In the past I have featured some unique ebay items, such as haunted dolls, but today I want to share this really cool taxidermist figurine of Bigfoot. I thought the item was pretty neat and that some of my Bigfoot friends might like it. I think it would be a pretty cool collectible.

Here is what the description says about the figurine.

"Bigfoot Sasquatch yeti this Figurine is made out of real deer hair leather strap going across waste and shoulders also claws are made out of leather figurine is in good condition. Just to let you know if figurine is handled a lot. It does shed. This is for display only and not for play. This has been professionally taxidermist. The bottom of figurine has a felt bottom to protect your tables or shelves. Also, right arm moves slightly, about 1 inch up or down left arm does not move at all Including the head does not move body also does not move."


The says it is located in Tennessee and the person is offering free shipping. The listing also includes several pictures of the Bigfoot figurine. According to the post it is made with real deer hair.

If you would like to view the item yourself, or purchase it, Here is the link - Vintage Bigfoot figurine  

Also, I make no claims or promises about this item, I'm only sharing the listing and my thoughts about it. I do not know the person selling it.

Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet


This post sponsored in part by

Read More

Monckton's Gazeka, also called the Papuan Devil-Pig, is a cryptid, an animal said to have been seen on Papua New Guinea in the early 20th century. It is said to resemble a tapir or giant sloth, having a long, proboscis-like snout, and some theories suggest it may be the descendant of an extinct marsupial belonging to the family Palorchestidae.

Totally separate from that cryptid (to which the name 'Monckton's Gazeka' was confusingly applied by person(s) unknown) is the 'real' Gazeka, which was the creation of the English comic actor, George Graves, who introduced it as a bit of by-play in the musical, The Little Michus at Daly's Theatre, London, in 1905. A contemporary magazine described it thus: "According to Mr. Graves, the Gazeka was first discovered by an explorer who was accompanied in his travels by a case of whiskey, and who half thought that he had seen it before in a sort of dream." Graves's idea became a fad of the season and George Edwardes mounted a competition to encourage artists to give sketches of what the beast might look like. Charles Folkard won the competition, and the Gazeka suddenly appeared in the form of various items of novelty jewellery, charms, etc., and was taken up by Perrier, the sparkling water makers, for a series of advertisements. Children attending matinée performances at Daly's during the 1905–06 Christmas holidays were presented with "a materialized Gazeka, the Unique Toy of the Season". The Gazeka also featured in a special song and dance in the entertainment Akezag, at the London Hippodrome at Christmas, 1905.
Firby-Smith, a schoolboy in P.G. Wodehouse's 1909 novel Mike, has the nickname "Gazeka" because of a supposed physical resemblance.
- Source: wikipedia -

But, there is more relating to this creature. There was this stone, carved figure found in the Ambum river valley, which is now Papua New Guinea. The stone figure dates back to prehistoric times and many feel it could be a representation of the ctyptid Devil Pig.

The old statue.

Papua New Guinea is home to a large number of what I'd would call odd or unusual looking animals. It has many different kind of rats and bats, so are pretty large. A good number of new species is commonly found in Papua New Guinea, as well.

So, could the Devil pig be real? I think there is a good possibility that either this creature is still there or was at one time. It also has a lot of similarities with the Giant sloth, which we have some records of. Maybe it was some kind of subspecies of the giant sloth.




Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet


This post sponsored in part by

Read More

When I’m conducting research, or simply thinking about it, and I come up with a new idea about how to do it, I often find myself thinking that if the scientists were here watching me right now, they’d be rolling their eyes.

That’s because it’s necessary to really think outside the box sometimes in order to learn anything new. And sometimes you find yourself doing some pretty strange things simply because this thought process has led you there. 

But not all agree with this.

Science has their own set way of finding answers to questions. They let the evidence lead the way until they collect enough “facts” to prove the point to which the evidence has led them. It’s a very logical and concise system that sets the standard for everything scientists do. And it works…in that context.

But is that the only context? And what if we tried a different context?

I’ve taken a little heat before for challenging science a bit, and I get into a little trouble from time to time. But those of you who know me know I don’t really worry about that too much. Because some of the greatest knowledge and ideas we know about today started with someone imagining that the so-called evidence could be interpreted a different way. 

And what the h--- am I talking about? 

We’re taught that evidence is the vital element in finding the truth. And it certainly is. We’d be nowhere in bigfoot research without it.

But think about evidence for a minute. I often place quotations around the words evidence and facts. And that’s because, even though we’re taught to believe they are absolutely, unquestionably truthful entities, they are actually open to a bit of interpretation by the individual. How many people look at evidence and interpret it in a slightly different way than others that have looked at it? If you watch carefully, everyone who sees it will have a different take on it. And some will even reject it altogether. And that’s because evidence is, like everything else, open to the personal perception of the observer.

Bear with me while I attempt to explain what I mean. This is an example. I’ve talked to numerous bigfoot witnesses and people who think they may have them on their property who claim to mysteriously have fruit trees with the fruit removed from them to about 8 to 10 feet up. And the rest of the fruit on the higher branches is left unpicked. Now, if a scientist sees this and tries to solve the mystery of who did it, he or she weighs the visible evidence there (the missing fruit from the lower branches) and concludes that there are humans living in the area, and humans like fruit, and are capable of harvesting the fruit, and humans have been known to do such things before. So, therefore, it must have been humans that took the fruit.
Fair enough.

That’s a reasonable, logical conclusion…from someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in bigfoot. And if that scientist or any other person doesn’t believe in bigfoot, they are not even going to ask any pertinent questions in that context. Bigfoot has not been proved by science, therefore Bigfoot does not exist to science. So, as long as bigfoot doesn’t exist, then there’s no reason to believe that a bigfoot would have taken the fruit. So, the case is basically closed.

But if we’re a person that doesn’t believe in Bigfoot but, by some miracle, boldly decides to make a broad leap of faith and imagine that bigfoot MIGHT exist, how might that change the nature of the investigation of the missing fruit? Doesn’t the interpretation of the evidence change quite a bit?
I think it does.

If you start out as a bigfoot believer, homo sapiens might be the first culprit on your mind, but our hairy friends in the woods, even though they aren’t confirmed real by science, might be our second guess. And that’s because we’re going into the investigation with our minds more open to other possibilities. It doesn’t mean we have to drink the kool-aid. It just means we’re open to the idea of taking a little taste.

And of course, the critics might say that, with that way of thinking, it might also be a leprechaun on a ladder taking the fruit too. But let’s keep in mind, there is absolutely no physical evidence of leprechauns, no footprint casts, and no records of sightings of any kind, let alone sightings that go back hundreds or even thousands of years. Do you see where I’m going with this?
It’s kind of like being a little crazy…in the most sensible way possible. That’s how breakthroughs are made. Just because science hasn’t proved something to their own satisfaction, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means science doesn’t have its evidence yet.

Don’t let the negative side of the equation guide your research. Do it however you want, but try to keep your mind open. Follow the evidence where it takes you, but don’t stick to rigid rules. And don’t get so clouded by science that you shoot yourself and your research in the foot.

So many people involved in bigfoot research try so hard to stay on the side of science because they believe that science is the only thing that will make bigfoot credible, and that we absolutely must stick to the scientific method in order to be taken seriously. And there is some validity to that. But a lot of great knowledge over centuries has come to light through the work of regular people with limited education, but rather a keen, out-of-the–box- thinking mind, and good hard work. And they forced science and the masses to pay attention. And that could be you someday. And you’ll be up there with the forward thinkers like the young apprentice, Leonardo DaVinci and modern independent thinkers like famed anthropologist Jane Goodall who started her career as a secretary. Both managed to make their marks on the world in spite of the status quo of their times.

If you can simply imagine that bigfoot might be real, then it makes all the so-called evidence seem a little different, and it would cause us to investigate in a completely different way. It would take you in a different direction and make you rethink everything you’ve seen and heard in the back yard. Some very puzzling events of the past might finally make perfect sense. How can we possibly learn anything new if we’re not open to it?

Science’s method is to let the evidence lead them to the truth. But what if it really was a bigfoot that took the fruit? If we keep our minds closed and approach the situation without being able to imagine another scenario, we’ll be blaming the neighbors for stealing the fruit. And we’ll never evolve. The evidence in this case is open to interpretation. If our minds are open.

I think of all those years I hiked in the woods and saw things I couldn’t really explain but labeled them as human activity because Bigfoot was barely a thought in anyone’s mind.; barely the stuff of legend or even myth. So, how could I have possibly imagined another scenario? Everyone would have said I was crazy.

And they could still do that, but things are different now. Should we acknowledge science? Of course, we should. We need science. It’s our best friend in the quest for bigfoot. And our scientists are some of our greatest allies even though most remain very skeptical.

But there’s enough evidence for the existence of bigfoot for us all to be a little more confident in what we’re doing. So, in my humble opinion, it’s okay to defy science just a bit (within reason) and slip outside the proverbial box in order to take the research to a higher level. Thinking positive is key. Go ahead and do your research like you’re looking for something that we already know exists, and don’t worry so much about what science might think of it. Maybe someday they’ll catch up. ***************DAF



This Post By TCC Team Member Dorraine Alters-Fisher. Dorraine is a Professional Writer, a nature, wildlife and Bigfoot enthusiast who has written for many magazines. Dorraine conducts research, special interviews and more for The Crypto Crew. Get Dorraine's book The Book Of Blackthorne!



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

As I was trolling around on the internet, I ran across this story and a video about this mummified gnome that was reportedly found in Sweden. According to the story this Gnome was found in 1866 in an old barn. The figure was discovered in a small trunk-type wooden box. Of course, this caused some pretty wild reactions. Some thought this was for sure proof that Gnomes were in fact real, while others say it was created by an artist.

Here is the video

Read More

Still frame from the video.

Okay, so I was trolling around the internet and came across the video below and remembered how it was and maybe still is being debated. First let me tell you, any researcher worth his or her salt should be able to tell you right off that this is a fake video and not a real bigfoot. If you look at the comments on the youtube video many think it is a real bigfoot.

Now, lets look at the video.


The description stated something like the guy was testing out his camera and heard the tree knock and filmed this baby bigfoot.

So, knowing that the video was fake, I set out to maybe find more evidence that it was a set up video and I feel I did. First I looked over the guys other videos. One of them stood out to me and it was one titled "Action scenes". It shows a man running, shooting a hand gun, crawling and diving. I take it the guy was testing his camera out more.

Here is a still frame from the Action scenes youtube video

It becomes pretty obvious that this guy has an interest in film making and is testing out his camera.
So as I continue to check out this youtube channel, I notice he is subscribed to a channel called Extra Unordinary Films.  So my next step is to check out that channel. On that channel I found a short film called "Predaprey (Bigfoot Short Film)". The film only runs a little over 2 minutes, so I gave it a watch. As I was watching it, it was pretty clear this was the same area of the "Baby Bigfoot" video and the "Action Scenes" video. It also appears to be the same guy in the same blue pants. You can't see his face in the "Predaprey" film as he is wearing a gas mask.  A couple of the easy giveaways is the ferns seen in "Action Scenes" video and the "Predaprey" appear to be filmed in the same location. Another similarity is in the "Action Scenes" video the guy is seen walking next to a roll of rocks that have been stacked up, it appears the same stacked up rocks are in "Predaprey" film, but filmed from a differen angle. Here is a still shot of the roll of stacked rocks.
Also, the theme from the "Baby Bigfoot" video is very similar to the short film, with regards to the tree knock. The suit used in the short film is the same as the "Baby Bigfoot video. Once you watch the 3 videos in question, I think most will see the connections.

With all that said, the little short film, "Predaprey" is not bad, and somewhat entertaining. I also, would not call this person a "hoaxer", I think it was a little more like a marketing test. As many of you know, we have seen similar fake videos used to market a upcoming film. I hope the guy keeps making short films, or full length films, as he seems to have a good knack for it.  Here is the "Predaprey" video.

I'm not trying to be harsh towards the guy who made these films and I feel he does a pretty good job with his little short film. The music and editing in the short film is nice as well. But I would encourage him not make fake bigfoot videos in efforts to fool people. Once the stigma of being a Hoaxer is attached to you, you can't never shake it and it could have negative effects on your film making.
 Plus, for people who have dedicated many years into doing Bigfoot research, it makes it a little more difficult to be taken seriously. Fake Bigfoot videos often split the community apart, with one side believing it and one side calling it fake.We all know if we are split we can't get as much done and the job becomes harder.
The young man, stated that he would like to make a full length film, if it is about bigfoot, I would think it would be better to work with the Bigfoot community than to try and spoof them. In fact, I would think that many in the Bigfoot community would be willing to provide information or help on a Bigfoot film project. They will also be your target audience, so you don't want them upset, you want them to watch your film, not boycott it.

Oh well, I'm rambling now....but the advice is free (ha ha).

I hope this post sheds some light on the "Baby Bigfoot" Video and it is my opinion that all three videos were made by the same person in the same location.

Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

What is it?

I've seen these pictures floating around on the internet and wanted to share some of the story and my thoughts about it. I do not know who first posted the story,but here is what I have read about it.

A group of firefighters reportedly found this almost human looking body in a river in the Republic of  Paraguay, which is in South America. Reportedly the over all length of the body of the corpse is around 3 feet long, give or take.


Most people were pretty quick to point out that the unknown creature has human looking hands with four fingers and a thumb on each hand. The feet are very similar to the hands. It was stated that the firefighters first thought they have found a dead person, but upon checking it more closely realized it was no human.

Some described the head as being frog like. According to the report, a doctor examined the creature briefly and could not identify it.  Many people speculated as to what the creature was. The speculation ranged from human, to alien, to Chupacabra, to an iguana that was swollen up by decay and water. It was also reported that the creature had a tail.

Now, while I have not touched or seen the creature live and in person, I think I know what it might be. I did a search of animal types in Paraguay because I thought it resembled a monkey. The search revealed that Paraguay only has one type of monkey, the Black Howler monkey. The body size of the Howler monkey is basically the same size as the unknown creature. The hands, feet and face are also very similar. So, it is my assertion that this unknown dead creature is just a Black Howler monkey that has decomposed and lots all it's hair.

What do you think? Mystery solved?



Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

Was this a Bigfoot?

From time to time we get possible bigfoot reports from England, this is one such report.
The person that submitted this sighting, did not leave a name or a working email and stated that they did not want their name published or contacted about what they saw. This should not be looked at in a bad way. Many reports and witnesses we talk to do not want the extra attention or the ridicule that goes along with saying "I seen a Bigfoot".

I believe the yellow circle in the picture above is the exact area where this even happened. This is a very recent event.

Here is the report.

- Start Report -

Name: I wish to not have my name printed

Email Address: non working email provided.

State: I live in England

County: Nottinghamshire

Date of Sighting: 27 December 2015

Time of Day: 1:00am

Nearest Town: Nottingham

Length of Sighting: 3 seconds

How many Witnesses: 5

Any Photos/Videos: No

Describe sighting in detail:
I was driving home, going along the Owthorpe Road, from a Christmas party and was heading towards the A46. I was approaching a corner, the one just before the Eton Park nursing home, when the headlights of my car highlighted something stood in a layby.
It was about 6 foot tall and covered in reddy brownish hair. My whole family saw it. It had dark eyes and had a human face.
I don't want any help but felt that I should share what we saw in case there was a large cat on the loose. This is the only thing I can think of to explain it. My son says it was a monster. I don't want my name or email shown please.

- End Report -

So, I went to google maps to scope out the general area. The submitter gave great landmark information and I was able to find what I think is the exact spot. I guess, I might need to let everyone know what a "layby" is, as that is not a common term for most Americans. A layby is just an area at the side of a road where vehicles may pull off the road and stop.

Using the information in the report I think this is the exact spot in the picture below.

 
This is the slight curve just before the Eton Park nursing home. There is a layby on the right, this is were the creature would have been standing according to the report. This tends to lend credibility to the report.

It was cool getting a report from Nottingham, I have a friend or two in that area that I have know for many years.

The person reporting this calls it a large cat, I guess it was their way of trying making sense of what they seen. This truly sounds more like a bigfoot than a large cat.

Just one more quick note, If you are submitting a report I normally do not use the full name or email address, unless it is a known researcher or someone who don't mind. But please always include a working email because normally we might have a question or two about the creature or location.

In my mind, this sound like a pretty good report.



Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet


This post sponsored in part by

Read More

The reports of the phantom cats, or black panther, or Appalachian black panther seems to be always in dispute. But here in Kentucky, or more so, the Appalachian area in general, there have been numerous reports of the rare cat. There have even been a few trail camera photos offered up as proof. But still most officials say they are not around here.

Well, the mystery cat is not exclusive to just my area. I recently got a report from our friend Jack Tessier of A.C.R.O., which is based in Australia. Jack has found tracks that may very well be that of the large phantom cat.

Here is the report.

- Start Report -
First Name: Jack
Last Name: Tessier
Email: cryptozoologist99@gmail.com
Comments: 
Hi guys, I came across an interesting footprint of what I strongly believe is from a Panther in Wyee,New South Wales,Australia as some people call the Phantom Cats because they aren't normal to be sighted in Australia.

In Australia many people report these Panthers or as they are otherwise called Phantom Cats. Some even call them Alien Big Cats.I collect several of footprints and as you may see, in the photos below, with this comparable photo of how similar it is to a Feline.




 Casting of the possible cat track.




 



 - End Report -

Thanks for sending us in your report Jack. Keep up the good work. I would also invite folks to check out Facebook page by Clicking Here.


If you would like to read more about this big cats in my area you can use the following links.

Proof of big cats in Southeastern Kentucky
Big cats in Kentucky
More big cat sightings in Kentucky

I'm also interested in Big cat sightings in Kentucky, or any place there not suppose to be. If you have seen one, please use This Link to report it.

These mystery cats are found in many locations around the world.

Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

Read More

Tonight's Finding Bigfoot show looks to be a pretty good one for a couple reason. One reason, would be to get a looking inside Loren Coleman's Cryptozoology Museum. For many of us, who have never been there, it should be a good little treat. Another reason that I'm interested in tonight's episode is because we have taken in a few reports from Maine and many from close to the border in New Hampshire.

Here is the synopsis for tonight's show.

The team travels for the first time Maine. They split up to interview eyewitnesses and embark on multiple solo investigations. Matt records multiple bigfoot howls, and is confident they've pinned down a Pine Tree State Sasquatch.

Here is the preview trailer.

Make sure to tune in tonight, it should be one of the better shows.

Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet


This post sponsored in part by

Read More

I recently purchased this movie, not knowing a whole lot about it. But it was Bigfoot related and the trailer seemed pretty good, so why not. I really didn't know what to expect and figured it was probably a low budget film, which is not an issue for me, so I took some time to watch it this morning. In short, a family discovers they have Bigfoot on their property and feel threatened when the Bigfoot comes up to the house. The father, takes steps to protect his family. 

Being a Bigfoot researcher and having been around Bigfoot on several occasions, I was somewhat amazed at how this film was able to capture the feeling of what a real Bigfoot sighting feels like. It didn't take long, about 30 minutes into the film, to tell that the people involved in this film did their homework. That is only one of the things that sets this Bigfoot film apart from many other Bigfoot films. Now, that may not mean a lot to people who do not know about the history of Bigfoot, or to non researchers or to people who have never had an encounter.  Even if you are not a Bigfoot enthusiast or have never had an encounter, the film is still very entertaining. But for people who already have good knowledge about the subject of Bigfoot, you will be blown away and very happy.

Read More

The fur-bearing trout (or furry trout) is a fictional creature purportedly found in North America and Iceland. According to tales, the trout has created a thick coat of fur to maintain its body heat. Tales of furry fish date to the 17th-century and later the "shaggy trout" of Iceland. The earliest known American publication dates from a 1929 Montana Wildlife magazine article by J.H. Hicken. A taxidermy furry trout produced by Ross C. Jobe is a specimen at the Royal Museum of Scotland; it is a trout with white rabbit fur "ingeniously" attached.

There are no real examples of any fur-bearing trout species, but two examples of hair-like growths on fish are known. The "cotton mold", Saprolegnia, can infect fish, which can result in the appearance of fish covered in the white "fur". A real fish, Mirapinna esau, also known as the "Hairy Fish", has hair-like outgrowths and wings.


Fur-bearing trout are fictional creatures that are purportedly found in Arkansas, northern North America, and Iceland. The basic claim (or tall tale) is that the waters of lakes and rivers in the area are so cold that they evolved a thick coat of fur to maintain their body heat. Another theory says that it is due to four jugs - or two bottles - of hair tonic being spilled into the Arkansas River.
The origins vary, but one of the earlier claims date to a 17th-century Scottish immigrant's letter to his relatives referring to "furried animals and fish" being plentiful in the New World. It was followed by a request to procure a specimen of these "furried fish" and one was sent back home. A publication in 1900 recounts the Icelandic Lodsilungur, another haired trout, as being a common folklore. The earliest known American publication dates from a 1929 Montana Wildlife magazine article by J.H. Hicken.


 

cotton mold

The "cotton mold" Saprolegnia will sometimes infect fish, causing tufts of fur-like growth to appear on the body. A heavy infection will result in the death of the fish, and as the fungus continues to grow afterwards, dead fish that are largely covered in the white "fur" can occasionally be found washed ashore. A real fish, Mirapinna esau known as the "Hairy Fish", has hair-like outgrowths and wings. It was discovered in the Azores in 1956.

According to Icelandic legend, the Lodsilungur is a furry trout that is the creation of demons and giants. The Lodsilungur are described as inedible fish that overwhelm rivers and are a form of punishment for human wickedness. In 1900, The Scottish Review featured an account of the Lodsilungur as a poisonous "Shaggy trout" of northern Iceland. In 1854, a shaggy trout was "cast on shore at Svina-vatn" and featured in an 1855 illustration in Nordri, a newspaper. It was described as having a reddish hair on its lower jaw and neck, sides and fins, but the writer of the Nordri article did not specifically identify it by name. Sjón, a popular Icelandic writer, became obsessed with the folk tale when he was nine. Sjón recounted that if a man were to eat the furry trout he would become pregnant and that his scrotum would have to be cut open to deliver the baby. Sjón noted that the story "might explain why I was later propelled towards surrealism.

An account of a furry trout appeared in 1929 in Montana Wildlife magazine and was first noted by J.H. Hicken. Hicken's account states that when the fish is caught "the change of temperature from this water to atmosphere is so great that the fish explodes upon being taken from the water, and fur and skin come off in one perfect piece, making it available for commercial purposes, and leaving the body of the fish for refrigerator purposes or eating, as desired."


Another fur-bearing trout story originated with Wilbur Foshay, secretary of the Chamber of Commerce. Foshay promoted the story so convincingly that it was picked up by the Salida Record newspaper. According to its Foshay, the trout grew fur due to the cold temperatures of the Arkansas River and shed the fur as the water temperatures warmed in the summer. In November 1938, a story in the Puebloan Cheiftan recounted the hairy trout history and stated that "old-timers living along the Arkansas River near Salida have told tales for many years of the fur-bearing trout indigenous to the waters of the Arkansas near there." In 2014, Mysteries at the Museum visited the Salida Museum and is expected to be part of a segment in late 2014.

A tall tale was recounted by S.E. Schlosser, it states that hairy trout were the result of two bottles or four jugs of spilled hair tonic. To catch hairy trout, fisherman would act as barbers and lure fish from the waters with the offer of a free trim or shave. An intentionally fantastical story in Maine and claimed hairy trout were under catch and release policy that was enforced by wardens' carrying Brannock Devices. If a fish was caught, the warden would measure it against the fisher's foot. If the fish's length matched the fisher's foot size, the fish could be eaten and the outards made into furry slippers.

The Canadian Fur-bearing trout is another example of the furry trout hoax. According to the story, a trout with white fur was caught in Lake Superior off Gros Cap in Algoma, Ontario, Canada and its taxidermist was Ross C. Jobe. The purchaser of the fish learned of the hoax after presenting it to the Royal Museum of Scotland. The white fur of a rabbit was described as being "ingeniously" attached to the fish. A fictional description of the Canadian "Hairy" Trout was published by Takeshi Yamada.

- Source: wikipedia -

How would you like to catch some hairy trout? Maybe we can fire this back up and start making some cash leading fishing expeditions to catch hairy trout.

Really the whole story is pretty funny and at the same time maybe a little sad that some people back then fell for it. But as most of you know, the more outlandish the claim, the more apt some people are to believe it. If you just think back about some of the past Bigfoot hoaxes and some of the things that was told about the dead Bigfoot that Rick Dyer had ....some of it was off the charts unbelievable but yet some believed it.

The fur bearing trout hoax, has to be one of the all time best and funnest hoaxes ever. It makes me wonder about some of the things people may believe today, will it be proven a hoax 10 years down the road? Of course, we know more about things nowadays than we did back in the furry trout days. So I assume we will know even more about things in the days ahead.   

Again, just shake your head and move on. 

Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet



This post sponsored in part by

Read More

Artist rendering of a Dingonek - Sorry I do not know who created this.

The dingonek is a scaly, scorpion-tailed, saber-toothed cryptid allegedly seen in the African Congolese jungles (primarily those of the Democratic Republic), and yet another in a long line of West African cryptids—such as the Chipekwe, the Jago-nini and the Emela-ntouka. At the Brakfontein ridge, Western Cape in South Africa is a cave painting of an unknown creature that fits the description of the dingonek, right down to its walrus-like tusks.


Said to dwell in the rivers and lakes of western Africa, the Dingonek has been described as being grey or red, 3 to 6 metres (9-18 feet) in length, with a squarish head, sometimes a long horn, saber-like canines—which has resulted in its nickname the "Jungle Walrus"—and a tail complete with a bony, dart-like appendage, which is reputed to be able to secrete a deadly poison. This creature is also said to be covered head-to-toe in a scaly, mottled epidermis, which has been likened to the prehistoric-looking Asian anteater known as the pangolin. The description by John Alfred Jordan, an explorer who said that he actually shot at this unidentified monster in the River Maggori in Kenya in 1907, claimed this scale-covered creature was as big as 18 feet long and had reptilian claws, a spotted back, long tail, and a big head out of which grew large, curved, walrus-like tusks. A shot with a .303 only served to anger it.

It is said to be exceedingly territorial and has been known to kill any hippos, crocodiles and even unwary fishermen, who have had the misfortune of wandering too close to their aquatic nests.



- Source: wikipedia -

Well, after reading about the "Jungle Walrus", I think I'll just stay with Bigfoot, UFOs and ghost.


Thanks
~Tom~


This post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet



This post sponsored in part by

Read More