Monsters and Myths

Villages infested with vampire bats are one thing. But Nicaragua has its own folklore of blood-sucking monsters. From tales of the infamous chupacabras — the mythical alien, kangaroo, batdog that feeds on the blood of goats and chickens — to the lesser-known comelenguas, an unseen beast that feeds on the tongues of sleeping cattle, most Nicaraguan farmers can hold their own when it comes to telling vampire stories around a campfire. But, perhaps just like The X-Files, there could be an element of truth to some of the legends.

In 2002, when the chupacabras was supposedly terrorizing a rural farming community outside the colonial city of Leon, a former government vampire hunter told the local press that the real blood-sucking culprit was a giant vampire bat with a 5-ft wingspan, which he claims to have once caught in the northern mountains of Nicaragua.

Bat experts and other vampire hunters insist there’s no way a vampire could grow that big, but zoologist Bill Schutt says the hunter could have caught the Vampyrum spectrum, a monstrous carnivorous bat found in Nicaragua. The Vampyrum spectrum is an extremely rare predator with fierce teeth and a three-foot wing span. But, Schutt notes, it’s not a real blood feeder, despite its name.

Still, there was once a true giant vampire bat and some experts think that creature of the late Pleistocene, the Desmodus draculae, may still be alive today in some remote corner of the world. Nicaragua perhaps? Unlikely, Schutt says, but not impossible. “I’d jump up and down if one were discovered today,” Schutt said. The farmers of Nicaragua, however, may not be as happy.

time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1882097,00.html

A part of the greater Cincinnati area, Loveland, Ohio today has a population of around 11,600 people. But some folks there might say that population count should include a weird two-legged creature with a face resembling a frog or lizard.
It was on cold, clear night 37 years ago this week that a police officer encountered what would become known as the Loveland Lizard.

On the night of March 3, 1972, a police officer was patrolling the streets of Loveland when he saw something lying in the middle of the road. To the officer, it looked like some kind of animal that had been hit by a car.
The officer got out of his patrol car to check it out. He intended to drag the poor animal over to the shoulder of the road until the local game warden could be called out and pick up the carcass. As he opened his car, the door made a noise that caused the creature to suddenly rise up. The officer suddenly realized that this was no deer or dog that had been hit by a car.

He later described it as a human-like creature with the face of a frog or lizard. It was about 4 feet tall and had a green leathery skin. The creature got up and took a crouched position, like that of a defensive lineman, and stared back at the officer. Its eyes were illuminated from the lights of the patrol car, according to a Web site.

Then, the creature began to hobble over to the nearby guardrail. It lifted its leg over the guardrail and while doing so, kept its lizard eyes fixed on the startled officer. As the creature went over the guardrail and down an embankment, the policeman fired a shot at it but missed. In no time, it was clean out of sight. Investigators believe it disappeared into the nearby Little Miami River.

Later that month, a farmer in Loveland also claimed to have seen the mysterious creature. Folks there remembered that these were not the first sightings of the Loveland Lizard.

The first claimed sighting happened in May 1955. At that time, a businessman said he saw three or four frog-faced creatures squatting under a bridge near Loveland. He described them as having wrinkles instead of hair on their heads and standing about 3 feet tall. He also said they had lopsided chests and wide mouths without lips, like frogs or toads. The businessman said they also left behind a strong smell of alfalfa and almonds, according to a Web site.

And just nine years ago, a tourist in Loveland happened to encounter the weird creature. In 2000, a person visiting Loveland on vacation reported seeing the Loveland Lizard on the way to his hotel. He described it as a 4-foot-tall creature that seemed to be part human and part lizard or frog. He said it had scaly skin, webbed hands and feet and was holding a wand-like stick.

The tourist tried to take a photo of the creature but he mistakenly shot off the flash from his camera, which scared it off. He then tried to call the local animal control officer but he couldn’t give them a full description and location because his cellphone’s battery went dead, according to a Web site.

mcdowellnews.com/content/2009/mar/04/mike-conleys-tales-weird-land-love—and-lizardmen

An Analysis
By Noah David Henson

A note from the author: My name is Noah David Henson. I’ve been studying human muscular and skeletal anatomy since 1984, both as a professional illustrator and as a student of physical anthropology. I studied collegiate anthropology, including primatology and human evolution, from 1988 – 1993, with enough hours to establish a minor in the subject attendant to my BFA from Texas State University. I’ve been examining the bigfoot phenomenon, skeptically and with an emphasis on the aforementioned skills, in earnest since 2003. My intellectual interest in the subject goes back to my childhood in the 1970s and 80s.

This paper constitutes a skeptical analysis of a digitized, B&W video version of the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film available on youtube, here (and embedded above). It’s 1:06 (m:s) in length, as posted by Youtube member Squatchinc on December 23, 2007, sourcing a digitally restored and enhanced video made by MK Davis.

This paper also references Part Two of the 1997 NASI Report on bigfoot, written by J. Glickman, Part Two, available at bigfootencounters.com.

Here is a breakdown of the progression of the 1:06 video, of which only the first thirty-three seconds are of interest for the purposes of this paper:

• :01 - :04 – Forward-then-reverse playback of the figure in forward ambulation
• :05 - :06 – Figure in forward ambulation
• :07 - :12 – Freeze-frame : Extreme close-up of figure’s facial profile (no crown visible)
• :13 - :17 – Freeze-frame : Extreme close-up of figure’s frontal face (with visible crown)
• :18 – :20 – Figure in forward ambulation with arms spread, turning back to look at camera
• :21 – :23 – Forward-then-reverse playback of figure in forward ambulation
• :24 - :26 – Figure in forward ambulation behind and between two vertical white trees
• :27 - :30 – Extreme close-up of figure’s right hand, with visible thumb flexion
• :31 - :33 – Figure in forward ambulation

For anyone interested in investigating the possibility that this film might depict a man in a suit, I recommend watching the video several times, finger depressing the pause button in various spots along the progression so as to examine the gait, musculature, limb proportions, and the distribution of hair — all of which, to my trained eye, appear to be non-human and which taken together exclude the possibility of a person in costume.

The most compelling frames for examining the footage occur at :13 – the frontal face close-up – at :18 – the upper-torso turn-back with arms spread – from :21 to :23 – in which a close analysis of the back muscles and hip muscles can be undertaken – and from :27 to :30 in which the thumb can clearly be seen to flex.

:13 is compelling because it shows the figure’s right eye (viewer’s left), along with the nose, lips, jaw, cheeks, crown and a hint of ear. If this is a mask it is most ingenious. First, it doesn’t look like a mask of any known primate; non-human primates have very thin lips and wide nostrils, but here the figure is shown to have thick, bulbous lips and no visible nostrils. These features discount the possibility, at least, that the “mask”, if it is indeed such, was store-bought or mail-ordered. If it is a mask, it was custom-made by a hoaxer(s), which at this point in examining the film, the author must concede is certainly a possibility.

:18 is compelling because it reveals the figure’s two pendulous breasts, and is an excellent frame by which to measure the length of the arms. The visible breasts once more make it highly unlikely that this could be a suit, unless the hoaxer(s) was so ingenious as to add mammary glands to a suit that did not originally have them (as no store-bought suit would have), in order to depict a creature that until that time had only been reported in the media as being male. It must be admitted, however, that such ingenuity is possible, if unlikely.

It is the length of the arms, taken together with the visible thumb flexion (at :27, discussed below) that I consider the single most convincing feature of this figure. In anthropology a measurement called the Intermembral index (IM) is used to convey the proportion of the arms in relation to the legs. In humans, this IM is typically about 70. Chimps have an IM of about 107, and gorillas 117 (these numbers can be verified at various sites around the web). The figure in the film has a measurable IM of between 85 and 90 [Green, 2004].

Another way of looking at the arm length is to compare its length to the overall size of the body. The NASI report written by J. Glickman scientifically and unequivocally establishes the height of the figure at 7?3?. Here is how Glickman calculated that height (edited and summarized by the author from the NASI report; Glickman is quoted in quotation marks):

An accurate spatial reference has been established from research photographs taken by Byrne and Hodgson in 1972 at the Bluff Creek site [Byrne, 1972]. In one photo, NASI’s Fig. 4, Hodgson is standing behind a fallen tree trunk that is also visible in the Patterson film, holding a vertical scale measuring stick that is marked every six inches. In this photo, Hodgson’s feet are visible and he is in the same 2-axis (that is, two-point perspective) plane as the vertical scale. His height can scientifically be established as just over 6 feet. In a separate reference photo taken by Byrne, Hodgson is seen moving through a 2-axis image plane that the subject moves through in frame 326.

“Since the height of Hodgson has been established and since he is in the same 2-axis plane as the subject, Hodgson’s height may be used to measure the subject’s height provided that the scale of the two photographs can be matched.

“Both images contain a dead tree, the size of which has not changed during the intervening five years which is used to match the scales of the two photographs. During scaling, three points were used to validate that the tree had not changed size.

“Figure 6 is a digital composite of the film subject and Hodgson in the same image plane with a common image scale established by the dead tree. Note the successful planar alignment of the feet in this matched scale composite. Hodgson’ height in pixels in 276, and the height of the film subject is 327. A simple ratio is used to compute the size of the film subject:

276 pixels / 327 pixels  = 6’1¾” / x . Therefore, x =  6’1¾” X (327 pixels / 276 pixels.

Thus the computed height of the subject in the P/G film is 7’3½”. An error analysis has not yet been undertaken, but in other similar forensic situations it is typically +/-  1”.

Using the height of 7’3” as a scale reference, Glickman calculates an arm height of 161 pixels, or 43”. The standard arm length of a 7’3” human is 38.5” [Winters 1990]. The subject’s arm-to-height ratio is thus measured at .49H, when the standard human number is .44H [Winters 1990]. The percentage of the global human population who possesses this arm-to-height ratio is quoted as 1 out of 52.5 million people [Weimer 1993]. Combined with the height of the figure and the comparatively short length of the legs, the percentage of the human population who could have all three of these unusual features — extended arm length, contracted leg length and astonishing height — becomes so astronomical as to be statistically impossible. The only explanation is that the figure is either 1) an uncatalogued animal, or 2) an extremely ingenious, expensive and well-crafted suit.

Glickman notes:

“This suggests that if the subject is a human in a costume then some form of arm prosthesis is in use. Finger and hand flexion is observed in the film [see :27, below] which implies the prosthesis must support flexion. The use of such a sophisticated prosthesis appears to be at odds with the year the film was made, the technology available at that time, and the financial resources of those involved with the filming.”

:21 to :23 are compelling because here we can closely analyze the figure’s back muscles and hip muscles, which not only can be seen sliding over the figure’s underlying skeletal structure, but which expand and contract in a realistic fashion. There is no known mechanism by which a suit manufactured in 1967 — by Hollywood professionals such as John Chambers, let alone by a couple of middle-income amateurs — could effect the illusion of shifting, expanding muscles. It simply could not be and was not done at the time. All Hollywood suits up until the 1970s were shapeless, baggy, and/or loose-hanging suits with no visible musculature. (Even big-budget ape movies of the 1980s, such as Greystoke and Gorillas in the Mist, with expensive and articulated suits developed by industry greats Rick Baker and Stan Winston, respectively, do not depict muscular action seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film.) Also of note is the distinct lack of any material folding, rippling or wrinkling. There is no known material, outside of animal or human skin, which does not create visible folds as it is bent by the limbs which it covers.

:27 to :30 are compelling because, as noted above in the section on arm length, we can clearly see the thumb flexing. There is no known prosthetic device, available in 1967, which could have effected such flexion inside of a costume or suit. Such technology simply did not exist. The only conclusion based on the evidence is that this is a real arm and hand, and not a costume or suit. Since the proportions of that arm are non-human (again, see above), the only conclusion can be the film depicts a non-human figure.

Reviewing the seventeen seconds of video discussed above, we can see at least two compelling features of the hair: One, it is variable in both length and density — that is, in some places, such as the lower torso (or external oblique area, just above the hip), the hair is short and sparse, whereas in others, such as the arm, the hair is long and thick. And two, the hair is variable in color. This can be seen even in the black-and-white video under review here, in which the shades of gray vary even under direct sunlight (that is, without shadows being cast upon it). There is no known ape costume, available in 1967 or for a decade or more following, which depicts hair in shifting densities, length and coloration. All Hollywood ape costumes, until Rick Baker and Carlo Rambaldi’s work on King Kong in 1975, were of uniform hair length, density and coloration.

My conclusion, after analysing the film footage countless times, employing a degree of expertise in human and primate anatomy, and examining critically the analyses of forensics expert J. Glickman of NASI, among others, is that the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film does not and cannot depict a human being in a costume. It is a real, as-yet uncatalogued animal, most likely a primate of either pongid (ape-like) or hominid (human-like) taxonomic classification, that resides, or once resided, somewhere in the millions of square miles of human-uninhabited forests of the Pacific Northwestern United States and Canada.

anomalymagazine.com/2009/03/02/the-patterson-gimlin-film-an-analysis

FAIRFIELD — It’s big, it’s hairy, and it’s been sighted in Jefferson County. Just don’t call it bigfoot.

“I’m not saying that is what it is by any means. I just had somebody call this office and report that is what they’d seen,” said Shawn Morrissey, operations and natural resource manager for Jefferson County Conservation.

Morrissey has received two reports of a large biped roaming the Skunk River valley on the eastern side of the county in as many years.

The first report came during the summer of 2007, and the second during the fall of last year.

The most recent caller claimed to have waited several months to contact officials after seeing what he described as a large hairy beast walking on two legs.

“It was pretty wishy-washy,” Morrissey said. “It’s my own personal feeling they saw something that tricked their eyes and was a very explainable animal.”

Morrissey said a more probable explanation would be the person saw a horse or a hunter wearing a Ghillie Suit, a type of a camouflage that can look like it’s covered in hair.

“I’m not going to say they didn’t (see something). But I think the more likely thing is they saw something in a flash or at a strange angle,” Morrissey said.

The sightings have not been investigated by county officials. Morrissey said he did not know the names of those who made the reports.

It’s unlikely a large fur-covered biped could play hide and seek in Iowa wilderness and remain undocumented. The state simply doesn’t have enough large stretches of timber where such a creature could live, Morrissey said.

“This is a very populated state really. There aren’t any big chunks of wilderness,” he said.

And during the winter when trees are stripped of their leaves, the ground is wide open to any plane passing overhead.

“Most actual animals have some kind of physical evidence,” Morrissey added.

However, common sense hasn’t stopped Sasquatch from popping up all over the state.

The Bigfoot Field Research Organization Web site, www.bfro.net, lists 40 bigfoot sightings in Iowa dating back to 1970, three of which come from Jefferson County, and one from Lee County.

thehawkeye.com/Story/bigfoot-030209

It seems so long ago that a couple of chancers from the state of Georgia declared that they had found Bigfoot. And it seems almost as long ago that it was discovered that they had merely purloined a gorilla suit and stuck it in a freezer.

However, one of the most renowned naturalists in the world, Sir David Attenborough, said this weekend that he still believes it might be out there.

Appearing with British talk show host Jonathan Ross, Sir David, the man whose whispering voice has never disturbed even the most skittish bird, said, “I’m baffled by the Abominable Snowman–very convincing footprints have been found at 19,000 feet. No-one does that for a joke.”

I find myself on my knees and differing. Perhaps people might not do it only for a joke, but, as the Georgian scoundrels, Messrs. Dyer and Whitton, proved, you might be suppressing a giggle as you’re reaching for a large wad of paper money.

However, if Sir David believes that it’s out there, someone should really grab a few of the brightest and most underemployed enthusiasts around, and hike the Himalayas until they find the hairy beast.

Perhaps we could have a reality show in which two sets of teams are given a seemingly impossible task, and the first to achieve its goal wins $5 million and a mortgage.

I have a name for it: “Bin Laden or Bigfoot?” I think that I’ll call Fox right now and pitch it.

news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10184835-71.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Sir David Attenborough believes there is ‘very convincing’ evidence that yetis exist.

Speaking on Friday Night With Jonathan Ross, the revered wildlife expert said: ‘I’m baffled by the Abominable Snowman - very convincing footprints have been found at 19,000ft.

‘No-one does that for a joke. I think it’s unanswered.’

The yeti is an ape-like creature said to inhabit the Himalayan region of Nepal and Tibet.

A photograph of a mysterious footprint, rumoured to be that of the yeti was taken in the Menlung Basin in the Himalayas in 1951.

A team of mountaineers travelled to the region on a reconnaissance mission before attempting to conquer Everest for the first time, a feat achieved two years later.

Eric Shipton recorded the footprint, and Tom Bourdillon, passing on the evidence to his friend Michael Davies, wrote: ‘Dear Mick, Here are the footprint photos: sorry for the delay. We came across them on a high pass on the Nepal-Tibet watershed during the 1951 Everest expedition.

‘They seemed to have come over a secondary pass at about 19,500 ft, down to 19,000 ft where we first saw them, and then went on down the glacier.’

In 1954, the Daily Mail reported the discovery of hair specimens from what was said to be the scalp of a yeti.

Professor Frederick Woods Jones, an expert in human and comparative anatomy, failed to reach a conclusion, but said the dark brown hair was not from a bear or an anthropoid (manlike) ape.

Alleged sightings and debate has continued through the decades - but so far no-one has been able to produce a clear, definitive photograph of the world’s most elusive being.

Tibetan folklore has it that the yeti is nocturnal, whistles, and can kill with a single punch.

Investigators believe that at least two types of yeti exist: the dzu-teh (’big thing’), which is 7ft-8ft tall, and the nich-teh, which is 5ft-6ft.

Sir David also spoke about not being able to halt climate change.

He said: ‘We can never go back, there’s no doubt about that… it’s the speed at which we’re changing.

‘Before, it was thousands of years and now it’s decades… but we can slow down the rate at which we change.’

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1157965/Yeti-evidence-convincing-says-wildlife-expert-Sir-David-Attenborough.html