Comments on: Gone Where The Goblins Go

By: theo

theo — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:32:39 +0000

One hundred years ago this winter, a Northumberland town was gripped by panic when a mysterious wolf began attacking local livestock. Charles Fort recorded the case – and much other strangeness in Britain during the winter of 1904/1905 – in his book Lo! STUART FERROL celebrates this centenary with a full account of the hunt for Hexham’s unusual – and unwelcome – visitor.

By: theo

theo — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:28:55 +0000

“There is something that is acting to kill off mysteries” (Fort, Lo! Complete Books of… page 660)

“almost anybody,…reading these accounts down to the final one, would say – “Why of course! It’s the way these stories always end up. Nothing to them.”But it is just the way that these stories always end up that has kept me busy…” (Fort, Lo! Complete Books of… page 644)

Charles Fort already wrote profusely about this mechanism: that of the mutilation flap, the predator is not caught despite extensive search parties, then the body of a wolf, dog or otter is found or such an animal is shot, the animal is thought to have been responsible for the mutilation flap, hence the interest in the mutilation flap susbsides, but the flap itself continues, or moves to another geographic locale). See: Lo! (1931) I have quoted and refer to the Complete Books of Charles Fort (Dover edition), pages 643 – 667.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:18:54 +0000

It’s interesting because the stories of a mysterious beast in the woods helped to propel this mundane little doggy to stardom. I’m sure if there had been no particular reports of anything unusual in the area, this wouldn’t have gotten so out of hand, and most people would have been comfortable with the verdict that the pictured creature was a dog. This fascinates me because you can have pretty much any medium sized, furry roadkill in Latin America be proclaimed the Chupacabras, when if that happened where I live, it would be just what it seemed to be which is a dead animal of rather mundane origins.

By: crypto_randz

crypto_randz — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:10:06 +0000

Loren, I saw you also on weird travels. I saw that episode a couple times before, good job by the way.

What I meant was I thought the dog looked like a werewolf, but I was wrong. Also I meant if it is a dog, why are experts still discussing it? This story should be closed, but I do agree with yardstick, the dog does look quite a mixture of different dogs. This is just my opinion.

By: Tengu

Tengu — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:38:06 +0000

Can’t be a werewolf. Don’t they turn back to human once killed?

By: twblack

twblack — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:43:17 +0000

hhahahahahahah Yeah your right but I figured the dragon part took that away.

By: swnoel

swnoel — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:38:02 +0000

It couldn’t be a Werewolf…

Don’t they turn back into human form after they die? woof woof…

By: twblack

twblack — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:21:00 +0000

I tought it was very clear from the start this was a dog and nothing else. Good Job Loren.

Also last night while channel surfing saw you on the travel Channel on Lake Monsters and then saw you and Craig on the Big Fellow. Even though I have seen almost all these type of shows it is like In Search Of or Arthur Clarks shows I still sit there and watch them again and again.

By: The_Yardstick

The_Yardstick — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:19:13 +0000

I wonder what kind of dog it is. It’s “100% dog”, but what kind? (I know, tests for that would be expensive.) Any ideas? Still Chow, or something? It looks very weird to me–then again, dogs are allowed to look weird.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:33:58 +0000

crypto-randz: I’m not sure of the source of your confusion. No, the dead dog was not a werewolf.

The animal reported in the woods (1991-2005) appears to be and most sincerely is different that the dog found on the road.

I’m not sure who “they” are, either.

The reporter, yours truly, and a few others have been clear about the differences between the cryptid sightings from years before, and the recent nature of this flap in which this dead animal killed in August 2006 was blamed for the earlier sightings. But the dead animal (labeled “Mystery Beast” unfortunately) was only a dog, not a monster, and very small.

How is this unclear and confusing?