Sunday, 28 December 2014

Mystery Of Grey Seal Deaths Causing Concern

There are fewer grey seals left in the wild than African Elephants, and concerns are growing after an unprecedented number were found dead in Cornwall.

More than 40 have been washed up since October, including pups and adults, but the cause of death is a mystery.

There are only around 350,000 grey seals worldwide, so experts say it's vital they find out why they are dying before it has a long-term impact on the population.
Caz Waddell, marine conservation officer at the Cornwall Wildlife Trust, told Sky News: "We have got large numbers of seals dying on our shores and the real worry is that a lot of these individuals are adults that are breeding, so the impact to the population could be huge."

Finding out what is killing them isn't easy, as the Government doesn't fund post-mortem examinations on seals but storms, pollution or illness could all be possible causes.

Dan Jarvis, from the Cornish Seal Sanctuary, said the deaths have come during the main birthing season, which could mean more are at risk as pups often can't survive if their mothers die.

He explained: "We really need to show a duty of care for this species to try to figure out what is actually going on, because by the time we have figured out something is going on it could be too late."

The public are being asked to report any dead seals that they find to the authorities.

ADDENDA 10th July 2018
The question as to what happened and whether any solution was found has to be "no idea". I sent an email to each body in question introducing the various parties and that was it.  I am told there was no inter-group conversation or cooperation. Is this an ego thing?  Surely the seal deaths are more important than personal kudos or press coverage.  Very very sad state of affairs.

Cryptozoologist Of The Year 2014

I'll break the news to you is not me.

I know -like what??

Anyway, this is how Loren Coleman announces it on Cryptonews where you can read MUCH more:

Cryptozoologist of the Year 2014: Bill Munns

The Year 2014 saw some intriguing discoveries made and research revealed. One individual stands out in the field of Bigfoot research, Sasquatch studies, and cryptozoology for his work in pushing forward serious, thoughtful, analytic work on a specific piece of evidence – the Patterson-Gimlin footage. That person is our “Cryptozoologist of the Year 2014.” He is Bill Munns.
Who is this person?
William “Bill” Munns has been a makeup and special effects artist in Hollywood for decades, and a filmmaker in general, as well. He applies his unique perspective to the analysis of the famed October 20, 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film. In the last seven years, Munns assembled the finest image data archive on film and photographic material related to this classic “Bigfoot” mystery, and analyzed the apparent unknown hairy biped seen in the film with state-of-the-art analysis technology. 
His 2014 presentation in Yakima, “When Roger Met Patty,” and his 2014 book, When Roger Met Patty, were the culmination of that seven year research program. After 47 years, the Patterson-Gimlin footage has a serious in-depth study for all to consider. For this, we thank and recognize Bill Munns.
Congratulations to Munns. I think Munns is a very good choice and there are a number of videos on You Tube involving his work -including this one.....

Saturday, 27 December 2014

Eastern Cougar Conference Paper

I was asked about the technical paper I was contributor to for the 2nd  Eastern Cougar Conference, Morgantown, West Virginia, 2004.

It was titled A Method For Grading Sightings Of Non-Native Cats: Application To South and West Wales, UK.  F. A. Street-Perrott, Alaric Smith -University of Wales- were the presenters and I contributed data from the files of the Exotic Animals Register (EAR) from 1977 on.  Thirty-six pages in all but nothing to get the layman over excited!

Thursday, 25 December 2014

To Answer A Couple Questions

Firstly, NO I am not a cryptozoologist.  I am a naturalist. I've been called a "noted naturalist" and my name appears on technical papers due to work with universities -papers presented to the Eastern Cougar Foundation for instance.  Also acting as a wildlife consultant to UK police forces between 1977-2007. I look at the evidence, research, investigate and then draw whatever conclusions I need to based on the facts.

Secondly, NO I am not a "Ufologist" though I have been labelled as such in Flying Saucer Review, The UFO Encyclopedia (M. Sachs) and many other sources.  I have actively looked into UFO sightings since the 1970s and, of course, was head of the AOP Bureau "Grey Book". My interest in meteorological, astronomical, aeronautical science as well as SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) and CETI (Communications with Extraterrestrial Intelligences) and a lot of other stuff came in handy there.

Oddly, you might be surprised how both fields can cross over or knowledge of one subject crosses over into a subject you never thought it would come in handy with!

Hope that makes things clear?

Always interested in hearing the experiences of others so if you've encountered the unexplained PLEASE get in touch.

Monday, 22 December 2014

Review: Bigfoot Research: The Russian Vision


Dmitri Bayanov 
Paperback: 431 pages
Publisher: Hancock House Publishers Ltd ,Canada; American Edition, Second Printing edition (January 1, 2011)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0888397062
ISBN-13: 978-0888397065
Product Dimensions: 5.6 x 0.8 x 8.5 inches

So, I looked at the cost.  Quite expensive but 430 pages on Russian Hominology… now it is near impossible to find much of Russian Hominology and so I bit the bullet and ordered the book.

I had a brief correspondence with Dmitri Bayanov in the early 1980s –mainly regarding Sasquatch researcher John Green’s call for a Sasquatch to be shot and killed “for science”. I even got some new information on the Russian hominid scene.  It was certainly an eye-opener to me.  Sadly, TV has never fully looked at Russian hominology but prefers to stick to Sasquatch/Bigfoot with only an occasional look at Almas or, rarer still, the Chinese Yeren.

Anyway, the book arrived and I sat down to read it.  Oh. It was not going to be all about Russian hominology after all.  Serves me right for believing the advert. I’ve now found another advert and the book blurb reads:

“Bigfoot is a familiar word today around the world. Since the middle of the last century it indicates a mysterious giant primate of North America, who is also called Sasquatch. The Russian vision of this research is distinguished by at least three peculiarities: it is based on the combined evidence regarding these primates; it regards these humanlike beings as relict hominids (hominins by latest primate classification), i.e., the closest relatives of modern man, Homo sapiens; and it firmly takes the existence of these still enigmatic bipeds for a biological fact, not a popular myth or a scientific hypothesis. The purpose of the book is to substantiate these views and claims. The main philosophic question posed by it: What is it to be human?”

Seriously, that does not tell much about the book.  In fact, as I started reading it I realised that my disappointment was uncalled for.

It is never really mentioned –especially on US TV- that the Russian hominologists and experts were the first to fully analyse and affirm that the Patterson-Gimlin film of a Sasquatch from Bluff Creek, in 1967, was genuine.  It took a while longer for American experts to do the same.  In fact, it was only after the advent of computer technology, enhancement and analysis that US experts deemed the short film “genuine”. The nice thing about this book is that it contains papers and extracts from papers that most of us in the West have not seen for various reason.  The Patterson footage is looked at and discussed here.

The big debate on whether to shoot and kill (“humanely”?!!!) a Sasquatch for science still rages on and, as I have written a number of times before it should be totally abhorrent to anyone –let alone someone claiming to be a scientist- to just go out and kill a living creature “for science”!  We live in the 21st century.  The age of DNA –DNA which can convict a person of a crime in a court of law- and if the nay-sayers tell us this sort of evidence is not good enough then they are actually snubbing their noses at the very science they claim to uphold the principles of.

“Why do those hairs said to be from a Bigfoot not result in a ‘This is Bigfoot hair’ announcement by the labs testing it?”  It’s a question I have been asked.  Well, we find a hair and on testing the data base shows a scientifically known animal –Brown bear, deer or whatever.  However, there is no “scientifically known” Sasquatch.  I’ve mentioned many times how evidence needs to be gathered.  “Unknown primate” is what we get from test results.

Russian hominologists are aware that killing an Almas is wrong but to “habituate” –get it used to one or two people- and film then gather samples is a good way to go.  This is dealt with in depth in this book.

I mentioned in Some More Things Strange & Sinister, the American newspaper report I had found in library archives of a Sasquatch jumping onto and then riding a horse.  “Ridiculous” was what I thought.  I wish I had read this book first!  Evidence of horse-riding DOES exist!!!    Horse-mane braiding.  Sasquatch/Almas vocalisation is also dealt with along with several claims of long term Sasquatch-human interaction in the US.  But looking at reports and more, Bayanov tells us Almas-human interaction is not unknown.

Buy Bayanov also looks at the Chinese Yeren and the Australian Yowie.  It is incredible that in such widely separated geographic areas there are so many correlations.  There was no free access to the US press in the Soviet era so no country folk could read of Sasquatch and think “That’d be a great joke to pull!” Access to Australian newspapers and Yowie reports? No. But it worked both ways and as someone always on the look out for these reports the only thing I ever saw from China was in China Reconstructs in the 1970s and that I saw by accident as my brother had a copy!

Bayanov also looks at reports of alleged Almas kills and why hunters might not report such kills in Russia or the United States.

And Bayanov makes a very –VERY- good case for the “Father of Hominology” to be his old professor Boris Fedorovich Porshnev (1905-1972).  In point of fact, reading the book you realise that, like the Chinese, the Russians were taking hominology very seriously and the only thing getting in the way of greater progress for the Russians was/is lack of financial resources.

I do not normally sit down and read a 400+ paged book over a day-and-a-half and ignore everything else.  But in this case I had no choice!  If reading about Russian hominology was not enough then Bayanov’s study of folklore about wildmen as well as looking at accounts of these dating back to ancient Greece and artistic depictions of wildmen in archaeological finds is a clincher.  I think that a lot of us interested in hominology suspected that wildmen in folkore and Medieval accounts might have been some kind of relic hominid –“European Bigfoot” if you want to dumb it down. But in this book Bayanov makes the strongest case for this based on known literature and finds.  He even refers to Linaeus and his classification of hominid types.  Naturalists today use the Linnaean system of classification yet many are unaware of his hominid classifications because they were censored and then omitted later by ‘scholars’ who would have no such officially recognised “other species”.

The scope of this work covers far more, though –including the Minnesota “Ice Man” and just WHO may have really owned it.

I have always cherished my Sanderson Abominable Snowman: Legend Come To Life and I always will.  However, if I had to recommend a book on the subject to anyone it would be this one. The fact that Bayanov’s book is decades newer and up-to-date on hominology helps!

Lots of images regarding wildmen in history and more make this the must read on the subject.

Thursday, 18 December 2014

Guess What? Mysterious Creature Washes Ashore In Wake Of California Storms

This  story is appearing on a lot of news sites and on You Tube.  The animal is not that large and based on the circumstances I would have to say dog -I have not, obviously, examined the carcass!  Bodies bloat and even human corpses that have been in water for some time bloat up horrendously.

I think it's odd that one of these sources have asked a veterinarian for an opinion.  

WHY would an unknown sea creature be a quadruped?  Look -no sign of gills!

Carcasses wash ashore all the time and I find it very sad that in the 21st century people have suddenly decided to use them to make money or entertainment.  No doubt all the conspiracy claims will be appearing -secret US Government genetic engineering blah blah blah!

In my last book I looked at the "Montauk Monster" and all the sensationalist tripe that involved.  Does it matter whether it's a dog or other animal? Bury the poor thing.

The strange creature is hairless, sporting large canine teeth.
A mysterious, hairless creature recently washed ashore on a California beach, stunning residents as it appeared in the wake of brutal storms that battered the coast.

The mystery carcass was discovered on a beach in Santa Barbara, according to the Daily Mail. The brown skinned creature displayed pointed teeth and sharp claws, yet residents were left baffled, unable to identify the strange beast. KEYT reports that the mystery creature was found near a drain washout, in an area where sandy water from the harbor flows out of a dredging pipe, east of Stearns Wharf.

Local residents were perplexed by the mysterious creature, though several offered their take on what the strange animal could be. Several suggested that it might be a bear or a pig, though KEYT anchors noted that the body was small, citing a branch near the carcass to demonstrate its size.

One Santa Barbara resident offered his thoughts on the mystery creature while being interviewed by KEYT.
“I’d say it looks like a combination of a seal and a dog with fangs, dried up, potentially,” he noted.
His friend had a different reaction to the creature, citing the apparent age of the carcass as a factor.

“To me it looks like a… reminiscent of a dinosaur. Like it’s just really old… It’s something you’ve never seen but like a dog, but ancient, you know? It’s old.”

Earlier this year, another mysterious creature was spotted in California, prowling the streets of Norwalk. As the Inquisitr previously reported, the large animal was captured on a security camera, and though residents at first thought it to be a mountain lion, its tail was inconsistent with that species. Experts asserted that the strange creature was more akin to an African lion than a cougar, though the local zoo confirmed that all of their animals were accounted for.

Another unidentified creature, bearing a striking resemblance to the body that washed ashore in Santa Barbara, was found on a beach in San Diego in June of 2012. Josh Menard, a snowboarder from Lake Tahoe, discovered the mystery carcass, which he described as about two feet long. The strange creature’s body had a shape similar to that of a pig, Menard noted, with a fat stomach area. The animal also sported a vicious set of canine teeth, distinctly different than those found on California’s most recent mystery creature.

[Image: KEYT via the Daily Mail]


More On Those 'Abominable Snowman DNA' tests

This story just will not go away.  DNA tests prove one thing.  More DNA tests by others...well, I think the point is that this is why hair or other material that requires these tests should not be handled by just one lab, no matter how prestigious.

This is what BBC News online had to report

I did delete the image from the Patterson film and reference to hoaxers using Gorilla suits!

Scientists challenge 'Abominable Snowman DNA' results

Polar bear 
 It had been proposed that hairs said to be from the yeti matched the DNA of ancient polar bears
A theory that the mythical yeti is a rare polar bear-brown bear hybrid animal has been challenged.

Last year, Oxford University genetics professor Bryan Sykes revealed the results of DNA tests on hairs said to be from the Abominable Snowman.

The tests matched the samples with the DNA of an ancient polar bear.

But two other scientists have said re-analysis of the same data shows the hairs belong to the Himalayan bear, a sub-species of the brown bear.

The results of the new research by Ceiridwen Edwards and Ross Barnett have been published in the Royal Society journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Among Dr Edwards' previous work was an attempt to carry out DNA analysis of a sample taken from bones of a polar bear washed into caves in north west Scotland 18,000 years ago.

Brown bear  
A sub species of the brown bear could be behind the Himalayan myth
According to legend, the yeti is a large and elusive ape-like beast.

For many years experts have been seeking a scientific explanation for the Abominable Snowman.

Prof Sykes, along with other genetics experts, conducted DNA tests on hairs from two unidentified animals, one from Ladakh - in northern India on the west of the Himalayas - and the other from Bhutan, 800 miles (1,285km) further east.

The results were then compared with the genomes of other animals stored on a database of all published DNA sequences.

The scientists found that he had a 100% match with a sample from an ancient polar bear jawbone found in Svalbard, Norway, that dates back to between 40,000 and 120,000 years ago - a time when the polar bear and closely-related brown bear were separating as different species.

The species are closely related and are known to interbreed where their territories overlap.

  Experts have sought scientific explanations to the yeti legend
The sample from Ladakh came from the mummified remains of a creature shot by a hunter around 40 years ago, while the second sample was in the form of a single hair, found in a bamboo forest by an expedition of filmmakers about 10 years ago.

The samples were subjected to the most advanced tests available.

Prof Sykes said the most likely explanation for the myth was that the animal was a hybrid of polar bears and brown bears.

The research was reported widely by the media last year and, in July this year, published by the Royal Society.

However, following re-analysis of the same data, Dr Edwards and Dr Barnett argue that the hybrid bear does not exist in the Himalayas.

They said the previous research mistakenly matched DNA to an ancient Pleistocene polar bear, instead of a modern polar bear.

In their paper, Dr Edwards and Dr Barnett said their tests identified the hairs as being from a rare type of brown bear.

The scientists said: "The Himalayan bear is a sub-species of the brown bear that lives in the higher reaches of the Himalayas, in remote, mountainous areas of Pakistan, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan and India.

"Its populations are small and isolated, and it is extremely rare in many parts of its range.

"The common name for these bears in the region is Dzu-teh, a Nepalese term meaning 'cattle bear', and they have long been associated with the myth of the yeti."


Prof Sykes and the other members of the team behind the earlier yeti hairs analysis have acknowledged that there was an error caused by an incomplete search of the DNA database used.

However, they said in a statement: "Importantly, for the thrust of the paper as a whole, the conclusion that these Himalayan 'yeti' samples were certainly not from a hitherto unknown primate is unaffected."

The response added: "We stressed in the original paper that the true identity of this intriguing animal needs to be refined, preferably by sequence data from fresh tissue samples derived from a living specimen where DNA degradation is no longer a concern."

Other hair samples said to belong to the yeti have been scrutinised by experts before.

In 2008, scientists in the US examined hairs given to the BBC which some had claimed were from a yeti.
The scientists concluded that the hairs - obtained from the north-east Indian state of Meghalaya - actually belonged to a species of Himalayan goat known as a Himalayan goral.

Dr Edwards has previously attempted to unlock the secrets of polar bear remains found in Scotland
In 2007, Dr Edwards began a process to extract DNA from what are believed to be the only polar bear remains to be found in Britain.

The skull, of which only a part survives, was discovered at the Bone Caves in Inchnadamph, in Assynt, Sutherland, in 1927.

Prehistoric remains of animals - including an almost complete skeleton of a brown bear - and humans have been uncovered in the caves.

Dr Edwards hoped to shed light on what the polar bear was doing in Assynt 18,000 years ago.
However, DNA had not survived in the bone fragment.

Dr Edwards was also involved in a DNA study of ancient brown bear bones that suggested the maternal ancestors of modern polar bears were from Ireland.

Previously, it was believed that today's polar bears were most closely related to brown bears living on islands off the coast of Alaska.

Attempting To Gather Scientific Evidence For Species Existence Using Non-Lethal Methodology.

This is from a draft paper I put together in 2009.  It was to be part of a paper I had hoped to present to the Eastern Cougar Foundation.   Comments are welcome.
 Above: Melanistic puma.


          Attempting To Gather Scientific Evidence For Species
                                     Existence Using
                             Non-Lethal Methodology.

                             TERRY HOOPER-SCHARF

                                  Exotic Animals Register [EAR]
                                           United Kingdom


From a very early age I learnt “science demands proof” and that, zoologically speaking, ”the body of evidence” is just that.  A corpse.   Without a corpse to dissect and study we are told that science cannot accept anything as existing.

The Carthaginian, Hanno, encountered a Lowland gorilla [Gorilla g. gorilla] briefly but that was two thousand years ago.  Andrew Battle, in the late 16th century had encountered Lowland Gorillas and his account of this, as well as encounters with other forms of African wildlife were presented in a book in 1614.

Skulls, parts of skeletons and even skins were brought back to Europe, the UK in particular, but those travellers presenting this evidence were often laughed out of scientific places of learning.

Even though gorillas had been exhibited in travelling menageries –we know that in 1855,Wombwell’s travelling menagerie had a gorilla called “Jenny” on display and there are news reports of gorilla [“an African wild man of the forest”] coming in by ship in 1800,it was not until 1851 that the existence of the gorilla was scientifically accepted and catalogued.

In August,1902,Captain von Beringe succeeded in killing two gorillas but recovered only one body which was sent back to Europe and classed as Gorilla gorilla beringeithe Eastern Gorilla.

We have, in the UK, tracks identified by experts specialising in Felids at zoological gardens and even former African trackers running a deer park here, as being leopard [Panthera pardus].  Anyone picking up a field guide to tracks or even accessing the internet today can identify such tracks.  There have been hairs recovered by police after “big cat” incidents that have been DNA tested by two reputable laboratories and the results were Panthera pardus. 

There are also tracks and hairs consistent with the Puma [Puma concolor] and lynx species [Lynx lynx].  There are many very credible witnesses who have seen cats at close proximity [0-20m] and some of these were trained naturalists and one senior lecturer in zoology at a university who was also an expert wildlife consultant.  It is fair to say that there is also good photographic and video footage of non-native species.

We also have photographic records of large cat [puma] attack on horses and a large number of photographs of sheep, deer and other prey animals bearing all the signs of typical large cat kills.  Recordings of puma calls even.

Despite this, some experts say they still want a body as “proof” –a totally pointless exercise unless it is out of curiosity [Red Paper: Felids -unpublished]

It should be unacceptable that, in the 21st century, science requires a corpse as evidence that a particular animal exists.  We can, with non-injuring ‘traps’ and other means, not to mention remote trail-camera traps, gain enough evidence that a species exists but killing an animal might have dire consequences.  What if a Felid or other animal killed is a female and has young.  Without the mother to provide food those young will die.  And without maternal training to give older cubs hunting skills they will need, those young can become “messy killers”.

And what if the animal killed is, say, the last male or female of the species,or at least last of a breeding pair?  The species is lost.

In the 1970s,there was a great debate, often heated, amongst Hominologists, those looking for the Sasquatch/Bigfoot in the USA and Canada and Almasty in the former USSR[source].  Leading US researcher John Green, along with Grover Krantz, put forward the same old argument “science needs a corpse as proof –so shoot a Bigfoot”.

Dmitri Bayanov, of the  Darwin Museum, Moscow, argued that, if the hominid was a relic primitive man population then shooting one would be homicide and at the time I came out on Mr. Bayanov’s side based on our not knowing how many such hominids there might be, if any, and if the last one of a breeding pair was killed the science might be happy but the species was doomed.

But in the 1970s we never had DNA testing or the other scientific and technical aids that we have today.

What I am putting forward in this paper are ways to gain evidence that science can study and base conclusions on without a body.  The methodology can be applied to most animals whether felid, canid or hominid.  It is based on past experience as a naturalist as well as other training that cannot be specified.

It is in fact an intelligence gathering methodology in which physical traces of a species as well as other visual data are gathered and analysed.  This information should then help decide the basis of how to proceed next.

And we must never forget the "Absence of Evidence" often quoted by what are called the "sceptics". Irving Copi the American philosopher, logician, and university textbook author. wrote:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

This is something that Carl Sagan once wrote about.  The argument from ignorance for "absence of evidence" isn't necessarily fallacious.  For instance,  that a new, potentially life saving drug poses no long term health risk unless proven otherwise. It might be argued that were such an argument to rely imprudently on the lack of research to promote such a conclusion, it would be considered an informal fallacy- whereas the former can be a persuasive way to shift the burden of proof in an argument or debate. 

 Carl Sagan criticized such "impatience with ambiguity" in cosmologist Martin Rees' maxim, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Sagan, Carl (1997). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1st ed.). New York: Ballantine. p. 213. ISBN 0-345-40946-9. OCLC 32855551)

To put it in another way: jurors at a trial might be told by the prosecution that a defendant had been heard to say in a heated arguement "I will kill you!"  Ten days later the subject of this outburst was fond dead.  Therefore the defendant did it.  The defendant is known to have had a violent past. The defence would then claim "where is the proof?"

I was once astonished when Sagan, again, stated that there is no evidence that extraterrestrials (in "UFOs") are visiting the Earth -but there is no evidence that extraterrestrials (in "UFO") are not visiting the Earth.

A scientist at whatever level -university big name down to the lowly naturalist- must always keep this in mind in whatever field they are involved in.

 "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

 Feed-back is always welcome.

Terry Hooper-Scharf

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

REAL BIGFOOT :: Shooting Bigfoot. Or, WHY Face Book Finding Bigfoot Closed

Okay. I do NOT want to turn this into a plain Sasquatch site but I was asked whether I knew why Face Book Finding Bigfoot is no longer active and what the statement on the page about a Bigfoot shooting was about?

Right, this footage is what the people of that page FBFB staked their reputations on.  They did not look at all the physiological differences between Sasquatch and the man in the costume here.  Height, arms, head/face, legs and other basics such as this not being the type of cheap costume Bigfoot wears. :-)

If I were FBFB then, yes, I'd close my page, too out of sheer and utter embarrassment. I have no idea why they would scream "Authentic!" after watching this -from someone known to hoax?

So, that is why.                      

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Saber-toothed cat struts down Wilshire, and comes home to the Tar Pits!

This Is Pure Fakery -Video #2: Todd Standing Bigfoot video as seen in 2nd Survivorman Bigfoot...

This clip demonstrates what I am talking about.  Shaky camera -odd since the 'Sasquatch' is enough at ease to just stand there- on a stationary object.  You get t what looks like it might be interesting and then...about 1 min 20 secs in -totally fake blink.

It's almost like a knowing wink -"You've been had suckers!"

But it is so unrealistic.  There are comments that it is "clearly cgi" -seriously?  Has the modern mentality of the You Tube generation become that much fixated on fakery that the only thing they believe can be used to perpetrate a video hoax is cgi??


It's not something that has been digitally altered.  TV shows used puppets that were controlled by someone's hand -the 'fur' could be covering someone whose hand is in the head -you can even buy childrens dolls that blink this way.

Get complicated.  A small air-pump to operate the "blink".  All electrical manipulated and still switch operated. It is the very basic of effects. 

Look at that blink.  That is NOT how it works.  Look in a mirror or even film yourself and others winking. You would see other facial movement.  Watch a gorilla or chimp closing an eye.

This is just outright a ludicrous hoax.

It is why I keep asking WHY Jeff Meldrum is involved in this?  He knows enough about physiology to spot this and not need a second look.

Other clips have left me equally unimpressed -including the "Muppet Bigfoot".  How many years has Standing been promoting this work and the film?   Who is seeing it?  I've looked for online reviews and not found one -if YOU have please let me know.

I would love there to be genuine footage but will I still be hearing about Standing needing to raise even more money and the "up-coming release" of his film in 2020??

Rick Dyer Admits Hoax and Jeff Meldrum, Todd Standing, Les Stroud Superteam

I have to say that I really am confused -same as these fellas.  WHY is Jeff Meldrum involved -has he been conned? Standing just makes the hairs on my neck stand-up. 2010-2014 does not seem to have seen much released by Standing video-wise.  Why??

If anyone has good info or has seen the footage and can convince this aging naturalist that this is not all a hoax I'd appreciate it.  But I am really hoping Meldrum has not "crossed over to the dark side"!

UK Big Cat Mystery...I Really WAS Wasting My Time?


Rival: In 2008 Chris Ede spotted this big black cat outside her holiday home and believes it may have been the legendary Beast of Bodmin
Rival: In 2008 Chris Ede spotted this big black cat outside her holiday home and believes it may have been the legendary Beast of Bodmin
 I'm guessing there was nothing better to do on the journalism front. David Clarke "found" the documents.  And what did he learn?  What everyone else knew at the time.

The Government 'investigation' had farmers and others up in arms.  For instance:

 It refused to accept evidence from witnesses -two farmers offered a large number of plaster casts of tracks that were identified as "leopard"  by a zoologist who had studied leopards in Africa -"it does not constitute evidence".  

Recordings of vocalisations that were quite clearly leopard were refused submission "it does not constitute evidence".

The 'experts' would not visit the site of fresh livestock kills where tracks were also found -even an RSPCA inspector and a zoologist from Bristol could not deny what they found and both had been "died in the wool sceptics"

Basically, it was a "paper" exercise.  Like the National Farmers Union UK police forces and many other bodies, the Ministry knew full well that there were non native cats in the UK countryside.  I was once of a visit to an old office of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food and their 'expert' showed me good, clear photographs of leopard and puma tracks plus plaster casts -"this one is a lynx" I was told as he held the cast up.  Saving embarrassment, let's just say that during our talk the 'expert' realised I was not who he thought I was and ushered me out.

The Department of Environment, Farming & Rural Affairs took over.  I spoke with another 'expert' by phone and I mentioned tracks.  "That isn't evidence" he told me "If it was I have two drawers-full of plaster casts of tracks that I'm told are leopard and puma.  There's no real evidence."


I know what you are thinking.  Two drawers full of plaster casts of leopard and puma tracks -why is that not evidence?  Why would he tell me that?  

Firstly, I need to explain about the 'experts' that these departments put forward.  I was talking to the "main expert" who was in Bristol and it was quite clear he had no idea what I was talking about when referring to various tracks, scat and "morphology".  Apparently, the 'expert' on big cat cases in the UK had drawn the short straw.  He was a regular civil servant and one day he boss said "We need someone to deal with big cat phone calls -I've put you on the roster!"

He and his predecessors/successors had no real training in the subject but they all pointed out that they could call on "experts" if they needed advice.  Not independent experts but people chosen from a selected list. At one point the Bristol man started talking about a particular case.  Turns out "some farmer" had claimed their horse was attacked by a leopard in Wales. Now, at the time I was officially listed on DEFRAs "Partners Against Wildlife Crimes" as "approved" so I got more detail.  Odd. It was very similar to an ongoing case I was involved in.  Could I get the experts phone number? "Well, I shouldn't but it ought to be okay."  He then gave me my telephone number!

He was, in fact, referring to an attack by a puma on an Argentinean polo pony that belonged to a professor in South Wales.  Photographs taken at the time were so clear that when Bristol Zoo saw them they put me in touch. The dentition and measurements confirmed that it was a puma attack -deep bites along the back of the neck and claw marks where the cat had dug in. Zoologists who saw the photographs told me that the pony was lucky to have escaped.  "You see this sort of thing quite a bit in South America.  What part was this in -Argentina?" And when I told them where they were aghast.  Except for one zoologist who had confirmed that beyond a doubt "this was a puma attack" who told me: "You do not get pumas in Wales." He seriously thought I was joking but when he found I was not it was suddenly "Dogs?" and then the famous words that I really laughed out loud to: "Very well may have been a badger attack"!! 

Remember that definition of "Expert" -"X" =The Unknown and "Spurt" is a drip under pressure?

And I have several copies of a typed up witness statement -all signed and dated- telling how he had helped a DEFRA veterinarian with a caged leopard on his farm.  The man was shocked and mortified when the vet injected the animal and killed it -he assumed that it was being tranquilised. The local police force also has a copy of this report.

"A corpse is what we want as proof" they say.  Interestingly, when it was realised that I would not tow the DEFRA line (which it says you must on the contract you sign) every obstacle was put in my way. I completed the form TEN TIMES and each time there was the "We need more detail here" or some other excuse.  So I continued "off the books" and believe me that makes you the enemy! 

But from 1977 up to a few years ago I was consulted by police forces. I saw the evidence.  I had police turn up after driving a hundred or so miles with casts and photos. 

Here's a fun fact for you.  Remember in the 1980s when the Royal Marines were sent on Bodmin to "track down and shoot" a big cat if it was there? 

Over the years I've spoken to an officer and men involved -all now in different walks of life.  They all told me that they were not there to shoot "the Beast" if they saw it. As one pointed out: "The rifles we had -if we fired- the bullet might miss or go through an animal and with cottages dotted around as well as livestock and farmers out looking for the Beast....I'll leave the thought of a high powered bullet whizzing through the dark to your imagination!"

And, yes, some using night vision rifle-sights did see a large, unidentified cat. Nothing close-to, though.

In my logs -copies held in storage at a couple locations- I have reports from two of these former Royal Marines.  Both in security at the time and in different parts of the country.  One ran a security dog firm and one night his dogs "treed" something.  He called them back and in powerful searchlight saw a puma jump down from the tree and run off.  The other ex-Marine had a similar night sighting. "I never saw a bloody thing on Bodmin myself and now, years later in another part of the country I see a big cat!"   

Because of the strict witness protection criteria I employ I could tell neither of the other man's sighting.

There is good footage of these cats.  There is very good footage of the smaller jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi) in the UK. Several minutes of it in fact.

The idea that a photograph of a domestic black cat by a railway line fooled "everyone" is ludicrous.  When the photo was released it was checked and declared "domestic cat".

Personally, I don't care if people do accept such awful, unscientific conclusions as fact.  There are millions of wild rabbit, hundreds of thousands of deer of all species, wild game birds -plenty of prey, cover and everything else a large cat requires. "It's a joke" is better than "It's a fact" because then we will see every ass who thinks he/she is a big hunter going out at night trying to "bag one"and the brief fame and money it would bring.
    Beast of Bodmin mystery finally solved: It’s a cat.Beast of Bodmin Moor mystery finally solved?

A mysterious and bloodthirsty creature that terrified Cornwall families for 30 years has finally been identified.

It’s a cat.

The ‘creature’, dubbed the Beast of Bodmin Moor, was thought to be rampaging through Cornwall, slaying and mutilating livestock and striking fear into the hearts of the locals.
It was speculated to be a panther or some large wild animal, but the truth, as it turns out, is far simpler.

A six-month-long Government investigation in 1995 into the ‘beast’ found there was no ‘verifiable evidence’ of exotic cats loose in the UK, reports the Daily Mail, with further research – at an equivalent £84,000 cost – showing the animal to be slightly-larger-than-average cat.

Sheffield Hallam University journalism professor David Clarke found the documents at the Public Record Office.

The papers said that although the ‘beast’ was ruled to be a 12in tall cat, researchers could not prove that big, wild cats were ‘not present’.

Monday, 15 December 2014

On Science And The Scientific Methodology

There are things you notice when you do most kinds of work, 

Patterns such as Mrs Biggs comes into the shop on a Tuesday, usually around 1500hrs.  The Jones' always take their holidays the first week in August. Chocolate fudge biscuits always sell more than plain -order in more chocolate fudge biscuits.  Next door's cat always poops in the rose bed and always hides out behind the shed.

All simple things but we automatically log them in our brains.

Same thing with wildlife -you know when whale pods are going to appear around the coasts: example -check Whale migration

When do birds migrate and what routes do they take.  Again we know a lot about this-

How do we know?  Basically, observation.  In some countries we learn this from native peoples who have observed patterns over millenia.  With whales we know because sailors, whalers and fishermen as well as coastal people have seen them for so long.

We know birds and whales and other animals follow established trails that have a good supply of foods until they get to their breeding grounds.

That is established scientific fact and the methodology was put together by naturalists over centuries.  Not university big names with a paper degree feeding off  the works of  'lesser' people and taking the odd comfortable field trip.

Sighting reports from "members of the public" make up a bulk of the data used.  Look at maps and check a reference book by some zoologist on local wildlife will not give you a true picture of what is going on. But the university degree boffins swear by the books.  "Nothing to support such an animal in the way of food or cover"  They can be very wrong.

Let me take an example from my own work as a UK Police Forces wildlife consultant (1977-2006). People report that "for years" a large cat -a puma- has been seen in the area of a village. "Ridiculous!" cries an 'expert' who has never even visited the part of the country in question.  Why is it ridiculous?  "Not enough food or cover in the area" and they'll quote some research or paper by an academic.

In one case I found that the academic who put such a paper together relied on a quick chat with someone and consulting some old writer of decades before.  So, I spoke to several witnesses.  Nothing wrong with their descriptions and they included included things that I, as a naturalist, would expect to hear but which confused them.  The most common being that the cat they saw was not black yet "everyone on TV and in the papers say it's supposed to be black-?"

"What is the area like -and trees or rivers -streams?" Then you discover that in the 1950s the area was hilly with a few trees but in the early 1960s forests were planted which have grown and connect smoothly with old forestry in the next county.  There are gullies and high points, too.  And, yes, a stream.  Then someone quite casually mentions a disused railway line -a game trail.  So there is cover and water.  You then find that there are lots of deer -including a herd of muntjac (one forestry warden once told me that he had grown up in the area and knew the local forest like the back of his hand: some Roe deer but "absolutely no muntjac deer at all -let alone a herd!"  This man later, quite by accident "walked into a herd of muntjac -same area as those people reported then in" -and he was the 'expert').

Then you hear about "swarms of rabbits" and geese, swans, ducks and even wild boar. Add to this squirrel and rats and that is more than adequate prey for a cat like a puma.  Incidentally, when foals are killed and dragged off -carcasses found later hidden away in heavy undergrowth- it is stupidity in the extreme to suggest that maybe a badger or a dog had done this.  Really.

You then find patterns -the cat is seen but then vanishes for a month or so but other areas get cat reports. This is a cat moving across its territory.

So we get food and water sources.  Shelter.  "Known" pattern of territorial wandering and many eye witness reports.

For wild boar and other native wildlife this is all used to build up a picture of undisputable fact and many studies are based on this.  When you have foresters, naturalists -some VERY senior ones- as well as police officers etc. then you could not ask for more.  Find a dead badger carcass that can be dissected and studied -great.

But this scientific methodology does not apply in areas where the, uh, "learned" professional is not comfortable.  An area that he/she has mocked because when they were studying their tutors or professors mocked them -"learnt negative  behaviour."

We have all of this information and witnesses, we have plaster casts of tracks, DNA hair analysis and even DNA testing of scat.  Add to this experts at a university who have studied the remains of bones from animals killed and eaten that show dentition studied using scientific methodology proving a large, non-native cat -puma or panther- was responsible.  Proof, right?  No.  Even a very senior zoologist's word is mocked.

And here we are talking about large cats.  On at least three occasions remains of such an animal were reported to museum natural history sections -who refused to go look or even accept the carcass if taken to them. I know of two experienced foresters who had worked in Canada and who, in Scotland, drove past a clearly identified wolverine (Gulo gulo).  They contacted me. I contacted a very famous museum about three miles from the site.  Nothing.  I faxed the museum with full details.  Nothing.  Left a phone message (three times) -nothing.  Emails.  Nothing.  The foresters, using the name of the authority they worked for tried. Nothing.  Next day the foresters drove back, risking the very heavy traffic and parking illegally on the road verge to get the remains.  Gone.  Tyre tracks showed someone else had been there.

The head man at the museum, very well known, later denied having received any phone messages, faxes or emails.

I have come across this often. And a carcass can reveal a lot regarding the animals life and food sources.

Now this is all about animals that are known to exist -if not in their "normal" habitat.

It is interesting that serious Sasquatch investigators will employ the same established methodology to their work.  It yields results but the 'serious' experts will just say "rubbish!" and why?  "Because these things simply do not exist so there can be no such evidence!"  Work that one out.

So what about "sea serpents" or "sea monsters"? 

We are still discovering many new species of aquatic life and once thought "fantasy" the giant squid is now thought to really exist by serious marine biologists.  To actually sit in front of a microphone or camera and call unknown sea creature reports "tall tales of the sea" or "salty old sailors tales!" (yes, in the 21st century that very line is still used!) is the equivalent of holding up a neon sign which reads "I AM A MORON!"

And, again, there is the 'experts' call of "It cannot exist therefore all evidence cannot exist!"  And yet, even a cursory look at newspaper accounts from the 19th century -before all accusations of modern fakery (as with the "Morgawr" hoaxes of the mid 1970s in Cornwall) and people being influenced by pop culture- reveals descriptions that tally of several creatures, behaviour, hunting of fish (and even possibly whales), specific anatomical movements that one person might make up but several with no access to the source material? And we can also learn about the speed these creatures swim at and how they submerge/surface. There is a lot that we can learn from the descriptions and no "salty old sea dogs" amongst the witnesses but trained and recognised naturalists, ships crews and an assortment of well educated persons -all seeing things that do not exist in precise detail.

But here is something else.  These creatures seem to migrate.  Just looking at the newspaper dates one sees that late Summer to Autumn these creatures -"The Famous American Sea Serpent" -"The New York Sea Serpent" and even around UK waters these creatures return. 

In fact, I once spoke to a former newspaper owner and his career went back to the 1920s.  While we talked a radio in the background had someone saying "It's silly season again" and the old chap smiled.  "That's an old newspaper term everyone uses nowadays!"  As we were not discussing sea creatures, UFOs or anything weird it cnnot be claimed he was "playing to his audience"!  "Every year, going way back to the mid 19th century, you knew late Summer and Autumn would see lots of silly stories about sea serpents.  We even got the office boys to dig up the old clippings to prepare in advance.  Every year without fail -it's why we always called it 'silly season' and the term caught on!"

Yes, even newspapermen were aware o the fact that these silly non-existent sea creatures showed up at a specific time of the year.  A migration pattern.   But, until I pointed this out in more detail in Pursuing The Strange And Weird: A Naturalist's Viewpoint, in which I mention similar supposed migration routes to whales, I had not seen anyone else connect the two -though I am sure someone must have since even old newspaper reports refer to "the migrating sea serpent has returned to our shores".

There is more available data on various types of unknown sea creature than for creatures science has recognised because some noted name "saw it" -a noted name sees an unknown sea creature he/she is "whacky" -even if they have a blurry photo.  A noted name has a blurry photo of an unknown quadruped it is an "amazing scientific discovery"!

That is not science.  That is blind eyed unscientific tosh.

Afraid of negative publicity and professional embarrassment if they mention even a slight interest in sea creature reports?  That type of person is NOT a scientist but a charlatan. Playing at science because of a nice salary and comfortable office.  I am reminded of an equation I was taught by my late friend and colleague Franklyn Angus Davin-Wilson:

    "X = The Unknown. "Spurt" = A Drip Under Pressure -the "expert!"

Seems fair.  I looked into large, non-native cats and other exotics in the 1970s as I was a young naturalist who thought it was all "utter bunk!"  After five years the evidence proved me wrong.  It took almost 40 years but the research behind The Red Paper: Canids amassed enough data to prove theories and establish facts in many cases of "mystery canids" just as my other books showed 'lost' history of primates and other creatures.

If something proves to be a hoax or misidentification you report on it no matter how many times you get attacked in print as a closed-minded sceptic -because the facts are presently correctly.  You find evidence that shows something "very possibly" is real then you do the same but keep looking at new reports data until you can say "yay" or "nay".  If the data is so strong that you cannot see any possibility other than that a creature exists then you have to present that data and focus on obtaining hard evidence to study.

As a life time sceptic on Sasquatch I still stated more investigation was needed.  At times I question myself but, yes, I do now believe that "mystery hominds" exist based on the evidence. 

Regarding sea creatures of unknown type -I have never ever been so stupid as to say "no such thing". I have no doubt some still exist.  We need to keep on looking for evidence and gathering data.

THAT is science.

Saturday, 13 December 2014

Breakdown - Security Camera Shows Bigfoot Drinking Water

I deserve this for not double-checking!  My text from the post vanished...hmm -a new mysterious phenomenon??

 Seriously, though, I think it good that these videos are analysed in this way, however, the very first time I saw it I laughed very loudly.  Forget when that type of plastic chair was manufactured.  Forget how much surveillance systems and video recorders cost at that time. 

LOOK at the, uh, figure.  I thought it was a joke video until I realised that the very baggy man-monkey costume was being put forward as a genuine Sasquatch.

In a way it reminds me of Prof. R. V. Jones of British Scientific Intelligence who, at the height of the 1947/48 "Ghost Rocket" wave, received a copy of an analysis report on a piece of a "Ghost Rocket" -material was unknown but, Jones had examined the fragment.  "Have you taken a close look at it?" he asked.  The techs had not.  They did so. 

"Oh" was a simple reply because they were analysing a lump of coke. In this case not petroleum coke but coke a fuel with few impurities and a high carbon content and usually made from coal. It is the solid carbonaceous material which is derived from destructive distillation of low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal. Cokes made from coal are grey, hard, and porous.

In this video the question is: "Did you look at the man in the baggy monkey-suit?"

Don't miss the Geminid meteor shower tonight!

Tuesday, 9 December 2014

YAAAAARGH!!!! Oh. A Tree.

Thanks to Arrin (?) for forwarding this.  BUT I accidentally deleted your email so have no idea where this is from -but it is funny!