(11-09-2020, 12:01 PM)drussell41 Wrote:

(03-22-2020, 04:11 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Not a Bigfoot, but an Appalachian cryptid nonetheless. These are trail cam photos taken in the Appalachian mountains. The first is a cat, a really big one. The second is a fella named Bill, who stands about 5' 10" tall for size comparison. The last, if it works, is an animated GIF I made to cycle between the two photos so you can get an immediate idea of the cat's size.

It had really big teeth, too.

The photos were taken by a trail cam strapped to a tree within minutes of one another. Bill was on the trail of the cat, ready to shoot it if he needed to, but it moved faster, and he never caught up with it.

They were taken closer to Mystic Wanderer's neck of the woods than mine.



















There's THINGS out in them big dark woods...





       



.

Why don't you guys think that's a bear?

(05-05-2020, 04:19 AM)Ninurta Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 10:24 PM)guohua Wrote: @"Ninurta" 
"Edification",,,,, Damn,,, that is an awful big word for this Poor Old Chinese Lady  

Yeah, it was my word of the day. I had to pay an extra 50 bucks to use it! 

Quote:BUT, I'll say this, this guy is  convinced he has a Real Pixelated, Blurry picture of Bigfoot and Child.
I didn't see a big difference in this Knee High Bullshit, that creature could have been stepping over a rock or branch, there was no proof showing it constantly walk that way.


The close up was so blurry and pixelated that each time one head moved the other (child) grow another Pixale.

Yup, HE was convinced, but it seems to me that he was stretching, and possibly seeing things that weren't even there in an effort to convince the rest of us!

I personally could not see the "knee thrust" he was talking about, and the only difference I could tell was in the angle of the leg taken as a whole - not so much difference in JUST the thigh angle or JUST the shin angle. I could see a bit of difference in the angle those two formed with each other, though. Not an impossible angle for a man in a monkey suit to form, however.

The "close ups" didn't do much for me, either. Pixels can change color as much as the "eyes" he mentioned just by shifting their angle to the light, and those eyes looked too low on the face to me - more likely to be cheeks reflecting a lighting angle change if you ask me.

Also, regarding the "moving brow" claim - those brows are supposed to have a bone ridge underlying them, and bone isn't supposed to wiggle in a healthy creature, so I'm dubious of that claim as well.


What caught my attention was the not-zoomed footage. In the overall view, the totality of the creature looked real to me, and the "baby", together with it's movement in the unzoomed footage, was a plus.

,

(11-09-2020, 10:02 PM)Ninurta Wrote:

(11-09-2020, 12:01 PM)drussell41 Wrote: Why don't you guys think that's a bear?

I can't speak for the rest, but for my part, it's because we are eat up with bears around here, everyone has seen them, and whatever that is is not built like one. It's too long, too narrow, legs are too long and thin, and not shaped correctly - bears are plantigrade animals (walk with the whole foot), and that is not. Canines and felines are digigrade - walk on their toes. It's a "toe walker", rather than a "foot walker". That can be clearly seen on the rear legs - it's walking on the toes, and the heel is about half way up it's leg like on a dog or a cat - both toe walkers. The shank of the leg between the toes and the heel is far too thin - that would not even contain the bones of a bear's leg, much less the muscles and tendons, too.

The shoulders are too high and too powerfully built compared to the hindquarters. bears are more evenly distributed, front to rear. In other words, bears have bigger butts, relative to their shoulders, that that critter. their spine is more level to the ground when they are down on a fours.

The hair is too long and shaggy, and it's the wrong shade, although that could be a function of the infrared illumination. The head is shaped wrong to be a bear... and it has a tail. We can't see how long the tail is, but there is one there, clearly. Bears do not have tails.

And the size. It's too big. Most bears around here are around 200 pounds. A big one is around 400, and the biggest one I ever heard of was killed a few years ago by an 8 year old boy, and weighed in at 800 pounds. But the vast majority are around 200 lbs, and about the size of a big dog. "Poppa Bear", the biggest one of the 3 living around the house I moved out of a couple of months ago, might run around 600 pounds, so he was a comparative monster, and still not as big as this thing - but he was a lot chubbier.

The only things I know of that have ever lived around here of that size, shape, and build would be Smilodon, Panthera Atrox, or possibly Homotherium, all of which are now extinct.

.

(11-10-2020, 11:45 AM)WonderCow Wrote: I think the rear legs are thicker than they look at first glance, I can see darker surrounding areas that appear to be leg and not background.

That thing is huge, I'm leaning more towards it being feline, and I wonder if it is a hybrid of some type. Ligers for example, are even bigger than this, I can't remember offhand if it's a gene from the lion or tiger that causes the huge size, have a feeling its the tiger, so we may be looking at a tiger x mountain lion. 
Mountain liger!

(11-10-2020, 11:45 AM)WonderCow Wrote: I think the rear legs are thicker than they look at first glance, I can see darker surrounding areas that appear to be leg and not background.

That thing is huge, I'm leaning more towards it being feline, and I wonder if it is a hybrid of some type. Ligers for example, are even bigger than this, I can't remember offhand if it's a gene from the lion or tiger that causes the huge size, have a feeling its the tiger, so we may be looking at a tiger x mountain lion. 
Mountain liger!

(11-10-2020, 12:25 PM)WonderCow Wrote: It's definitely a liger, I just googled it, I don't see what else it could be.

It's a major pain to do pics from my tablet though.

(11-10-2020, 12:38 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(11-10-2020, 12:25 PM)WonderCow Wrote: It's definitely a liger, I just googled it, I don't see what else it could be.

It's a major pain to do pics from my tablet though.

No problems.

I see your point, the fur isn't as thick, but the overall shape does offer a likeness.
If the animal in Ninurta's pictures is such a creature, then it must've escaped from a zoo or compound.
I wonder why no warnings were issued?!

(11-10-2020, 12:44 PM)WonderCow Wrote:

Thanks, that top pic is the one I wanted to post.

(11-10-2020, 12:38 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(11-10-2020, 12:25 PM)WonderCow Wrote: It's definitely a liger, I just googled it, I don't see what else it could be.

It's a major pain to do pics from my tablet though.

No problems.

I see your point, the fur isn't as thick, but the overall shape does offer a likeness.
If the animal in Ninurta's pictures is such a creature, then it must've escaped from a zoo or compound.
I wonder why no warnings were issued?!

(11-10-2020, 12:59 PM)drussell41 Wrote: If it had been owned by a private individual, that person may not volunteer the fact that it escaped or was let loose.

(11-10-2020, 01:08 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(11-10-2020, 12:59 PM)drussell41 Wrote: If it had been owned by a private individual, that person may not volunteer the fact that it escaped or was let loose.

True, but wouldn't there be paperwork of passage of the animal? Veterinary records, transport
of the animal to North America and so forth? If this cross-breed came from a private owner,
the verve to obtain one in the first place would tend to suggest some form of care.

Professional care leaves a trail, but your realistic statement does still hold water.

(11-10-2020, 01:24 PM)drussell41 Wrote: Every once in a while you hear strange stories of some drug dealer having a pet lion or whatever.
Just as an example, I think they'd be capable of doing this without a trail.  

Then the thing gets too big, dangerous and expensive.  Person might be too attached to kill, won't turn in because they want to avoid the authorities, and so the option?   Turn loose.

(11-10-2020, 01:58 PM)WonderCow Wrote: Circus cats set free an example of how these things happen.

I actually knew Ellis Daw, who ran the old Dartmoor Wildlife Park before 'we bought a zoo' Ben Mee took over. I also know people who have seen pumas locally.

The old Plymouth Zoo was in the city, so it's unlikely they escaped from there, Dartmoor Zoo (as it's now known) is a few miles away in the village of Sparkwell on the southern edge of Dartmoor.

(11-10-2020, 01:58 PM)WonderCow Wrote: I actually knew Ellis Daw, who ran the old Dartmoor Wildlife Park before 'we bought a zoo' Ben Mee took over.
I also know people who have seen pumas locally.

The old Plymouth Zoo was in the city, so it's unlikely they escaped from there, Dartmoor Zoo (as it's now known)
is a few miles away in the village of Sparkwell on the southern edge of Dartmoor.

(11-10-2020, 02:41 PM)WonderCow Wrote: There are definitely big cats in the UK. I would guess mostly lynx and puma. They certainly have plenty of habitat and prey here in the south west. I think we also have a small population of wild boar. Dartmoor, Exmoor and Bodmin Moor combined gives a huge territory and this part of the country is still relatively sparsely populated by humans.