Comments on: Mystery Photograph Revealed

By: korollocke

korollocke — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:19:36 +0000

Sorry to ruin your fun but this is just a gaffe, a fake. I lived in momtana for over 20 years. There a couple of these floating around and they weren’t mia for 121 years. Creative taxidermy is nothing new. Plus I spent many years as a block head in side shows and saw lots of crazy stuffed critters and a few just like this. Its a real animal just distorted in to something freaky.

By: Mark Wallbank

Mark Wallbank — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:24:28 +0000

Damn, I was just a little bit too slow in getting my answer in! I had a strong feeling right at the beginning it was a wild dog…but those human legs threw me off the scent.
Put up another quiz Loren, im dead determined to get myself a signed book of yours! Bring it on!

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:22:07 +0000

With all due respect, I submit that Richard888 should re-read what he reads, apparently.

He writes: “I was totally mislead by Loren who called the animal ‘tiny.’”

Of course, what I said was exactly the opposite.

On May 22nd, I wrote, “There is no trickery as far as my putting a tiny portion of a tiny animal that has been super-enlarged here. If this animal ran across your path, in front of you, you would definitely notice it.”

On May 23rd, I mentioned, “Once again, there is no trickery regarding the size of this animal.”

It is clear that most people understood what was being dealt with here was a striped hyena-sized, dog-sized, wolf-sized, or aardwolf-sized animal, not one that was the size of a hamster!

By: Richard888

Richard888 — Mon, 25 May 2009 11:55:44 +0000

‘Shunka Warak’in’ actually crossed my mind. But I was totally mislead by Loren who called the animal “tiny” leading me to think that we are dealing with some kind of rodent. Also, I felt uncomfortable choosing the Capibara, knowing it isn’t a small animal. I’m glad to see the Shunka back in the news. Last I remember, a portion of its fur was to be examined in the lab for a DNA test after its rediscovery and that feels more than a year ago.

By: indyDonna

indyDonna — Mon, 25 May 2009 01:08:03 +0000

Also, having created a lot of ‘false’ teeth, I don’t really think they are real. I don’t know what materials they had then, but they just don’t look right.
When I started creating ‘soft sculptures’ I put a lot of time into the dentition of them.
With this creature, 100+ yrs later after it was mounted, I just can’t guess what the teeth are made of if they are not the originals.

By: wiredtoawall

wiredtoawall — Mon, 25 May 2009 01:02:00 +0000

this probably isnt a wolf cos the head is just a bit too small and the body i think is just a bit too big and heavily built to be a coyote

but heck i’m no expert on anything so i may be wrong

By: indyDonna

indyDonna — Mon, 25 May 2009 00:12:42 +0000

youcantryreachingme
Yes I see the same thing

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Sun, 24 May 2009 23:08:48 +0000

Am I seeing right? Does this thing have 5 (an odd number of) incisors between upper canines?

By: ohioguy2315

ohioguy2315 — Sun, 24 May 2009 20:11:25 +0000

this is just a taxidermyed wolf done by a sorry excuse of a taxidermist

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:55:33 +0000

I guess I was partially right when I said it was a dog.

Hybrid wolf???

I agree with everybody else. Let’s have a DNA test…