surveys, and how rabid we ALL are to find SOMETHING during construction, I'd hardly call this an accident. Spectacular, yes! But while no one knew exactly what would be found, I'd bet my best rockhammer that they knew where to look. It's a requirement of NEPA, CEQA, and other legislation. It's also just good sense. No one wants to pay for paleontological research (other than the occasional dinosaur or early human research), so if you know there's going to be construction you want one of us out there--it's probably the only chance we'll ever have of excavating enough material to ensure a good sample of the area.
The question I have is, who's doing the curation? Cetaceans aren't exactly uncommon in California, and they're often huge--a lot of museums simply don't have the facilities to accept them.
The Shrike
Philosopher
^Thanks for the insights, Dinwar. I've been often challenged by bigfooters that "no one's looking for their remains" so we shouldn't expect any to be found. It's just funny how reality jumps up and slaps you in the face sometimes.
The Shrike
Philosopher
^BTW, I need to share an obligatory "Jefferson's" joke now:
"Florence! Would you mind getting the door?"
"That's all right Mr. Jefferson, you can get it!"
"Florence! Would you mind getting the door?"
"That's all right Mr. Jefferson, you can get it!"
Glad I could help!
Though to be fair, I'm not sure what the laws are in more common bigfoot territory. I do know that Washington State has some requirements for paleo work (spent a month doing 10 hours of field work out there, than 4 or 5 hours of office work for a project up there). I know any construction on federal land requires paleontological reviews and oversight. But you might want to look into the exact locations the cryptid advocate is talking about to be sure people are looking.
I can tell you this: ape bones would just that portion of the project down so fast that there'd be a sonic boom from the regulators flocking out to see them. I had some regulators come out to see a few camel bone fragments once, and those are fairly common. Non-human ape bones in a job site in North America would be world-wide news.
The Shrike
Philosopher
Precisely. A bigfoot molar is going to look like a big human tooth to the uninitiated (or a regular human tooth if from a smaller bigfoot), and that's going to grab some attention from the paleo folks, the archaeo folks, and the forensics folks.
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
The Flatwoods Monster
As a kid, this monster story spooked my imagination. A space-alien cryptid account from 1952, here is how the event is typically recounted in paranormal circles: http://www.ufocasebook.com/Flatwoods.html
The skeptic Joe Nickell has offered the following mundane explanation for the Flatwoods Monster story: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/flatwoods_ufo_monster/
Nickell's explanation has met resistance with paranormalists who prefer the space monster solution to the owl solution.
This is a continuing issue, I think, in the friction between paranormalists and skeptics. If eyewitnesses tell an incredible story, it is the skeptical rejoinder explaining the incredible story prosaically that is considered truly incredible.
It's almost as if witness accounts are taken as literally as given, without considering the effects of expectant anticipation, in the moment excitement, popular culture influences, etc.
As a kid, this monster story spooked my imagination. A space-alien cryptid account from 1952, here is how the event is typically recounted in paranormal circles: http://www.ufocasebook.com/Flatwoods.html
The skeptic Joe Nickell has offered the following mundane explanation for the Flatwoods Monster story: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/flatwoods_ufo_monster/
Nickell's explanation has met resistance with paranormalists who prefer the space monster solution to the owl solution.
This is a continuing issue, I think, in the friction between paranormalists and skeptics. If eyewitnesses tell an incredible story, it is the skeptical rejoinder explaining the incredible story prosaically that is considered truly incredible.
It's almost as if witness accounts are taken as literally as given, without considering the effects of expectant anticipation, in the moment excitement, popular culture influences, etc.
The Shrike
Philosopher
I agree with Nickell that an owl is the most likely explanation for that event, but disagree that Barn Owl was the culprit. Barn Owls are creatures of wide open grasslands (adjacent to nesting sites of course), and they are rare and local in WV. They're on the rebound now thanks to aggressive nest box programs and the conversion of forest to grassland through the magic of strip mine reclamation, but they still are very limited in distribution in the state. Back in the 1950s they were possibly more widespread, but I did a search of Christmas Birds Counts in the state and found that they were reporting 0–1 individuals reported across the entire state back then.
In contrast, Great Horned Owl should have been common back then, and a mix of forests and fields suits them just fine. In addition to their familiar hooting, Great Horneds screech, hiss, and make sounds every bit as terrifying as Barns. Of course . . .
the data show Great Horneds to have been even less common than Barn Owls in the 1950s, so I don't know what that means. They might actually have been really rare back then due to predator bounties knocking their numbers down, or perhaps people weren't making an effort to go find them and the small number of Barn Owls that were reported came from known nesting pairs in someone's barn. I really have a hard time envisioning a West Virginia that's devoid of Great Horned Owls but has Barn Owls.
ANYway, all owls give threat displays that can startle even the most seasoned outdoorsperson, and they involve spreading and raising the wings and lowering the head. With the secondary flight feathers fully raised, the effect is that of a peak behind the top of the head, with the rest of the primaries and secondaries forming a "halo" around the angry, hissing face with the glowing red eyes. Here's a great example from a Long-eared Owl.
In contrast, Great Horned Owl should have been common back then, and a mix of forests and fields suits them just fine. In addition to their familiar hooting, Great Horneds screech, hiss, and make sounds every bit as terrifying as Barns. Of course . . .
the data show Great Horneds to have been even less common than Barn Owls in the 1950s, so I don't know what that means. They might actually have been really rare back then due to predator bounties knocking their numbers down, or perhaps people weren't making an effort to go find them and the small number of Barn Owls that were reported came from known nesting pairs in someone's barn. I really have a hard time envisioning a West Virginia that's devoid of Great Horned Owls but has Barn Owls.
ANYway, all owls give threat displays that can startle even the most seasoned outdoorsperson, and they involve spreading and raising the wings and lowering the head. With the secondary flight feathers fully raised, the effect is that of a peak behind the top of the head, with the rest of the primaries and secondaries forming a "halo" around the angry, hissing face with the glowing red eyes. Here's a great example from a Long-eared Owl.
The average person would need to study that for a few minutes to figure out what it is, especially at night while it's making awful noises, but most folks are going to head the other way instead. And because it's in a tree or on a perch it's fairly obvious that some of the witnesses will claim they ran across a 10' tall creature.
I've spent a fair amount of time in the woods but coming across owls, even if they arent' doing anything, still makes my heart skip a beat. Owls and snakes!
Here is Shrike's photo.
I've spent a fair amount of time in the woods but coming across owls, even if they arent' doing anything, still makes my heart skip a beat. Owls and snakes!
Here is Shrike's photo.
Attachments
Last edited:
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
The pro-monster enthusiasts ridicule the owl solution. Even the school teacher involved said it wasn't an owl.
It seems a plausible explanation, even though I think Nickell errs when he gets too specific in naming the species.
Also, I would be willing to bet that not all the witnesses saw the thing. Maybe the first kid or two were frightened by what they saw, turned and ran back down the hill with the others, scared too, following in tandem. In all the excitement, with the first two kids jabbering on about a tall monster with spaded head gear, the rest of the impressionable gang simply fell in line believing they had seen the same thing.
The owl interpretation is reasonable. However, in the land of the paranormal, such mundane explanations must be as solidly proven as the monster interpretation, which is not reasonable on its face.
When an episode of MonsterQuest investigated the Flatwoods Monster, both Joe Nickell and Stanton Friedman were on the show. I remember some web sites were excoriating Nickell for his owl interpretation while championing Friedman for his solid investigation. Sad, really sad.
It seems a plausible explanation, even though I think Nickell errs when he gets too specific in naming the species.
Also, I would be willing to bet that not all the witnesses saw the thing. Maybe the first kid or two were frightened by what they saw, turned and ran back down the hill with the others, scared too, following in tandem. In all the excitement, with the first two kids jabbering on about a tall monster with spaded head gear, the rest of the impressionable gang simply fell in line believing they had seen the same thing.
The owl interpretation is reasonable. However, in the land of the paranormal, such mundane explanations must be as solidly proven as the monster interpretation, which is not reasonable on its face.
When an episode of MonsterQuest investigated the Flatwoods Monster, both Joe Nickell and Stanton Friedman were on the show. I remember some web sites were excoriating Nickell for his owl interpretation while championing Friedman for his solid investigation. Sad, really sad.