Cryptomundo » Mystery Cat DNA: It’s A Wild Puma

Mystery Cat DNA: It’s A Wild Puma

Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 10th, 2008

Kansas mountain lions are reported as frequently as most other mystery cats seen around the Midwest, of course. Most officials still say these are due to misidentifications.

Now there’s proof that one of those sightings was not of a mistaken house cat.

Last spring 2008, a

…Barber County man was chopping wood when he saw the animal in the grass. He retrieved a firearm from his truck and shot it.

KDWP obtained the pelt in March. Biologists collected muscle tissue samples and sent them to a federal research laboratory in Montana.

After several months of tests, researchers were able to determine the animal was not of the South American decent, from which most captive lines come.

While the test doesn’t prove the animal was wild, Peek said officials believe it probably was wild.

Click here for an interesting mountain lion graphic of the sightings plotted on a good map of the USA, broken down thusly:

Sightings

Class 1 confirmation
Live, captured animal
Body of a dead animal
Photograph or video
DNA evidence

Class 2 confirmation
Track sets, prey carcasses and
other physical evidence verified
by a qualified professional

Random Posts

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 10th, 2008 at 7:51 pm and is filed under Alien Big Cats, Breaking News, CryptoZoo News, Cryptotourism, Cryptozoologists, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Forensic Science, Mystery Cats. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

12 Responses to “Mystery Cat DNA: It’s A Wild Puma”

Cashel responds: August 10th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
My brother saw a cougar here in Kansas. About ten minutes later, we heard dogs baying and howling as if they had something up a tree.

When we went to investigate, the dogs had moved rapidly away, perhaps in chase. Eventually, the barking ceased.

It was many months later that this recent buzz over cougars started.

I’m convinced there’s a widespread population in Kansas.
There’s more than enough livestock and wild game to feed on around here, even for cougars.

A lot of people probably wouldn’t know a cougar if they saw one, but the people around here are very well oriented with the local flora and fauna. It usually takes an outdoorsman to find these OOP cryptids.
DontCryBigfoot responds: August 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
A lot of people probably wouldn’t know a cougar if they saw one, but the people around here are very well oriented with the local flora and fauna. It usually takes an outdoorsman to find these OOP cryptids.

Alot of people (including many “outdoorsmen”) are generally less educated when it comes to identifying animals (particularly dead ones).

The “Maine Mutant”…. how could ANYONE mistake this for ANYTHING other than a Chow chow mixed mutt?!?!?

The “Texas Chupacabras”…. these mangy coyotes and coy-dogs had even the so called “backwoodsman” types perplexed and shouting for blood!

The “Montauk monster” ….. Ok, at first glance I have to admit it was a fairly odd looking corpse…. and the first photo we were shown was shot from an angle purposely to decieve us, but even after the “beak” is explained away and the other pictures come in making it quite clear what it is… there are still people claiming “there’s no way in hell that thing could possibly be a raccoon or a dog!”

The “Lake Tahoe Leprechaun”….. anyone who can’t tell this image was photoshopped needs to go get thier eyes checked…. pretty obvious use of the smudge tool can be observed around the outline of “the leprechaun” appearently attempting to blend the background around the image.

I’m no less guilty, I once misidentified a Chimney Swift as a Merlin Falcon… I was once scared away from my fishing spot by the distress call of a Great Blue Heron…. I once freaked out when I saw what I thought was a black bear rooting through some garbage cans in an alley behind my house…. turned out to be a large black dog.

My point being that witness testimony is the least convincing of all “evidence”, and will disappoint you in almost every instance!
Spinach Village responds: August 11th, 2008 at 1:59 am
multiple witness’s dude (DCB-foot), that helps… i generally don’t like to insult people’s intelligence …i think people don’t get enough credit…

although I will admit that i am sometime baffled by what is the reality of a witnesses claim… i guess that is the grey area in listening to witness testimonies….. it could be, or maybe not…

“Animal in the grass, Hold on let me get my gun so i can shoot it”

interesting rational ~!#@

i think the map provided is very conservative if not misleading

i love the comments posted at the newspaper link, thats the raw stuff that i love to read, its hard to disprove all these folks with one giant swoop of rational
DontCryBigfoot responds: August 11th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Misidentifications have little to do with intelligence, often times we simply see what we want to see…. remember the “spirit orb” craze when digital cameras first became popular??? Every spec of dust became a “paranormal entity”.

Multiple witnesses are no less susceptable… all it takes is for one witness to make a confident suggestion on what he or she believes it is to start the ball rolling for all types of rediculous speculation.

For the cryptzoologist, paranormal researcher, and UFO hunters…. witness reports of sightings do provide a valuable tool…… a place to start looking, but beyond that, ALL witness testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.
The Xi responds: August 11th, 2008 at 11:07 am
several years back in the area of Conway/Copper Creek, KY my mother made a nice discovery. We had a large Sheperd/Chow mix dog with tan as his coat color. He ran away! My mother had gone looking for him and found him, so she thought. At a nearby Shetland Pony farm she saw a large tan figure laying near a row of trees just outside the pony pen. She exits her car, “here Zach here Zach” whistling and clapping for the dog. Instead a large Puma/Mountain Lion stands looks at her and disappears into the forestry. Many a night on our farm did we hear the screaming of this cat. One neighbor claimed to have found a den and cubs. So this far east! Anywhere they feel to roam!
ClassicRocker30 responds: August 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
My neighbor told me that a month or two ago they saw a mountain lion. The odd thing is I live in Maine on the Coast.
shumway10973 responds: August 11th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Okay, 1) Spinach Village you must have grown up or are living in the city because if I was out cutting wood and something the size of a cougar or puma was in the grass “laying down” (which could also be its position for pouncing on me) I’d shoot it too. These creatures are not something you want to take lightly. They see the color red and will attack. 2) People are not in tune with nature any more. I’m pretty good, but there are some I still don’t know. It use to be that you could tell where someone was from by their knowledge of the area where they live. Unfortunately that isn’t so anymore. Especially in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, way too many city folk are moving into this beautiful area (which use to be filled with all sorts of wild animals), but they never become foothill people. Instead they bring up their malls and addictions (Jamba Juice and Starbucks). Point being that my area is ripe for mis-identification if they gave a d**n about the natural world around them. 3) I’m glad they finally have hard evidence. The unfortunate thing will be that once their existence becomes known and “proven” they will become protected in some way and their population will skyrocket to the point that no one will be able to allow children and small pets outside. The cougar has taken over Los Angeles–that’s pretty scary to think about.
DontCryBigfoot responds: August 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Well, on the one hand I’d love to see cougars reestablish thier original range…. afterall, they were here a LONG time before any man set foot on this land…….but on the other hand I sure wouldn’t wanna become lunch for one either, but if I did have an encounter, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t shoot it, and probably wouldn’t report it either(unless maybe I seen him smack dab in the middle of a city)…..live and let live is my motto and as long as it’s not bothering me I’m not gonna bother it. The state I live in “Ohio” has a fairly over abundant deer population… so it’s quite possible that man and predator could peacefully coexist here…….atleast maybe for a while.
cryptidsrus responds: August 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Finally we get an identification.

DontCryBigfoot:

I’m one of those you rail about regarding the Montauk Monster—sue me. I love you, Loren Coleman, and most everybody else here—this site in some ways has changed my life, believe it or not—but I sincerely think it’s highly unlikely that is a racoon. I’m not saying it isn’t, either. I also think that it is highly likely that that could be canine. Normal animal, yes. Racoon, though? THAT decomposed? Highly unlikely.

Again, I agree that MM most probably is some sort of normal creature. I’m open to canine. One guess is as good as any.

And by the way, let’s remind ourselves that the carcass was never tested in any way. So we do not know what it was that that thing was. Could have been a badger that wandered too near a nuclear power plant for all we know. Could have been one of those “otters” everybody loves and cherishes around here (sarcasm)—and was exposed to gamma rays (more sarcasm).

We can absolutely speculate—but that is all that is—speculation. The wrong thing about all of this is that the body was never tested and allowed to totally decompose. That is the lousy part of the brouhaha.

Don’t get me wrong—if it would have turned out to be a raccoon—fine. I just think these people in the media (like Jeff Corwin) and folks like you saying definitively it is a certain thing is not only unscientific, but breaks the bounds somewhat of logic. Not to mention it being very condescending. And downright arrogant.

Oh yes—

Eyewitness testimony being the least reliable method of identifying something? I know scientists have their own standard and vision of what the truth is, but has anybody here had to serve in a jury here? Anybody been through a trial? How about you, DontCryBigfoot? I have. Divorce case, but a lot of “he said, she said”-type eyewitness testimony was presented.

SSchaper? Mystery_Man?

People have been convicted and cleared of charges in courts of law based solely on eyewitness testimony for centuries now. It has been a pretty reliable method so far. So if we follow your logic, I guess we should go back and invalidate all those verdicts because one “can’t trust one’s eyes?” I would say the same for you, Loren. Great guy you are.

I would bet you everything that if one were to put the case for (let’s say) the existence of UFOs or Sasquatch before a court of law, that legally one could prove it. Scientifically, probably not. But legally, yes. Of course, one can dismiss that as “those stupid non-experts and non-scientists who believe everything they hear,” but that is insulting to the 9th degree.

So let’s say anybody’s parents here were to see (let’s say for thought experiment’s sake) a “mermaid.” No camera. They simply were walking along the ocean shore one day and happened to witness what they claim was a mermaid-type creature happily gallivanting along minding its own business. It was near enough that they were able to get a good, reasonably long look at it before “it” went underwater. the Sun was high up in the sky—they were able to give a good description of this creature—-down to the fact she had (let’s say) blue eyes and black hair. Her tail was silvery like a mackerel’s, not like the standard image of a mermaid one sees in books and movies. she had breasts like a human female and looked to all intensive purposes like a female—except she had fish’s tail. According to them, it was not a manattee or dugong (they had seen them before). Once again, they had no camera or video recorder with them. Just their sight and their honor. What do you do, then???
Dismiss them as crazy? Drunk?

“Dad/Mom, it must have been a manatee/seal/dugong.”

“I know what we saw, and it was none of those things. Manatees do have white skin sometimes, but not black hair. And they do not have blue eyes. Same for dugongs. And by the way, son/daughter, the black hair was not seaweed—we recognize seaweed when we see it. We’ve lived near the ocean our entire lives. Seals have whiskers. This thing had none of those. It was not a walrus either. We’ve seen those before. And this had no tusks. It had arms the same size and circumference as humans.”

“Dugong, Dad/Mom.”

“We can distinguish between a female breast and a dugong breast, thank you very much. And as much as a dugong sort of looks like a man/woman, this thing was drop dead gorgeous, something a dugong is not, son/daughter. This thing also was slender, not stocky like a dugong. It also was holding up a fish in its hand. Five-fingered hand. I don’t think manatees/walruses/dugongs/seals/whatevers can do that, son/daughter. Dugongs also do not have milky white skin.”

“You were drunk/hallucinating, Dad/Mom.”

“We don’t drink, Son/Daughter. You know that. We also have no history of psychological imbalance, Son/Daughter. You’ve known us all your lfe. How dare you imply that.”

“Mistaken identity.”

“We’re certain we saw what we saw. It was, as shocking as it may seem to you, Son/Daughter, a mermaid.”

“You were that near to it?”

“Yes.”

“That is not possible, Dad/Mom. Science/Humankind would have discovered them by now.”

“I don’t know about that. We can only go by our experience. Isn’t it very arrogant, though, to presume that Mankind has discovered and catalogued everything there is this endless universe of ours? How do you know what is at the bottom of the sea? Or in the darkest, impenetrable reaches of the world?” Are you calling us liars, Son/Daughter? What is so hard in believing us in that we saw what we saw? Or at least don’t mock us.”

Now, what do you do then??? Dismiss them? Think they’re nuts?(Bad Son/Daughter.) :) Say they were mistaken? Or just say “I don’t know, but I believe that you really believe that you saw a mermaid.” Is there no room in this world in believing in emotional sincerity anymore?

Or maybe just say “I don’t know.”
What is wrong with just saying that?

I would understand that their testimony would be scientifically “worthless,” because there was not physical or incontrovertible photographic proof of their sighting, but one has to admit, as an anecdote, it would be an excellent one, and it would also go a long way in rejecting the notion that “visual testimony” is worthless.

Tell you what, why don’t we put the parents up on the witness stand and see what conclusion a judge/jury comes up with?

I’m sorry this post went on for so long, Loren, but I’m tired of the smirking condescnesion of some who are quick to label anything that is not apparently identifiable as “this and that.” It is arrogant and illogical.

Maybe it is time to revamp the scientific method and account for pehnomena that cannot be “empirically” tested and repeatedly appraised. No matter how many times Shermer, Radford and others plead for “logic” and “rationality,” it does not work. And however many times Shermer or Radford or Randi or anybody else write about how people believe in “stupid things,” sightings still occur daily all over the world that are not empirically or scientifically verifiable but compelling. so whatever they are doing, it’s not working.

I was responding to DontCryBigfoot’s statement that these people do not know what the heck they are talking about because “eyes can be decieved.” gain, Loren, sorry for the length of the post. I’ll get off the soapbox now.
DontCryBigfoot responds: August 11th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Cryptidsrus…. there’s NO way in hell I’m reading ALL that!
but I believe you misunderstood me on the Montauk monster thing, I said there are still people who claim “there’s no way in hell that thing could possibly be a raccoon or a dog”…. of course it is either a raccoon or a dog…. possibly another carnivore such as an otter maybe, the point I was trying to make is that it is the corpse of a KNOWN animal and that there are still some people who remain unconvinced of that…. at this point I’d have to say dog or raccoon are the two best guesses.
Maven responds: August 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Why is it so difficult to accept the possibility of native Felis Concolor - the cougar - in Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, etc. when we have established and documented populations in Texas? These things roam when they set out to establish a territory for themselves as was illustrated by the radio tagged individual from the Dakotas turning up dead as a railroad hit in Oklahoma.
http://tinyurl.com/5uy8su
Why not one from Texas moving north and east? Heaven knows there thick enough in the Red River areas of North Texas!
marlok responds: August 14th, 2008 at 2:48 am
I hail from North western Connecticut and let me tell you what not only do we have bears, coyotes ,coy dogs,Grey Wolves THAT’S RIGHT GREY WOLVES !! but we most assuredly have cougars !!! I have seen several in Litchfield county CT.I do not give a damn what the CT DEP says.THERE ARE ALOT OF COUGARS IN CT!!I do not want to leave out the beloved bobcat as well.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More

Mystery Cat DNA: It’s A Wild Puma

Random Posts

Spread the Word!

Random Posts

12 Responses to “Mystery Cat DNA: It’s A Wild Puma”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

T 84 Viagra

taking viagra after the expiration date

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

cheap gerneric viagra

Non Prescription Viagra

Viagra Illegal Phillipines

Side Affects Of Viagra

Buy Viagra Online At

taking viagra woman

Viagra And Cannabis

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills!

Viagra Bon Marche

taking viagra woman

Impotence Viagra

cheap gerneric viagra