Comments on: Real Or Not, Coleman Frog Lives On

By: AtomicMrEMonster

AtomicMrEMonster — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:07:21 +0000

mystery_man:

Maybe there is the possibility that the museum knows it may in fact be fake and do not want to dispel the enduring mystery surrounding the frog by having it be proven.

In my opinion, you’ve hit the nail on the head. They’d have nothing to lose and everything to gain if the frog got DNA tested and was found to be real. It’d easily breat a goliath frog in the size department. However, getting it to be proven as a fake would kill interest in the exhibit; after all, who wants to see a fake, paper mache frog? Their cheekiness over the frog is (at least in my mind) very similar to sideshow operators’ speils over gaffes.

There’s also the fact that we’re supposed to believe that the frog’s whey-heavy diet strengthened its bones so it could get that big. The thing is, whey is a milk product and frogs lack the glands associated with milk-drinking mammals. It’s highly unlikely a frog would seek out milk. I linked to something like that regarding reptiles in a comment on the Tatzelworm paper that got posted awhile back. However, this is easily testable: grab some frogs, a whey recipe, and milk (along with some whiskey and junebugs)…

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:51:09 +0000

I remember reading about it. Very cool, if true. A possible take on the frog above is that you may have a Napoleon’s Dagger situation here. This is an antique dealer’s term for something that was once real “My ancestor was given this dagger by Napoleon”, but has been replaced over time “Except the scabbard was lost by a grandchild, so he got a new one, and then the blade rusted so, my great, great grandfather had a new one put in, and then the crossbar tarnished so his son had that replaced, etc.” until little, if anything, of the original remains. Perhaps beneath all that papier mache you might still find some moldy bones…or maybe they were replaced by a caretaker by an armature in 1964…

By: schreiberosa

schreiberosa — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:10:35 +0000

In my younger days I was a circus performer. My family and I trouped up in Canada on Al Stencell’s Martin & Downs Circus in 1982-83. He told me about the Coleman Frog and how he tried to lease it for his show’s sideshow. He claimed it was obviously faked and looked to him like it was made of paper mache or some kind of plaster. There was also a write up on it in an issue of Fate magazine in the last few years.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:20:40 +0000

Well, I suppose a DNA test would be the only way to put things to rest, but it doesn’t seem as though the museum is willing to do that unfortunately. I do think that a person who would claim as real that a steady diet of whiskey propelled this frog to this size is likely a type prone to telling tall tales and perhaps someone who would construct a gaffe. I would also think that maybe the man’s own steady diet of whiskey could have helped influence the course of events. A DNA test I do not think would be such a big deal and would be a lot more sensible and scientifically useful than not wanting to “disturb the peace of a stuffed beast that has been around quite happily for 123 years”. Maybe there is the possibility that the museum knows it may in fact be fake and do not want to dispel the enduring mystery surrounding the frog by having it be proven.

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:43:10 +0000

Finding out if there were any frogs in the fossil record that were ever that large would be a good way to determine if a frog that size was possible.

By: Lethal

Lethal — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:23:48 +0000

Really cool. This is in a museum from where I live. I didn’t think anything from around here would show up on Cryptomundo! We always have the Dungarven Whooper though, (most people say it’s a Black Panther).

I remember seeing this when I was young. I really don’t know if it’s real or not but going by looks, it sure doesn’t look like it. As others have said though, taxonomy has changed allot from back then.

Everyone at the museum swore it was real of course when I visited, but who knows. I’ve heard of other places around here that supposedly had very large frogs, but I’ve never seen any for myself and you know how stories are sometimes.

By: Remobec

Remobec — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:55:26 +0000

I don’t think it’s possible to tell if it’s real based on the quality of its skin and eyes. Taxonomy has changed a lot over the years, and given this frog’s history, I wouldn’t be surprised if it had been painted and varnished and all other kinds of weird things.

Don’t know if it’s real, but I wouldn’t believe a report of its validity or not based on the quality of the skin and eyes.

By: mrsatan

mrsatan — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:37:30 +0000

Feeding a frog whiskey would kill it. Also look at how extremely fake that frog looks. It would be cool if it was real, but the story sounds so bogus that it isn’t funny.

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:46:32 +0000

Well, granted, taxidermy from over a hundred years ago wasn’t up to the same high standards we expect today, with our fiberglass forms and plastic/glass eyes, but, yes, I have to agree this is probably a gaffe.

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:39:54 +0000

Look’s like paper mache to me…