Total Pageviews

Friday, 28 August 2026

UFOs and Bigfoot: An Assessment

 Possibly the most famnous and often cited but incredibly flawed UFO-Bigfoot Case: Berserk: A UFO Creature Encountered basically ticked all the boxes in Charles Bowen and Gordon Creighton's evil UFOs theoryonce Flying Saucer Review stepped away from factual reporting.  I ought to note here that FSR published some well known hoaxes -some possibly created in-house as well as explained reports as genuine and continued to do so which makes its credibility not that great in the first place.

Stan Gordon is cited s the main investigator on this case and while he may know his local geography and dates he certainly cannot keep a conssistent account.  Gordon was someone I looked at as a person who would look into a report no matter how bizarre it sounded to get to the facts. We all make mistakes.

The article is written by Berthold Schwarz, M,D. (who also wrote the introduction to Dennis Pilichis' Night Siege: The Northern Ohio UFO-Creature Invasion (1981). In case you are not familiar with the report and all of its blatant neon sign warnings:

According to Berthold Schwartz, based in New Jersey, he received a phone call one Sunday in September, 1973 from Allan Noe of the Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (a New Jersey based organization founded by Ivan T. Sanderson) and Stan Gordon, director of the Pennsylvania based Westmoreland County UFO Study Group. They told him they were in the midst of a great deal of activity involving UFOs and creatures. Gordon, in the Small Town Monsters documentary, Invasion on Chestnut Ridge, describes the activity as “a major UFO-Bigfoot wave.”

Schwartz made plans to visit the area and these were moved forward when he got a call on 27th October, from his office and was told to get in touch with Gordon “immediately.” According to Schwartz, Gordon had called about a “multiple witness (UFO) landing–creature case with dangerous overtones.”

Schwartz contacted Gordon and was told about the case and said that an episode where the primary witness went into a  “fugue state” had actually been caught on tape during a field investigation. Schwartz wrote that  “I gave first-aid advice and made arrangements for my first visit the following week.”

Schwartz was in Pennsylvania from 1st–3rd November, 1973, that had listened to the recordings made and interviewed the WCUFOSG members who were involved,  the witnesses, and “conducted a psychiatric interview” with the primary witness. Schwartz also spoke by telephone to a Pennsylvania state trooper who was there and “read Gordon’s excellent written collations.”

According to Schwartz, at around 2100 hrs (9 pm) on Thursday, 25th October, 1973, Gordon had received a phone call from Trooper Byrne (pseudonym), who told him something “unusual” had taken place on a farm near Greenburg. The primary witness, Stephen Pulaski (pseudonym), was at the station and told Gordon over the phone that Byrne had witnessed evidence that backed up what he had seen before Byrne arrived. A little warning sign pops up at this point.

The study group went out to meet 22-year-old Pulaski and his father, and  all went to the alleged incident site  arriving just after midnight. There were six study group members: a photographer, a physics teacher, a radiation expert, a sociologist, a former Air Force pilot, and Gordon. Pulaski gave them his account.

He and about fifteen other witnesses, who included relatives and neighbors, watched as a large red ball of light hovered above a field. Pulaski, armed with a 30.06 rifle, got in his car to drive up to the area along with a pair of  neighbour boys (twins). As they approached the area  the car’s headlights dimmed as the object slowly descended into the field; the trio got out of the car and walked towards it.  I assume that they then lost sight of the object as it is noted that as they came over a hill crest, they saw what they described as a dome-shaped object about 100 feet in diameter making a sound “like a lawn mower.”

It was at this point that one of the twins yelled out that he could see something moving along the fence and Pulaski had two tracer bullets loaded and fired one over the heads of what were described as two creatures:  one about eight-feet tall and the other about seven-feet tall. Their height was determined by the six-foot posts of the fence they were slowly walking along. Both creatures were covered with dark grey hair, had greenish-yellow eyes, and had arms that hung almost to the ground.

The largest creature was touching the fence posts as it passed them, and the smaller creature seemed to be taking extra long strides to keep up. "They seemed to be communicating, making noises like that of a crying baby."  Pulaski fired his remaining tracer over their heads and the creatures kept walking and so he then decided to shoot three live rounds into the chest of the larger creature. At this point as one of the twins ran off  scared back to the house. The larger creature made a "whining noise" and reached out to the smaller creature. And it was at this point that the dome blinked out and the noise it seemed to be making stopped. The creatures then turned around and walked slowly towards the woods. The area where the dome had been was seen to be  glowing brightly.

Pulaski reported the incident to the police and Byrne got to the house at about 2145 hrs (it is important to note that online and even some You Tubers who did "deep dives" into the case state 2200hrs which woul;d mean Byrne arrived 15 minutes before the incident!) and he, along with  Pulaski went up to the field and, it is said, Byrne saw the glowing area. The account goes on to state that Byrne had said that if one bent down there one could read a newspaper. However, and this is very important. Byrne maintained that he could not be sure that the glow was not caused by his headlights. Schwartz wrote that Byrne moved the car so that the lights shone elsewhere and that he could still see the glow. It needs to be pointed out that the pairt had not left the car so it could very well be an optical illusion or even some form of bioluminescence that caused a weak "glow".

The statement that Byrne exited the vehicle and inspected the ground closely is absolutely incorrect as Schwarz notes that they then got out of the car to look around.

The duo then heard a noise from the woods as if a large animal was walking towards them. They moved, and the noise seemed to follow them. When they stopped, the noise stopped.  Yet another suspicion flag goes up when it is reported that Byrne wanted to get closer to the circle of light but Pulaski told him: “I don’t get paid for being brave. I’m not going any further.” Byrne thought about going on alone but thought better of it in light of Pulaski’s being armed and in a scared state of excitement.  Byrne could not, therefore, check to see what might be causing any glow  which means that a hoax cannot be ruled out but it also indicates that Byrne was on alert due to Pulaski's state of mind and that he had a weapon.

As they headed back to the car they heard more noise, and Pulaski said he saw something brown coming towards them. He asked Byrne for permission to shoot, Byrne said yes, and Pulaski shot his last bullet. Pulaski again yelled that there was something coming towards them, and they jumped into the car and sped off. Byrne got ahold of himself and turned the car around. He shone his high beams into the woods, and according to Pulaski, the glowing area had vanished. The sound was no longer heard at this point.  Byrne got a hold of himself a little too late. To state someone should open fire on something that cannot be seen in the dark (even if to make sure Pulaski had no more ammunition) is reckless. What was moving about could conceivably have been a human wondering what was going on or even if a deer or other wildlife firing and wounding it not killing it is not good. 

Let me make it clear that the only thing Byrne can confirm is Pulaski's state of mind and that he might have seen an illuminated area (which a few minutes later had vanished) and some noises. Only Pulaski "saw" something heading for them and not the trooper. 

Gordon's study group arrived at around 0130 hrs and went to the field with Pulaski and his father. This is where yet another warning flag literally explodes.  When the group got to the field there was no glowing ring and since it had vanished just around 2200 hrs(?) there should have been no surprise.. The group had earlier checked Pulaski  for radiation and then the checked the field; there were no unusual readings. Considering that it was clearly stated that there was no glow it is interesting that when the group went into the field Pulaski and his father stayed by the truck. The group then heard the Pulaskis yelling out that they saw a glow that lit up the farm house but by the team joined the duo it was gone. Two group members went to investigate and found nothing.  

One might suspect that there was some hoaxing going on but it may well just be nerves on the part of the Pulaskis based on what happened next.  It is amazing that all of these red warning flags were just ignored.

The group along with the Pulaskis then returned to the field and Stephen had his dog with him and the dog became alert and started tracking.  The dog then became focused on a spot at the edge of the woods. All this indicates is that the dog simply picked up a wildlife scent; the most important aspect comes next. Stephen started rubbing his head and face and started weaving as if he were going to faint and his father went to support him but Stephen started growling and then threw his father off; the dog ran towards Stephen but its master then went on the attack, sending the dog off whining.

At this point we see near hysteria as two group members reported feeling light-headed while Stephen ran around growling and then collapsed facedown into a pile of manure. Schwarz notes that  as Stephen started  "coming out of his altered state" he started yelling “Get away from me! It’s here! Get back!” He continued yelling warnings and mumbled that he could protect the group. The group reported that they could smell a strong smell of sulphur and this crack team did not connect the odour with the manure Stephen had fallen into: odours released by manure containing large doses of nitrogen and sulphur are particularly strong. One of the investigators was a physics teacher apparently.  Stephen then said he saw a man “in a black hat and cloak, carrying a sickle.”

The red warning flags were accompanied by a huge firework display and the 1812 Overture at full volume. 

 Schwartz noted that when he later conducted a psychiatric interview with him that Stephen went into trances and Schwartz struggled keep him in a conscious state. Stephen reported seeing the creatures, the man in the black robe, receiving warnings about the world ending if mankind doesn’t straighten out, and “seeing the date 1976.”

I do not for one minute believe the invulnerability to bullets aspect and either Stephen missed or (if we accept Bigfoot as real) clipped the creature. Bigfoot seen at the same time as a natural light phenomenon? Alright, I might go for that but this cases seems to involve a lot of hysteria and panic and investigators acting far from clear headedly -Byrne as a trooper appears to have just lost it bnefore pulling himself together after concerns over the gun toting and odd behaving Pulaski.

No one gives the conclusions of Schwarz at the end of his article. One wonders why?

"This case is but one of many that Stan Gordon and the Westmoreland County Study Group have documented. More might be speculated about various intriguing aspects, but sauffice it to say that this case demonstrates (1) the here-and-now implicit danger to those witnesses who are involved in such an experioence, (2) perhaps more so, the  dangers to those who study such people, (3) the challenging need for collateral, psychiatric investigations, and (4) the urgent need for a bold but responsible stance in finding out all we can about the UFO-creature relationship."

Schwarz seemed to be strongly indicating that there was a clear psychological problem at play in this case. (1) and (2) might well be ferring to the violent behaviour of Pulaski who had obviously entered an altered state anbd lashed out at his father and pet dog. Not to mention discharging a firearm at "somnething" real or imagined.  In his forewrd to Pilichis's work Schwarz wrote that: "...numerous instances are pointed out where there are risks of something going askewb with the free-handed use of firearms" and one recalls a number of such acses from the August, 1955 Kelly-Hopkinsville incident and Paul Brown opening fire on a landed UFO and entities in Georgia in October, 1973.

 

He Opened Fire on the Aliens — And Paid the Price

 


Monday, 24 August 2026

Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology -it is honest

 There is far too much fakery in Ufology and in the UK it is rife. This article is from The Armchair Ufologist (95% of them are) and this is a summary by the AFU that can be found here: 

 https://www.ufomagazines.com/armchair-ufologist-the-the-armchair-ufologist-issue-3/

The late Eric Morris was a long time UFO report hoaxer and fantasist who I had dealings with since the mid 1970s. He even attempted to bully and physically threaten older researchers. Joan Amos, whose name will be familiar to older Forteans, Ufologfists etc once sent me a letter (on file) warning me to watch out for Morris. He apparently was very loud and threatened her but a neighbour in his 70s heard the commotion and confronted Morris. Morris left quickly.  Despite being outed as a faker many times he was still given a platform and applauded at northern UFO events -including by people who proved he was a faker.

It goes on and on but Ufology sweeps it all under the carpet. 
Overview

This issue of 'Tough on Ufology' critically examines the state of ufology, focusing on internal conflicts and the behavior of key figures. It details the case of 'Max Burns', accused of drug offenses and claiming to be targeted by 'The Establishment' for his ufological knowledge. The article also discusses Miles Johnstone's involvement with Max Burns and his critical stance on ufological research. The issue highlights the perceived paranoia and infighting within the UK UFO scene, with accusations of disinformation and debunking. It also touches upon the Rendlesham Forest incident and the role of researchers like James Easton and Jenny Randles. Furthermore, it criticizes BUFORA for its internal politics, perceived lack of progress, and handling of witness confidentiality. The article also reports on legal threats made by ufologist Harry Harris and the charges he faces, as well as a UFO sighting over the Pennines and the author's 'Federal Hypothesis' explanation.

Magazine Overview

This issue of "Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology" is a critical examination of the state of ufology, particularly within the UK. It delves into internal conflicts, the behavior of prominent figures, and the perceived lack of genuine research and ethical practices within the field. The publication date is noted as February 1998.

Key Articles and Content

Countdown to Ecstasy?

The article introduces 'Max Burns', a self-proclaimed ET believer from Rotherham, who gained notoriety through 'Alien Encounters' magazine. Burns was reportedly arrested for possession with intent to supply ecstasy and claims he is being targeted by 'The Establishment' due to his ufological knowledge. The author expresses skepticism about Burns' claims, noting that other ufologists, like Miles Johnstone, seem to agree with him. The piece also mentions that Burns has been committed to Crown Court, with the charge potentially being reduced to amphetamine possession. The author personally dismisses ecstasy as a drug.

Max Burns

The Max Factor and Miles Johnstone

The author recounts a personal encounter with Max Burns, who allegedly made abusive phone calls after Dave Clarke's research into a UFO 'crash' case was perceived as a challenge. Miles Johnstone, a long-time BUFORA member, is presented as being aligned with Max Burns. Johnstone allegedly filmed something related to the 'crash' for BUFORA, which the author views critically. The author emailed Johnstone suggesting he contact Dave Clarke for a more balanced view, but Johnstone claimed Dave had not returned his call and expressed frustration with perceived rudeness.

Dr David Clarke

Rendlesham Forest and James Easton

The article touches upon the Rendlesham Forest incident, suggesting it might be a complex series of misidentifications and misperceptions, similar to the Sheffield crash case. Researcher James Easton is credited with in-depth research on Rendlesham, including original statements from witnesses. The author notes that Easton's research has been met with resistance, with some accusing him of being a debunker despite his previous support for the case. The internet is highlighted as a tool that has exacerbated ufological tendencies and the spread of rumors.

Harry Harris and Legal Threats

Ufologist Harry Harris is discussed, noting his tendency to use legal action against those who disagree with him. The article mentions a past case where Harris took legal action against Jenny Randles. More recently, the Manchester Evening News reported that Harry Harris was facing charges of making threats to kill and possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear, allegedly related to an incident involving his cat and a neighbor's dog. The article states that this case was pending court proceedings.

Jenny Randles and Peter Hough

Lights, Camera, Action: The Pennines Sighting

This section details a UFO sighting on February 2nd, 1998, where hundreds of people saw two bright lights flying over the Pennines. Airports had no record of the objects, and the press received numerous reports and videos. BUFORA's NIC's John Heptonstall studied the case and concluded the objects were likely helicopters or RPVs. The author questions why official sources deny knowledge, proposing a 'Federal Hypothesis' where governments use the UFO mythos for their own ends, suggesting the craft were intentionally flown with lights on to monitor public reaction.

The Law Of The Bungle: BUFORA's Issues

This section heavily criticizes BUFORA, describing its website being hijacked and subsequently terminated. The author details how BUFORA allegedly changed its Articles of Association to claim ownership of review books, rather than them going to the editor. The article also points to a breach of witness confidentiality within BUFORA, where details were allegedly passed to the press, causing distress. Despite these breaches, Philip Mantle, the Press Officer, was reportedly supported by the Council. The author argues that BUFORA has become a publicity vehicle, allowing tabloid ufology to penetrate its core and breaking its moratorium on hypnotic regression.

Philip Mantle

North Of The Border News: Billy Buchanan

Scottish councillor Billy Buchanan has been banned from council committees until 1999 and restricted in his communication with staff due to his behavior, which included calling chief officers 'vagabonds' and accusing the chief executive of racism.

Aftermath and UFO Times

The author reflects on the article's potential publication in 'Fortean Times' being rejected, suggesting it was too truthful. The author resigned from 'UFO Times' after Dave 'Sensible' Newton took over, describing the resulting issue as a 'mess'. The article also mentions a 'cash retrieval team' from BUFOONA visiting Mike Wootten's residence to collect items.

General Criticisms of Ufology

The publication expresses a strong critical stance on ufology, labeling many involved as 'ufologists' who are more interested in stroking egos and generating publicity than in genuine research. The author suggests that without ufologists, the UFO subject would cease to exist, describing it as a self-perpetuating, hermetically sealed system. The article posits that professionals recoil from the subject due to a lack of evidence, proof, methodology, or integrity.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the internal politics and perceived corruption within ufology, particularly concerning organizations like BUFORA. There is a strong emphasis on skepticism towards sensational claims, a focus on misidentification and misperception as explanations for sightings, and a critique of ufologists who prioritize publicity and personal agendas over rigorous investigation. The editorial stance is highly critical, bordering on cynical, of the ufological community, highlighting what the author views as a lack of substance, ethical breaches, and a tendency towards paranoia and infighting. The author champions genuine research and ethical treatment of witnesses, contrasting it with the prevailing trends in ufology.

This issue of "Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology" is a critical examination of the state of ufology in the UK, focusing heavily on internal politics, organizational dysfunction, and the credibility of prominent figures and research methods. The publication adopts a highly critical and often sarcastic tone, aiming to expose what it perceives as flaws, hypocrisy, and deliberate obfuscation within the ufology community.

BUFORA Under Fire

The lead article, "You Can't Come In Here Thinking Like That," directly addresses the author's own membership status within BUFORA (British UFO Research Association). The author details a challenge to their membership renewal, stemming from their consistent criticism of how BUFORA is run. They accuse a small, controlling group within BUFORA of being unable to handle criticism and of resorting to personal attacks rather than addressing substantive issues. The author lists several past transgressions by BUFORA members, including using hypnosis against ethical codes, revealing witness names to the press, selling private photographs, and writing abusive notes, contrasting this with the severe reaction to their own criticisms.

A significant point of contention is the handling of BUFORA's financial and ethical state. The author criticizes the organization's logic of ignoring problems in the hope they will disappear, and then attempting to remove critics. The article "BUFORA Captain? Illogical - Does Not Compute" further elaborates on this, suggesting BUFORA is in a "mess financially and ethically" and that its leadership is attempting to hide this reality. The author quotes Steve Gamble, the chairman, as stating that if a force is trying to destroy UK ufology, BUFORA has "succeeded admirably by putting us all at odds with each other."

The issue also touches upon the resignation and subsequent 'unresignation' of chairman Steve Gamble, portraying it as a common tactic among BUFORA officers to maintain power. The article "Even Mushrooms Don't Get Treated This Way!" criticizes BUFORA's communication strategy, accusing them of using "spin doctors" to cover up financial problems and their inability to deliver promised services, such as the six magazines members paid for.

The Tim Matthews Controversy

A substantial portion of the magazine is dedicated to dissecting the activities and alleged background of ufologist Tim Matthews. The article "The saga of Tim Matthews" notes that Matthews is criticized by some for being "in your face" and for conducting research and publishing it. More serious allegations are explored, including his alleged past involvement with the British National Party (BNP) and other far-right groups. The piece references an "uncredited story" in the conspiracy journal "Lobster" that links Matthews to such activities. It also mentions his alleged work for the anti-fascist publication "Searchlight" and his involvement in Green politics before turning to ufology. Larry O'Hara is cited as alleging that Matthews, whose real name might be Tim Hepple, is working for the UK military as an agent provocateur to spread disinformation.

Matthews himself is reported to have vigorously denied some allegations but admitted to past affiliations. The article questions whether people are allowed to have a past and draws parallels with other figures in the ufology community, such as Patrick Harrington and George Sturgeon, who are accused of involvement in far-right politics or racist remarks.

"I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night" presents a fictionalized dialogue between Tim Matthews and Eric Morris, set in Southport, discussing plans for a conference and hinting at a conspiracy involving government manipulation of UFO sightings. This section appears to be a satirical take on the perceived paranoia and internal machinations within the ufology community.

Further scrutiny of Matthews comes in "Tough on Ufology - Tough on the Causes of Ufology" (pages 3-6), where his background is examined, including allegations of involvement with a white supremacist group called "The Church of The Creator." The author questions whether people are allowed to have a past and points to other figures with questionable associations. The article "We'll Fight Them On The Beaches" suggests that Matthews, as a young rebel, got involved with "big boys with bad ideas" and later became involved in ufology, realizing that much "research" was flawed. It posits that he is now active and outspoken, potentially annoying those in power, and has secured a book contract, but his "earlier 'enthusiasms'" are catching up with him.

Other Figures and Events

The issue also discusses other ufologists and events. "Beyond Our Ken (our kid)" focuses on Tony Dodd, formerly of YUFOS and UFO magazine, who is described as a "wild card" prone to discussing animal mutilations, MIBs, and death threats. Dodd has resigned from UFO magazine to pursue private investigations. A letter from Dodd to Omar Fowler, published in the OVNI newsletter, is presented. In this letter, Dodd suggests that some "flying triangles" are terrestrial and that there is liaison between humans and a "friendly" race of ETs who are providing advanced technology to defend against a "malevolent" ET race. The article "Dodd Watch" expresses skepticism about these claims.

Tony Dodd

"Sensible" is criticized for misrepresenting evidence and making vague claims, particularly in relation to the IUN (International UFO Network) collapse. The author recounts an incident where "Sensible" was allegedly misled by information and subsequently received a stiffly worded letter.

There is also a mention of a conference in Southport where conspiracy theories were prevalent, and an incident involving Larry O'Hara and Tim Matthews is described as a "near drubbing incident."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The overarching theme of this issue is a deep skepticism and criticism directed at the ufology community itself. The editorial stance is one of disillusionment with the internal politics, alleged lack of rigor in research, and the personal agendas of many involved. The author frequently employs sarcasm and direct accusation to highlight what they see as hypocrisy, paranoia, and a failure to address the core issues within the subject. There is a strong emphasis on the need for transparency, ethical conduct, and genuine research, contrasting these ideals with the perceived reality of infighting, personal vendettas, and questionable backgrounds of key figures.

The magazine appears to advocate for a more grounded and critical approach to ufology, questioning the validity of many claims and the motivations of those promoting them. The recurring criticism of organizations like BUFORA suggests a belief that their current structures and leadership are detrimental to the advancement of serious UFO research.

Addenda (TH)

I was with BUFORA from 1974-1980 and I can confirm that it was always incompetent. The NIC actually lost 150 UFO reports I had sent after confirming they had been received. There are others who found their reports went missing. Where?  British Ufology is a bloody mess and it may have started out as seeking the truth but by the time the 1970s rolled in iot was a mess and so much more could be added to the above but I think trhe reader should get the point. The named persons in Ufology who were found out to have fgaked reports and spread them in UFO circles from the 1970s on have never identified WHICH reports or WHY they did this. Once they have passed on (no one is getting younger) then e3very report from the 1970s on will need to be looked at as a possible fake (this sort of thing happened in Spain and the USA mainly to discredit certain Ufologists but we knopw which cases there).

Sunday, 23 August 2026

Let Me Make It Clear: There Is No Such Thing As The British Bigfoot -Prove Me Wrong


 The whole British Bigfoot situation is a con as well as down to very susceptable minds.

I have a very big library -ghosts, crypto, Fortean, UFOs and so on. In absolutely none of those is there reference to a large hairy humanoid (often cited is a "ghost case" where "cavemen" were seen around a fire. Woodwose are interesting but if there was anything they became extinct pre-12th century.
For my other work I have a BIG wildlife library with books and references going back to Medieval times. Books on hunting. On quadrupeds and other species even "oddity" reports but not one single mention of anyone ever reporting a "Bigfoot".
I spoke to many dubious people for my EAR work as well as l;and owners/estate managers, game keepers and they would tell me about ghosts as well as big cats and some of these people were born and raised in "active British Bigfoot areas" and guess what? Never a single word about a giant hairy man.
I think many sightings are due to altered states, misidentifications -some "hairy menm" turn out to be people in gillie suits. Others are fantasists.
I once offered to look at evidence gathered since I am what people keep calling a "noted naturalist" and these people were stating experts would not study the evidence. My offer had me slandered on one of the groups and members were told NOT to share anything with me. The group owner later apologised but would not tell her members she was wrong and it was okay to share so....
Then there was a fella told me to check out his "unchallengable"evidence on You Tube. A "tree knocking stick". It turns out that it was a stick found in the middle of a forest. "How did it get there?" I was challenged. Just search this blog for British Bigfoot.
It was a stick in the middle of woodland. It broke off a tree but "why was there no other sticks that size in the spot?" I was asked. Someone could have just picked it up for a dog or any reason.
It was a stick in the middle of the forest.
The response came back (in his mind I imagined the 1812 overture playing at full volume and a massive fireworks display going on) "You lose the argument. You cannot explain it!!!" and he then went into cheering himself for beating the debunker (but not with a stick found in the middle of a forest).
US TV shows and You Tube suddenly created the abductyion craze in the UK and everyone who watch "UFO Hunters" got their black urban combat gear and were Ufologists.
Then the US paranormal shows flooded You Tube and demonic possession, haunted houses, hell holes/gateways to Hell were in every British property. Everyone bought their urban combat (black of course) combat gear and became ghost hunters or paranormal experts.
In both of those genres made up, fabricated, lies were intreoduced as facts and "always having been recorded". None of it was. You Tube is not a training service.
Then, of course, US TV shows got into monsters and Bigfoot and then, suddenly, the UK was having Bigfoot sighted everywhere and "there have always been reports" -NO there have not. My late friends and I looked into every single thing that was odd or weird to look into it and get evidence or disprove it.
NEVER EVER a single British Bigfoot which, like the Owlman and other "cryptids" you can trace the origins back to and friends of a certain disreputable Fortean group. Lies are publicity and cash.
I can at least claim to have observed a mysterious primate in forestry with four other people present....but that was in Germany.

Do You Remember The Puma Captured In The Highlands in 1980?

 

 My comments will follow this article from Press & Journal 28th October 2020 

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/nostalgia/2591020/big-cats-the-hunt-for-the-puma-caught-roaming-the-highlands-in-1980/?fbclid=IwAR3iwBZsKepGV-1hvXt3KDuUWy4_vGC3qgrvxJl2ZeDVMj4bjvZCgyzgrew

Big cats: The hunt for the puma caught roaming the Highlands in 1980

She was the ‘wild’ puma who became a celebrity after being captured in the Highlands 40 years ago.

Felicity, as she came to be named, had been roaming the countryside in Cannich before being caught two years after farmers in the area started reporting a spate of attacks on their sheep.

There had been mystery animal sightings in the Highlands going back to 1927 when a lynx nicknamed the ‘Tiger of the North’ was caught in a trap set by a farmer after sheep and goats were attacked in the wild mountain districts of Inverness-shire.

Ted Noble

It was reported in 1977 that a man and his nephew at Farr, 10 miles from Inverness, “saw a lioness and two cubs” in a field and the next day a similar sighting was recorded at Culduthel.

However, matters came to a head in October 1980 after farmer Ted Noble took matters into his own hands following a continued unexplained loss of livestock for over a year.

Felicity the puma.

Ted saw what he described as a “lioness or similar member of the big cat family” stalking ponies at his farm near Cannich.

Police searched in vain for the ‘lioness’ with the help of big-game expert Eric Stephens who said a lion could easily be living in the area where there were sheep, horses and deer because there was plenty of food and plenty of cover.

Ted continued to find the carcasses of farm animals, mainly sheep, mutilated and with their bones crushed.

The mystery beast had been sighted a number of times by other local people and eventually he decided to set a trap after becoming frustrated by police reluctance to make a further search.

Last laugh

The animal was enticed to a cage by a sheep’s head dangling from a rope at the entrance to the trap.

The captured puma made national news with one headline proclaiming: ‘Grrr-eat Scot! Farmer Ted Catches the Loch Ness Lion!’

“People were beginning to think I was nuts the way I was so obsessed with capturing this animal,” said Ted.

“But I have had the last laugh.

“I am pleased to have caught it but I am sad to have deprived it of a grand life.

“However, it was a destructive animal having killed sheep and ponies in the area and I had to end its freedom.”

Kincraig Highlind Wildlife Park director Mr Eddie Orbell and retired Detective Sergeant John Cathcart of Inverness.

Ted was aided in his successful trapping operation by Ian Graham, a senior inspector for the Scottish Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals, and by Janet Chisolm, a neighbouring farmer of nearby Tomich.

He also had advice on the correct methods to use from a retired Colonel who, in his younger days, had been a big game hunter in Africa.

The director of the Highland Wildlife Park at Kincraig, Eddie Orbell, confirmed the animal was a puma but his conclusion was that the big cat seemed too tame and too well fed to have been living wild.

He believed Felicity had been hand-reared as a cub and had been kept as a pet.

The origin of the puma was unclear but she even allowed experts who examined her to pet her behind her ears.

Overweight

Grantown vet George Rafferty undertook a close examination of Felicity after she was given treatment for a paw complaint.

“I was very surprised to find that the animal weighed 36 kilos – approximately 80lbs,” he said.

“This is definitely overweight for a female puma.

“I examined its teeth and found it has some incisors missing at the front, which is not unusual for an animal of its age.

“Its teeth are in remarkably good condition, although yellow with age.  There is no tarter on them which suggests it has been living on a natural diet, as opposed to processed food.

“It has certainly spent most of its life in captivity.

“If it has been living rough I do not think it has been doing so for very long because of its bodily condition.

“There is also no doubt it has been used to contact with humans and is very well behaved.

“It loves to have its ears tickled and comes straight over to the bars of its cage when you approach.

“In fact we had great difficulty persuading it to go far enough away from us to fire a tranquiliser dart into it without doing any damage.”

Hoax

People soon began talking about a hoax and it was reported soon after Felicity’s capture that some eyewitnesses had seen a puma in a cage being driven around the area in a pick-up truck, although this could have been prior to the animal’s release.

Ted denied there had been a hoax and he was supported by Bob High from the Farmers’ Union who said that many farmers in the eastern Highlands had seen the animal, or lost livestock to it, but were afraid to speak out in case they were ridiculed.

Additional support came from Dr Hans Kruuk from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology at Banchory, who analysed her faeces in the first hours of captivity which showed that Felicity had recently fed on deer, rabbit and sheep, suggesting that despite her advanced age and tameness she had indeed been hunting and surviving independently in the wild for some time.

The big cat sightings and livestock losses continued following Felicity’s capture and later a man wrote to Ted from a prison cell in England, confessing that he had liberated several big cats in the Glen Affric area after driving them up from south of the Border.

During the 1960s and 1970s it was perfectly legal in the UK to keep exotic animals as household pets, which ranged from leopards, pumas and panthers, to crocodiles and poisonous snakes.

Angela McWilliams, a 23 year old part-time secretary of Kensington, was often seen taking Michael, her pet leopard, for a walk in Kensington Gardens in 1967.

In 1976 the UK Government introduced tougher new licensing rules over the keeping of wild animals without a licence.

Given the choice of acquiring a costly licence or relinquishing their pets to animal sanctuaries, rumours started that some owners chose a third option, which was sending cats out into the wild.

Further twist

The great Highland puma puzzle took a further twist three weeks after the capture as scientists in Banchory revealed strong evidence of another mountain lion on the loose.

Special tests carried out on two sheep mauled on Garve farms in Ross-shire found they were killed either by a puma or some other big cat.

Felicity was a top tourist draw for the next four years at the Highland Wildlife Park, Kincraig, near Aviemore, until she died in February 1985.

After Felicity’s death, the puma was preserved by a taxidermist, and since then has been a prime exhibit at Inverness Museum.


‘Mystery predator’ at large prompted police investigation

Felicity the puma is often cited as evidence that there are non-native cats at large in the UK.

Sightings of big cats or photographs taken at a distance have fuelled theories about their presence for decades.

A black panther.

Police and government scientists worked together to try to identify a “mystery predator” that appeared to be at large in the far north.

Correspondence from the past two years between Police Scotland, Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) and other government-funded agencies was released after a freedom of information request.

Injured sheep

A police officer, whose name and title have been redacted, wrote to SASA in November 2018 asking for help in identifying a large paw print.

They wrote: “I’ve had lots of reports over the past three years of big cat sightings and activity on the north coast, mainly in the Bettyhill area of Sutherland.

“There have been sightings of a large feline and a lot of dead or injured sheep.

“On one occasion I was present when a ewe was brought in off the hill with two puncture marks on the front of her right shoulder and two at the back of it.

“The wounds were over three inches apart, while some of the recent carcasses have very large puncture marks.”

The officer conceded that it was a “very controversial topic” but added: “Some crofters say there have always been very big feral cats in this area. I’m told there is a photograph of one shot, years ago, which was over four feet long.

“We definitely have a wild cat population as well; I’ve seen one myself. We don’t have many domestic cats in the area; there is a very sparse human population and miles of unoccupied land.”

The officer sent images of a paw print and one of a “recent kill”, writing: “The carcass was stripped clean, down to the spine/skull.”

The response from the SASA was inconclusive. They replied: “I’m not sure about the footprint. It does look a bit like a feline print but is also reminiscent of a fox or a dog.”

The investigation was closed last year.

***************************************************************

One name is missing from this piece: Arthur Cadman. A veteran naturalist who I was corresponding with in the 1970s/1980s prior to his death. He had been studying a "family" of pumas and had even predicted that due to her age "Felicity" was likely to get trapped as she went for easier game.

This is WHY animals were still being killed after her capture and that capture was, obviously, not a set up/hoax.
When I contacted Ted Noble he was polite but I think the claims of a hoax made him less forthcoming. Ted suggested contacting Janet Chisolm who I corresponded with and was handling all the enquiries. Noble was afarmer and had no time for all the messing around.
I even spoke Ms Chisholm and she confirmed that she had also observed the pumas (plural) and had also made paintings of them and had a 10(?) page account she had written. I was told that I could get a copy of her account -for £10...later £15 and back then that was a lot of money compared to today and as she would not tell me anything about "the story" she had written I had no intention of paying out that much money especially when a journalist from The Scotsman told me "It reads like a childrens story."
There is a lot of evidence for puma still being in the Highlands but further away from farms and where there is plenty of wild game.
We have seen Arthur Cadman pass away and I was never able to find out what happened to all of his notes -and photographs. There were others such as the rev Gwilliam Williams in Wales and all of these people were not high profile newspaper publicity seekers but naturalists.
All of the old contempories of mine have gone. So to have people such as Nigel Brierley, Trevor Beer and Danny Kingdom who I was discussing a cat project with before his tragic death.
Thereare the senationalists and fantasy prone people out there but from all of the naturalists who began studying large cats in the 1970s I appear to be the last survivor. And my Red Paper: Felids will NEVER be published while the official stance of bodies such as DEFRA is to kill all 'non native species' as 'invasives'.
So when I croak the lunatics can have their day.