ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags big cats , cats , cryptozoology , Scotland incidents

Reply
Old 30th July 2009, 10:42 AM   #161
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Suit yourself. If you'd rather thrash around aimlessly than read posts that are trying to help you, that's up to you.




Yes, I get it. You've put in an FoI request for the reports by the Rangers who thought they saw big cats. Except that it might only be one, as the BBC report which quoted their spokesman only referred to one of the Rangers believing he'd seen a big cat.

What do you expect to get? It's possible that these "reports" were only verbal. Given that the incident already seems to have been the subject of an FoI request, and all that seems to have come out of that is a statement by a spokesman that yes, one of these men really believes he saw a big cat, I rather suspect that might be the case.

Suppose he wrote something down. I can't imagine that it will tell you any more than we already know. That one (or possibly two) Forest Rangers thought they saw something they thought was a "big cat" while using night-vision thermal imaging.

The fact that this has already been subject to FoI may be reason for them to refuse the request anyway.

Where do you think this is taking you? What reason do you have for believing there's any more to this than the usual mistaken-size sightings in poor visibility conditions, followed by the usual Chinese Whispers? If (as I suspect) you hadn't even thought about any of this until yesterday, don't you think it might be worth sitting on it for a while and thinking about the possibilities and probabilities in a sensible manner, rather than firing off FoI requests just because you read something on a fruitcake web site yesterday?

Rolfe.
okay then words of one syllable

me not make ask for wood man say in word
parch ask for wood man say in word
me just help parch
me like that
nice man
read parch ask
here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=83

not my think to ask wood say in word
parcher think to ask wood man say in word

you think idea crap
why blame me
you blame parch
you not think right
you just blame

Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:44 AM   #162
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
I don't even like the way these ABC loons debunk their own hoaxes. We get a "plush toy" explanation and shut your mouth if you want to know how they figured that out.

Here we have a "cardboard cutout" which was supposed to be the Beast of Bodwin Moor. Keep your mouth shut if you think it looks like a charcoal drawing instead of a photo of a cutout.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bodmin%20card%20board%20cut%20out.jpg (88.5 KB, 5 views)
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:47 AM   #163
shandyjan
Master Poster
 
shandyjan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: N/W England
Posts: 2,122
JCE is that a pic of your cat? It looks very big...again, nothing to compare it to in the photo.
Rolfe, been interesting reading your thoughts and the sharing of the parts concerning your job!
__________________
Belief is the wound that knowledge heals. Ursula K. LeGuin's
A dog is for life, not just for xmas!
shandyjan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:52 AM   #164
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
mog walk in woods
transmogrification
bloke see panther
presses stop
new headline
blimey
Marduk speaks
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:54 AM   #165
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't even like the way these ABC loons debunk their own hoaxes. We get a "plush toy" explanation and shut your mouth if you want to know how they figured that out.
.
http://www.bigcatsinbritain.org/englishnews960.htm

Quote:
The 43-year-old amateur photographer from Upper Cwmbran said he spotted the animal while photographing a glamour model.
But yesterday the British Big Cat Society issued its "final verdict" on the photograph which has been examined by a zoologist and several photographic experts.
Danny Bamping, the society's founder and spokesman, has claimed the beast in the digital camera picture was nothing more than a 20 pound stuffed toy.
He says the animal's tail was arranged in such a way it looked broken in two places, the paws did not look genuine and a big feline would not allow a photographer so close. But Mr Evans has remained adamant the photograph is genuine.
After the picture was published, Chris Mosier, of Plymouth, a zoologist who has studied big cats for 15 years and has written two books on big cat sightings, cast doubt on it.
He said, "My opinion is that they are pictures of a toy and I recognise the toy used in the pictures as one you can buy for ?20 - a colleague sent me one from Scotland."
Mr Mosier's comments have now been followed by British Big Cat Society's final verdict being published on its website.
Mr Bamping said he also visited the scene where the photograph was taken but found no paw or scratch marks, or any smell associated with a big cat.
He said in a letter to Mr Evans, "After considering all of the above, I firmly believe that the photograph is actually of a large, stuffed 'cuddly toy' (full size) Black Panther. These are easily available from various sources.
I am outraged, where are the pictures of the glamour model.
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:56 AM   #166
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
transmogrification

whut ?
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:57 AM   #167
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183

omg, girl attacked by the beast of Cwmbran in high street
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 10:59 AM   #168
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
They are saying it's a known full-sized stuffed panther toy that sells for 20 pounds?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 11:01 AM   #169
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
That looks right. Send that pic to the loons. They need it on their site!
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 11:03 AM   #170
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You probably already know this stuff. Canids do not have a killing bite, felids do. Canids have to tear, shake and pull until the prey succumbs to blood loss or shock. Their paws are useless for gripping large prey and so they literally hang on by their teeth alone. If they bite the throat, it could indeed "rip it out". It is rarely a quick death and feeding may begin before that. The big cats are set up to deliver a bite to the throat or skull that causes death without any tearing or pulling with the teeth. There seems to be an instinct directed towards crushing the trachea and maintaining it until suffocation. Their killing bite is not applied to anything other than the head and neck. The different species of big cat have slight variations on how they do the killing, but it's all the same theme. Hold on tight with the claws and direct your bite(s) at the neck/head. Attacking any other part of the body is a waste of time and is potentially dangerous. Your teeth are not designed to kill that way.

The canids grab almost anywhere with their teeth and pull/shake. If they grab the throat of a fleeing sheep, they may try to plant their feet which causes the struggling animal to rip its own throat by frantic pulling away.

Attacking the flanks or legs is just not what big cats do - it's what canids do. When in doubt - shave the carcass and look for penetrating claw marks.

The odd thing was, in our series of cases last year, we had two deaths that exactly fitted the pattern I bolded above. However, circumstantial evidence simply couldn't support a big cat being the cause. The shepherd was talking about badgers, but I found that a bit of a stretch too.

Then we had more deaths, in each case with a different area of the sheep being bitten, just one massive bite then nothing else. One gimmer lost all the muscle from one leg, leaving just a tibia. It was completely gruesome. These all suggested dog, and common sense says the whole lot were dogs, or probably a dog.

We still make jokes about the "Pentland Beast", but we know there's nothing with jaws that size living there, because every bloody lamb is tagged and counted and accounted for. My instinct says Rottweiler. However, if there's someone with an illegal pet leopard or cheetah around, who has only let it out twice, in the same week, on opposite sides of the Firth of Forth - well, that would make a good story too!

Actually, I usually skin the carcasses and look for the evidence of injuries from the inside out. I've seen a few where there were multiple teeth punctures on the hindquarters, apparently done as the lamb was running away.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 11:06 AM   #171
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 11:17 AM   #172
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
The odd thing was, in our series of cases last year, we had two deaths that exactly fitted the pattern I bolded above. However, circumstantial evidence simply couldn't support a big cat being the cause.

It's not so odd to find canid kills with only a mortal throat wound. It suggests a single attacker with some experience. Also suggestive of an attack scenario that allowed biting the throat as first and only traumatic contact.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 11:43 AM   #173
JcR
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by shandyjan View Post
JCE is that a pic of your cat? It looks very big...again, nothing to compare it to in the photo.
Rolfe, been interesting reading your thoughts and the sharing of the parts concerning your job!
Yes... and the "real terror" reveals itself when the sun dips below the horizon, and sends the moon adrift up into the night sky.
JcR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 11:49 AM   #174
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
This image was presented as a photo of a cougar in Maine. I know we discussed it before but I can't find the thread. Many thought the image was altered.


__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 01:05 PM   #175
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,575
Getting back to the OP.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In spite of the railway line, there aren't good size reference points in the film, the policeman was a fair distance away, and the resolution is very poor. I think, just as the news item said at the time, that it's very inconclusive. It still could be a black Lab, but I think it's more likely just to be a big black mog, maybe somebody of 6 kg or more. Trying to magnify it into a puma seems a bit of a stretch though.

Although Helensburgh is on the edge of the Highlands and the Loch Lomond Park, it's very civilised. It's posh Glasgow commuter belt. That's what the railway line is. It shouldn't be all that hard for someone determined in the area to find out what lives there that might have taken a little stroll on the tracks.

How difficult would it be for someone to place a reference object (moggie-sized) along the rails, then go back to the point where the original video was shot and shoot another video for comparison?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 01:31 PM   #176
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
okay then words of one syllable

me not make ask for wood man say in word
parch ask for wood man say in word
me just help parch
me like that
nice man
read parch ask
here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=83

not my think to ask wood say in word
parcher think to ask wood man say in word

you think idea crap
why blame me
you blame parch
you not think right
you just blame


You funny man!

Here Forest of Dean.



Five miles across. And not just one big cat is supposed to be living there, but several. They're breeding!

Without leaving the slightest trace on the ecosystem!

The Rangers were doing a deer census, remember. They keep records. They go there all the time. There are also sheep there, which belong to people, who tend to notice if a lot go missing.

WHAT ARE THESE CATS EATING??

WHERE ARE THE BODIES?

Could an area as small as that actually support a population of pumas even if the govenment decided it wanted to have them there? How soon before they ran out of prey?

Where are the bones and the skulls? Where are the ewes and hinds whose lambs and fawns have vanished?

Where are the tracks and the shed fur and the bodies of the cats themselves when they die?

There's no point in listing a handful or two of "maybe" sightings and a paw-print that could be a dog's. If there was even one adult puma in there, there would inevitably be stacks of evidence. With a whole population, you'd be tripping over them. The Rangers would be finding half-eaten carcasses on a weekly basis. There would be regularly-used trails, dens even. Visitors would be snapping pictures on their mobile phones. Farmers and shepherds would be complaining of devastating losses. Dead pumas themselves would be found from time to time.

This is Bigfoot in the back yard!

And because William, quite reasonably, asks what evidence you base your claims on, instead of thinking about whether or not what you've just sucked up from a woo-woo web site is credible, you abuse our democratic privileges and waste out tax money by firing of FoI requests.

You heap funny man.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 30th July 2009 at 02:37 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 01:42 PM   #177
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You heap funny man!

Here Forest of Dean.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/dean.jpg

Five miles across. .
http://www.royalforestofdean.info/forest-of-dean/
Quote:
The Royal Forest occupies an area of 204 square miles in the western part of Gloucestershire.The 20 million trees that cover the Royal Forest of Dean include oak, beech, ash, birch and holly trees.
why are you so offended by the idea that I am attempting to find something that another poster requested ?
what does it have to do with you anyway

really, your arrogance is out of its box and its getting quite obnoxious. please attempt to control it
thanks
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 02:12 PM   #178
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
http://www.royalforestofdean.info/forest-of-dean/

why are you so offended by the idea that I am attempting to find something that another poster requested ?
what does it have to do with you anyway

really, your arrogance is out of its box and its getting quite obnoxious. please attempt to control it
thanks

That's the whole area designated with the "Forest of Dean" park status. It's not all forest though, the rest is mainly farmland and ordinary woods and stuff like that. And once you start considering that larger area, you have to contend with a lot of roads, farms, and several medium-sized towns. This isn't the Black Forest you know. Everything I said above still applies, just the same.

Part of what it has to do with me is that it's my tax money you've decided to squander in this wild goose chase. Not quite on an Iraq War scale, but it's still an expense.

I'll leave it to William to address your declaration that you're doing this for him (after you told him to scuttle off back under his bridge). However, do recall. You were the one who came here just copy-pasting stuff from a poorly-thought-out woo web site. When did you first access that site, anyway? Yesterday?

You backed off from some of their more preposterous claims, but latched on to a couple of instances where there seemed to be a little bit more evidence. However, even that was hearsay and third-hand, and you hadn't thought to question why there was no original documentation presented. William, quite reasonably, pointed this out.

So, instead of reassessing the credibility of the web site you were so interested in, you decided to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. In spite of the reports already accessible stating that that had already been done.

Sure, I suppose it's about 20p of my tax money. Be my guest.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 30th July 2009 at 02:35 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 02:12 PM   #179
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 40,911
Originally Posted by Marduk
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You heap funny man!

Here Forest of Dean.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/dean.jpg

Five miles across. .
http://www.royalforestofdean.info/forest-of-dean/
Quote:
The Royal Forest occupies an area of 204 square miles in the western part of Gloucestershire.The 20 million trees that cover the Royal Forest of Dean include oak, beech, ash, birch and holly trees.
That's rather misleading, The actual area of woodland is, according to wikipedia, somewhat smaller:
Quote:
The area is characterised by over 110 square kilometers (42.5 sq mi) of mixed woodland, one of the surviving ancient woodlands in England. A large area was reserved for royal hunting before 1066, and remained as one of the largest Crown forests in England, the largest after the New Forest. Although the name is often used loosely to refer to that part of Gloucestershire between the Severn and Wye, the Forest of Dean proper has covered a much smaller area since mediaeval times

Regardless of the actual area, it is still a well populated region, and has many tourists in the holiday season. You've not addressed those parts of Rolfe's post, only picked on what you imagined was a mistake.
Quote:
why are you so offended by the idea that I am attempting to find something that another poster requested ?
what does it have to do with you anyway
It's a public forum; do you not know how those work?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20

Last edited by zooterkin; 30th July 2009 at 02:15 PM.
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 02:18 PM   #180
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Getting back to the OP.

How difficult would it be for someone to place a reference object (moggie-sized) along the rails, then go back to the point where the original video was shot and shoot another video for comparison?

Not sure. You'd need to know more about the camera used to take the pictures, and the zoom factor used, I think. It's just silly season fluff journalism though, even Marduk has abandoned the Big Cat of Helensburgh. I doubt if anyone is sufficiently concerned about the pictures to bother.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 02:25 PM   #181
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
That's rather misleading, The actual area of woodland is, according to wikipedia, somewhat smaller:

Regardless of the actual area, it is still a well populated region, and has many tourists in the holiday season. You've not addressed those parts of Rolfe's post, only picked on what you imagined was a mistake.

Thanks, Zooterkin. I picked the area designated by the Ordnance Survey, but Marduk has referenced the whole area of the designated park. The problem remains, whichever way you slice it. There's only a fairly small area of actual ancient woodland where anything weird could plausibly live. Even that part is criss-crossed by minor roads and full of picnic places. If you declare that you want to consider the whole region, then you have to explain how the animals can move across main roads and farms and in between towns and villages. The areas outside the part I indicated, as I said before, are intensively farmed by people who COUNT THEIR SHEEP.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 03:06 PM   #182
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Regardless of the actual area, it is still a well populated region, and has many tourists in the holiday season. You've not addressed those parts of Rolfe's post, only picked on what you imagined was a mistake.
I can ignore anything I want to ignore and post whatever I want to post as per any whim I happen to feel like while I am posting, you don't think thats right ?
thats cool, then why does the forum have an ignore button ?

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It's a public forum; do you not know how those work?
yes, someones says, hey "it would be nice to read the original report" I say "I will attempt to get it using the freedom of information act" and then I get nothing but constant abuse and irrelevance from a poster who by his own admittance had made his mind up before he saw any evidence at all, pardon me for not thinking that correct sceptical thinking. Its pseudo sceptical and everyone knows it.
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 03:07 PM   #183
shawmutt
Squirrel Murderer
 
shawmutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,037
Cry me a river. Do you have any sort of reply yet?
shawmutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 03:09 PM   #184
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Part of what it has to do with me is that it's my tax money you've decided to squander in this wild goose chase. Not quite on an Iraq War scale, but it's still an expense.
thats got to be about the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard on any subject. I don't receive a penny from your tax money, can you enlighten me to how much the forestry commission is paid by your tax money, thousands of pounds is it,

seriously, please do the math and then let me know how much of your money I have wasted, I'll send you a cheque
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 03:10 PM   #185
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by shawmutt View Post
Cry me a river. Do you have any sort of reply yet?
nope
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 03:18 PM   #186
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
You know, if you spent half the energy in answering questions as you spend getting all huffy, we might be getting on a bit better.

Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
I can ignore anything I want to ignore and post whatever I want to post as per any whim I happen to feel like while I am posting, you don't think thats right ?

Sure. But then other people can take note of what you've been ignoring, especially when you've been completely pwned, and call you on it.

Here's one you've been dodging for a while.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Quote:
Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.
So tell us. What is the source for that one. Where is this evidence that DEFRA were "forced" to release? How did they hide it within the VIDA data?

And why should any predator attack be classed as anything other than "predator unknown" if nobody saw the attack? What makes you claim that these cases show "clear evidence of a big cat attack" rather than being dogs? Did you see the bodies? Who did then? Who made that judgement?

And the catch-all question relating to the Forest of Dean. How do you imagine even one adult "big cat" could be living there with no effect whatsoever on the ecosystem - never mind a breeding colony?

If you can't answer that last one, then your zeal to fire off emails to innocent government apparatchiks seems a bit premature, don't you think?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 30th July 2009 at 04:20 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 03:25 PM   #187
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
In spite of being fairly secretive, pumas are vocal and loud. Folks should regularly be hearing some pretty weird and scary sounds around the Forest of Dean. It's not hard for someone to identify their sounds.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:16 PM   #188
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
I think the whole "DEFRA coverup" really needs to be put to bed.

If we're really talking about genuine big cats, things of puma size or more, the accusation is that they don't want to alarm the public. This is just ridiculous. If there is anything dangerous out there, it is DEFRA's duty to warn the public. They'd be wetting themselves in case a child was hurt and they were blamed for being too slow to issue an alert.

The reason DEFRA knows there's nothing that size out there is that DEFRA keeps a close track of what is killing livestock (those VIDA returns again), and it knows there simply isn't the slack in the system to account for what cats that size need to consume to live.

The ones we know about just underline that. Felicity was loose north of Loch Ness for many months. That area is remote in the extreme. The hills are wild, and go on for miles and miles in every direction. But even there, the sheep are shepherded and counted, and any unaccounted losses are a matter for concern. The farmer knew Felicity was there, he was pretty pissed off about what she was eating, and in the end he trapped her.

My own speculation is that Felicity was deliberately taken there and released by someone who didn't want to keep her (Dangerous Wild Animals Act, possibly?) precisely because of the remoteness of the area. There isn't a better place in the whole of Great Britain for such an animal to survive and maybe not be noticed. Good choice.

But she was noticed. For the obvious reason. Her effect on the ecosystem, specifically the sheep she was eating. Sheep that were counted and accounted for.

The Suffolk/Norfolk lynx is a very similar case. A farmer notices sheep being killed. A lot of sheep. And then a lynx is shot. Where did it come from? No idea. But if the sheep losses only started two weeks before the cat was killed, then that's your answer to when it arrived. And when it was shot, the sheep losses stop.

The whole Devon/Cornwall mythology, Beast of Bodmin and so on, is a lot more plausible than this Forest of Dean nonsense. The countryside is wild, and the livestock run free. There are deer and so on as well. It's more plausible that something could have lived there for a time, just as Felicity lived in the Highlands. But the stories are garbled and contradictory, and the sheer quantity of dead livestock doesn't seem to feature as one would expect. Farmers in the West Country aren't any more forgiving of big predators than those in the Highlands or East Anglia. I've seen a number of references to MAFF (DEFRA) having carried out some sort of official investigation there in the mid 1990s and concluding there was no credible evidence, but I can't find an original report. Maybe Marduk would like to ask for that as well?

But leaving the peculiarities of the West Country aside, the evidence of the few cases that are documented indicates that the presence of a genuine big cat is pretty much impossible to hide, simply because they have to eat.

On the other hand, what about smaller exotics? Could we be harbouring breeding colonies of leopard cats of Geoffroy's cats? They prey on birds and small rodents and so on. Well, it's no more implausible than colonies of mink, or coypu, or grey squirrels. Except that all these also leave evidence of their presence on the ecosystem, and there's no matching evidence of the little cats.

And in any case, why would DEFRA want to concel the presence of a species that's no danger to man? Why the secrecy?

Even if we leave the whole food chain to the side, has anyone watched Springwatch or Autumnwatch? What about the birdwatchers and the wildlife cameramen and the naturalists that roam the countryside? They'll find you a Scottish Wildcat or a ptarmigan or a mountain hare, and deliver you some film that lets you count its whiskers.

Ask Bill Oddie what he thinks of the whole idea, that might be a better answer than any.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 30th July 2009 at 04:47 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:30 PM   #189
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You know, if you spent half the energy in answering questions as you spend getting all huffy, we might be getting on a bit better.
Ah classic forum misunderstanding, I don't dislike you at all, I am a bit miffed by your inability to see why all the evidence must be checked but thats really your problem. I even sent you a friend request earlier today. I never take anything said on a forum, that personally,





Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And the catch-all question relating to the Forest of Dean. How do you imagine even one adult "big cat" could be living there with no effect whatsoever on the ecosystem - never mind a breeding colony?

If you can't answer that last one, then your zeal to fire off emails to innocent government apparatchiks seems a bit premature, don't you think?

Rolfe.
my zeal is to check all the possible evidence before making a firm decision, I have learned this by past experience and some huge mistakes I could have avoided with just a little more zeal. To me research is like making sure all the sockets are turned off when I go to bed, it may take a little effort but I sleep better knowing that my chances of waking up burned to death are considerably decreased

You have already proved that most of the big cats found escaped a short while earlier, I have no complaint with that, but the fact that those cats were at large isn't changed by their source, I'm one of lifes methodical thinkers. I lose respect for myself when I am investigating something if I don't investigate everything properly.

Say just hypothetically lets say that the forestry commission report is backed by solid evidence that wasn't released, that something in it proves that there were two big cats on the loose for a short period, wouldn't you want to know that, it would be quite easy to find the source wouldn't it, I wouldn't imagine that many facilities in that immediate area have a pair of big cats that are inclined to elope together, when really this forestry commisson report seems to be the best evidence for unreported big cats, whats wrong with being thorough ?

I havent at any point asked you for any of your time, you seem to be giving it freely, I just wish you were a little more cooperative

this isn't really a big deal for me, I have a highly paid job which allows me a great deal of free time and I'm a speed typist, if I have spent more than 2 hours on this subject in the last three days I would be very surprised



and finally, whatever subject is being discussed here I am always learning something, though it may not be very clear to anyone what exactly that is.

Last edited by Marduk; 30th July 2009 at 04:39 PM.
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:34 PM   #190
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I think the whole "DEFRA coverup" really needs to be put to bed.

If we're really talking about genuine big cats, things of puma size or more, the accusation is that they don't want to alarm the public. This is just ridiculous. Snip

Ask Bill Oddie what he thinks of the whole idea, that might be a better answer than any.

Rolfe.
Excellent post
nominated

but lets give bill oddie a miss eh, I always thought he was a bit of a loon

Last edited by Marduk; 30th July 2009 at 04:38 PM.
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:46 PM   #191
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
In spite of being fairly secretive, pumas are vocal and loud. Folks should regularly be hearing some pretty weird and scary sounds around the Forest of Dean. It's not hard for someone to identify their sounds.
.
I've wondered about this myself.
I've seen tracks of way larger than housecat animals, and others have seen cougars walking thru the community.
But I've not heard anything unusual.
The local coyotes are quite vocal especially in the evenings when the cop cars and EMT vehicles are rushing around, sirens on. They sing along. MOF that's how I located a den of coyotes recently, I heard them howling and was able to see where they were howling from.
But the lion, not a sound, nor has anyone mentioned hearing any, with several independent observations of animals, and tracks.
The coyote was yelling his head looking for MILFs, and the bobcat, no more than 50 feet away, ignored me.
It also spent a lot of time in the community.Recently it's been trapped and moved to the mountains north of here, along with its litter.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Coyote&Raven.jpg (78.8 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg Bobcat-01.jpg (102.6 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by I Ratant; 30th July 2009 at 04:52 PM.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:53 PM   #192
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
waking up burned to death
A horrifying experience, I'm sure.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:57 PM   #193
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
A horrifying experience, I'm sure.
But definitely one of a kind.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 04:57 PM   #194
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
A horrifying experience, I'm sure.
I could have used a more realistic example, but it might have actually been scary
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 05:03 PM   #195
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
I've wondered about this myself. But the lion, not a sound, nor has anyone mentioned hearing any, with several independent observations of animals, and tracks.
The cougars may not be noisy when they are walking about the community. But they get loud especially when seeking a mate or announcing their turf.

Those are great photos. What region are you in if I may ask?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 05:18 PM   #196
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
Ah classic forum misunderstanding, I don't dislike you at all, I am a bit miffed by your inability to see why all the evidence must be checked but thats really your problem. I even sent you a friend request earlier today. I never take anything said on a forum, that personally,

Well, I meant "get on" as "advance the discussion", but I never spurn an olive branch.

Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
my zeal is to check all the possible evidence before making a firm decision, I have learned this by past experience and some huge mistakes I could have avoided with just a little more zeal. To me research is like making sure all the sockets are turned off when I go to bed, it may take a little effort but I sleep better knowing that my chances of waking up burned to death are considerably decreased

OCD? If you extend that to checking up on everything you randomly encounter on the internet, no matter how implausible, it may take you some time.

Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
You have already proved that most of the big cats found escaped a short while earlier, I have no complaint with that, but the fact that those cats were at large isn't changed by their source, I'm one of lifes methodical thinkers. I lose respect for myself when I am investigating something if I don't investigate everything properly.

Say just hypothetically lets say that the forestry commission report is backed by solid evidence that wasn't released, that something in it proves that there were two big cats on the loose for a short period, wouldn't you want to know that, it would be quite easy to find the source wouldn't it, I wouldn't imagine that many facilities in that immediate area have a pair of big cats that are inclined to elope together, when really this forestry commisson report seems to be the best evidence for unreported big cats, whats wrong with being thorough ?

Say hypothetically that there's something absolutely eye-popping that wasn't released the last time they had an FoI request for that, is there any real reason they'd release it on a second request? "I refer the honourable gentlemann to my previous answer" is your likely fate.

And take another look at that abortion of a table DEFRA released about big cat escapes. That's the likely quality of the response that's going to be produced if a government department is asked for something they don't have.

It seems to me that you just pulled in the horns of your claims (or suggestions or whatever) even further. You agree then that the assertion that there's a breeding colony of pumas in a small patch of woodland in a very intensively-farmed county is implausible to the point of impossible? But you still think there might have been two there for a short period?

Why? Because a couple of park rangers joined the "I thot I thaw a puddy tat" brigade? That's all it is, you know. Something similar to the Helensburgh sighting, but at night with infra-red sights. There doesn't even seem to be anything in writing.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I'm especially curious about how the forest rangers concluded that is was Big Cats (Panthera or Puma) that they were seeing with thermal night-vision (non camera type).

I think that estimating size may be challenging with infrared (IR) vision. Warm objects glow and cool surroundings don't. Non-living objects around the living subject may not appear clearly. It could prevent a proper frame-of-reference to determine size of the glowing thing. I'm hoping that the ranger reports give objective explanations that were cause for concluding - Big Cats. Can you screw up an IR moggie sighting and think you are seeing a leopard?

Basically, yes, I would say. Essentially, all the press reports indicate that this entire stramash is being exclusively manufactured by "Big cat expert Frank Tunbridge, 60, who has 25 years experience", maybe with a few friends, going round spreading rumous. In that climate, people start to report sightings, it's a well-known phenomenon.

It's easy to see why. I remember being misled myself about the size of an ordinary black cat. If the circumstances had been very slightly different (i.e. I hadn't got a second, better look at it) and the local papers had been carrying the sort of stories Tunbridge is feeding to the Gloucestershire rags, there could well have been another one.

So Frank anoints these as "credible sightings", a big dog pawprint is exhibited as a cat's, and the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating.

Rather than asking whether maybe this is all about a single escapee that was in the forest for short time, or maybe it happened twice, why not ask whether there's even any grounds for that speculation? The nearest real zoos are in Bristol, and the only zoo near the forest only keeps butterflies! And if there were cats there for a few days or weeks, and they're not there any more, what happened to them?

Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
I havent at any point asked you for any of your time, you seem to be giving it freely, I just wish you were a little more cooperative

this isn't really a big deal for me, I have a highly paid job which allows me a great deal of free time and I'm a speed typist, if I have spent more than 2 hours on this subject in the last three days I would be very surprised

and finally, whatever subject is being discussed here I am always learning something, though it may not be very clear to anyone what exactly that is.

Fairy nuff.

Rolfe.

ETA: You forgot this bit.

Originally Posted by Marduk
Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.

I'm just curious. Why did you say this? Who determined these remains "showed clear evidence of a big cat attack"? Who made the request, what did they ask for, and where is the report they were given? Who determined that DEFRA were "caught" in a cover-up?

Enquiring minds still want to know.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 30th July 2009 at 06:19 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 05:33 PM   #197
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,647
Dunno anything about anything here, other than to say -- to this layperson's eye, that looks like one big-ass cat.
__________________
Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 05:36 PM   #198
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The cougars may not be noisy when they are walking about the community. But they get loud especially when seeking a mate or announcing their turf.

Those are great photos. What region are you in if I may ask?
.
Palmdale, CA.
We've had bears come all the way through the town to get to the airfield.. about 15 miles from the Angeles National Forest, crossing highways, the aqueduct, and generally surviving modern traffic. I've seen 3 raccoons, all which failed "Street Crossing 101" miserably recently.
This track, wasn't made by a house cat!
I've a -larger- track, most likely that a bear.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg jrLionTrack.jpg (154.5 KB, 193 views)
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 05:38 PM   #199
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Ah, the interesting fauna of the large continental masses!

The biggest carnivore we have is the fox. Unless you count the badger.

And I'm not really kittening this thread....



Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 30th July 2009 at 05:42 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2009, 06:11 PM   #200
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,506
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I note this actually refers to the Forest of Dean. Do we know how long these animals are supposed to have been in there? Because there is an interesting little fact about the Forest of Dean. In 2001 the wild ungulates in there (wild boar, deer) were infected with foot and mouth. The entire forest was cleared of cloven-hooved livestock.

Just correcting myself here. The sources I'm looking at say that only sheep were cleared from the forest, and they left the deer. (I'm not seeing anything about wild boar, I may be getting mixed up with Kent there.) The whole forest area was free of sheep for about 18 months.

Quote:
An analysis of the archives reported by Dr C Hart OBE have shown that deer numbers have fluctuated over the centuries. In summary, deer were:
  • numerous in C12th & C13th when the herd was safeguarded & offenders heavily punished
  • dwindling in C14th due to poaching
  • scarce in C15th & early C16th
  • increasing in late C16th when Elizabeth I introduced woodland management for ship timber
  • reduced dramatically to 300 in the 1630s before the civil war by mass poaching
  • legally restricted to 800 in 1668 Dean Forest (Reafforestation) Act
  • reduced to about 10 by 1800 with decrease in cover and much poaching
  • numbered at 800 in 1840 following enclosure and replanting
  • reduced to 150 bucks and 300 does in 1850 with poaching
  • all gone by 1855 due to the 1851 Deer Removal Act (enacted to counteract poaching)
  • re-established in the Speech House area during WWII
  • reported to number about 40 animals in 1971
  • assessed at 200 in number in 1992
  • censussed in 2000, 2002 and 2005 after culling at the end of the winter with night vision equipment and numbered slightly over 300
Before foot and mouth disease in 2001, the deer population tended to be more dense in the inclosures which were not subject to sheep browse, but after the removal of all the sheep, the deer spread throughout most of the Dean. The period when there was no public access and the increased food availability because of the lack of sheep, probably combined to cause an observed increase in numbers.

So when the sheep were culled for FMD, the deer increased in numbers and spread. So what were these pumas eating, Mr. Frank Tunbridge, 60? 300 head of deer really doesn't seem much to support a bunch of big cats to me, and the census findings tell us that the population was actually getting larger.

This is just getting silly.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.