Comments on: Fayette Bigfoot: Drawings

By: CryptoInformant 2.0

CryptoInformant 2.0 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:05:16 +0000

Cryptidsrus – Thank you for that, and I agree that the less-traditional “werewolves” – which, if they exist, are most likely somewhere between wolves and bears as far as their evolutionary relations – are worthy of discussion, but something should be done to separate them from the traditional sort, a name-change being the easiest.

Until someone finds something catchy enough, I’ll most likely be confused every time someone mentions werewolves in a cryptozoological setting.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:20:37 +0000

CryptoInformant 2.0:
You’re right in saying “werewolves” are classified as being of the “horror novel/folklore” kind. A werewolf traditionally has been considered as a human having the disease of Lycanthropy, which causes the sufferer to shape-shift into a wolf-like being. In which case one needs the break out the old Silver Bullet, so to speak.

However, the definition of “werewolf” has now been expanded to include beings that are seen in a semi-regular basis around the world (most famously in Bray Road in Wisconsin) that have wolf-like characterisitcs to them. Dogman is often included in that.

Apparently these are Wolf Creatures that were BORN like that, not CURSED with Lycanthropy. Apparently they may be a result of an alternate path taken by “evolution”—sort of like Sasquatch.
Maybe we need to categorize “them” more stringently for clarity’s sake (I’ll take the term “Wolf Monster” or “Wolf Being,” personally)
but (for better or worse) they are now conveniently designated with the sobriquet “Werewolves.”

Which is not totally wrong, anyway. Koala Bears are NOT Bears. Horseshoe Crabs are NOT Mollusks/Crabs. Pterosaurs are not actually Dinosaurs. Yet we have no problem labeling them as that. “For convenience’s sake”. Maybe there will come a day when we will call them something else. I have no problem with that.

There has never been a report of these creatures ever going after humans, as far as I know. Animals, yes. US, no.
In fact, they seem to be indifferent/wary of us and avoid us like the plague, going by the ovewhelming majority of reports of witnesses.
So THESE beings are not from “horror novels” or “supernatural folklore,” CryptoInformant 2.0, and deserve to be talked about like any other cryptid.
Just because they are CALLED “Werewolves” doesn’t mean they are THOSE kind of “Werewolves.”

By: raisinsofwrath

raisinsofwrath — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:09:27 +0000

There are always exceptions to the rule. It may have been a young female or an old specimen that was underweight. A leaner neck does not discount it from being a Bigfoot.

By: JudasCorby

JudasCorby — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:36:39 +0000

I absolutely agree, Cryptoinformant. I’m not claiming to readily believe in the phenomena, myself. But there is some history of sightings and many people have made comments regarding the physical characteristics to be expected of a werewolf. I’m just curious if there might be some official consensus of what physical description we’re talking about, other than the one we see in The Howling or Harry Potter or whatever.

By: CryptoInformant 2.0

CryptoInformant 2.0 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:35:50 +0000

Judas – well, in general, seeing as werewolves have most of their history deeply rooted in horror novels and the like, I think most of us try to avoid serious discussion of them as real animals, owing to a lack of a precedent for people turning into anything, werewolf or otherwise.

By: JudasCorby

JudasCorby — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:33:16 +0000

Okay, this may sound odd, but there are repeated mentions of dog men or werewolves in the comments on this article and many say that this beast doesn’t match the typical description of a werewolf. Since werewolves primarily exist in movies and folklore, what do we consider to be the typical description of such a creature as pertains to cryptozoological sightings? I mean, I know about the beast of bray road and have read of other sightings, but really, what is the standard description? I assume a dog-like head for starters, which would be quite a distinction from any bigfoot description.

By: CryptoInformant 2.0

CryptoInformant 2.0 — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:41:52 +0000

DJ, the only reason rats and dogs have a worldwide distribution is because they have been moved around wherever humans have gone. It’s hardly a natural occurence in those examples you gave.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:31:52 +0000

DJ Plastic Nebula I think may be on to something in that this may be a “hybrid.”

As to it not having “wolf” ears—
Could be true indeed, but we also don’t know if Wolf Beings have not been interbreeding with other species as well—so that the ears of the “hybrid” may be different than standard wolf ears. “Out there,” I know. Anything’s possible.

Still tend to go with Odingirl’s previous post that this may be a “paranormal” creature. Bu that’s just me.

By: alanborky

alanborky — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:27:04 +0000

Okay, maybe what we’re looking at is a juvenile – perhaps even an adult in recovery from some form of wasting disease.

Maybe it thought it was a goner and was so relieved to be recovering it did its fancy little trunk vault in a fit of exaltation.

Whatever it’s reason for doing it, given the context, it was a very unanimal-like form of behaviour, full of human-like bravado.

But then I always say Bigfoot ain’t animals – they’re people.

By: Dj Plasmic Nebula

Dj Plasmic Nebula — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:14:16 +0000

the animal looks amazing.

If you think about it, the neck isn’t even big on the drawing.

i think that the animal if it’s an ape, maybe be a worldwide animal, like rats and bats and dogs. Apparently Bigfoot “Like” creatures and Bigfoot sightings are worldwide just like dogs, bats and rats.

I think people should always carry a cell phone camera and camera with batteries in it. so they can always be ready for the unexpected. i can’t do that, cause i lost my camera. Pst!!!!!!