Manuscript Cut One: Hominid Mummies

As I have gone through my soon-to-be-published book, I have found a few items that will not make the cut into the actual volume. Although I would like to include these items, it is unnecessary for me to do so as it is truly only reiterating items that are already within the manuscript. As a result, I am left with a number of items from one of the drafts of my book that will never be officially published under my actual name (as my Blogger identity is nothing but an alias). The following item is one such example:

The discovery of a hominid cryptid cadaver is so rare that it becomes a worldwide phenomenon instantly upon publication. In the last century, there are cases of a number of hominid mummies, but I feel that we can learn the most by specifically documenting three cases of these cryptic corpses. Unfortunately, the history of hominid mummies has been full of disappointments, ranging from reports of unclassifiable bodies that never produced any results to outright hoaxes. This has discouraged many cryptozoologists to the point that many of them will refuse to even consider the possibility that a carcass has been uncovered if such a case ever presents itself to them. I see this as counterintuitive because these same cryptozoologists spend their time searching for reports which they find viable, but when the possibility of discovery is ever presented, they refuse to give the claim any notice. I understand their frustration, but I have to admit that even the most far-fetched claim regarding the discovery of a Bigfoot-like hominid deserves investigation. Anyhow, I have chosen to organize this appendix in reverse chronology (those that were discovered most recently will appear first and then I will work my way backwards).

1. August 2008:

In the state of Utah, a Bigfoot carcass was discovered in a small wooded area. The unnamed discoverer claimed that the animal was either dead or dying so assistance was contacted, which swiftly rushed the beast to the nearest hospital. The men that had taken the animal in demanded that the animal be classified, as it was clearly not an animal that he had ever seen or heard of. Without much hesitation, the doctors informed the frantic people of its shocking identity: a rubber gorilla suit.

This story is so utterly obnoxious that I have had a difficult time relaying this story to many without laughing to myself. I cannot understand how anybody could have mistaken a rubber gorilla suit for a dead or dying Sasquatch. This case was so absurd that I was embarrassed to state that I thought that the existence of an American ape was plausible the following day. I believe that this account is notable because this incident perfectly portrays why many people have such a hard time considering the idea of unknown animals. Although there are many other cases of seemingly valid hominid carcasses, I chose this instance over the others because this demonstrates the first issue that cryptozoologists face when attempting to argue the existence of unfound animals: incessant hoaxes. The next two cases will show two other issues that cryptozoologists face in the midst of their research.

2. 1995:

Loren Coleman, after working on a segment of Unsolved Mysteries about the Minnesota Iceman, received a phone call from Pakistanis who had something very interesting to say. They claimed that they were aware of the location of a corpse that was similar to the one pictured in the program. Although attempts were made to re-contact them, nothing ever came of them. For more information concerning this hominid mummy.

3. Fall of 1967:

One day, Terry Cullen, a zoology major from University of Minnesota, was perusing through a carnival near Milwaukee, Wisconsin when he came across an unusual exhibit that was claimed to hold a “man left over from the Ice Age”. He was instantly intrigued, and, motivated by his excitement, he tried to pique the interest of several anthropologists. When he failed to do this, he got in contact with Ivan T. Sanderson, who happened to have the “father of cryptozoology,” Bernard Heuvelmans at his house at the time. Together, they arrived in the area and examined the exhibit for months. They were so fascinated by the hirsute man that the owner had frozen in a block of ice that they began writing many articles on the possibility that the Neanderthal man could remain extant. Ivan T. Sanderson wrote many papers which appeared in multiple magazines, including his famed essay “Missing Link” in the May 1969 issue of Argosy Magazine. In 1974, Bernard Heuvelmans co-authored a book with Boris Porshnev entitled L’homme de Néanderthal Est Toujours Vivant (The Neanderthal Man is Still Living) that discussed the Minnesota Iceman at length. Sanderson nicknamed it Bozo and Heuvelmans dubbed it Homo pongoides. Eventually, after a long period of time, the original Minnesota Iceman disappeared and was replaced with a model.

All three of these cases end abruptly and disappointingly, which is part of why I selected these three incidents. The first ended with an obvious hoax, the second with no lead to follow, and the third ended with an abrupt disappearance of all evidence. All three of these scenarios appear quite often in cryptozoology, so I felt that it would be interesting to demonstrate these points in a unique way. The appearance of Bigfoot-like cadavers has certainly made cryptozoology more fascinating to study at the very least.

Conclusion to Cryptozoology Week

I cannot believe that it has already been a week. I have enjoyed this time thoroughly and would hope that these posts have given this blog a bulge of extra pageviews. I was delighted, but not surprised to see that “The 5 Most Transparent Photographic Hoaxes In Cryptozoology” had scored amongst my most popular posts. I especially enjoyed writing that post and funneling out my frustration towards those that made a premeditated decision to further confuse the public as to what is the truth and what is inaccurate. Hoaxes are becoming ever more popular as practical jokes and, if you think about it, the only thing hoaxes amount to are ignorance and severe consequences.

I have incessantly encouraged readers to leave comments and yet my readers seem to be relatively unresponsive. I enjoy feedback more than even hundreds of pageviews (which by the way I have been unable to achieve). My small and unpopular blog is how I get out my new findings to the public without there being a long, painstaking process of publication. I would like to ask ALL those who read this post to share it with friends and family members. I have received an infinitesimal quantity of ridicule due to my interest. Actually, I polled 10 random people if they enjoy learning more about this particular topic and 8 of those 10 responded with a yes. I desire for my blog to actually make a minute effect on the general populous and I cannot do it alone. Please, just point it out to anybody you happen to get on a similar subject matter with.

Also, I would like to hear my readers’ desires as to potential posts. I have infinite resources at my fingertips, and although I could continue to come up with new posts by myself, I enjoy learning about things that are infrequently considered. The “Big Three Series” idea was a suggestion from a friend that has never visited the site and Part 2 of that series caused the largest pulse of viewers I have ever had. Yesterday’s “Is The Many-Finned” extinct was also by suggestion of a family member. A one-time viewer gave me a suggestion that will be included in the Cryptozoology Day Series. I JUST WANT SUGGESTIONS.

Now, onto the next item of business. On the 22^nd of October I will be celebrating Bernard Heuvelmans’ 95^th Birthday. In the past I have called this day Cryptozoology Day and I would like to continue the tradition. I will be writing 15 posts for that day. The first post will be published at noon and then each following post will be published 5 minutes after the following post. 12 of these posts are open for suggestion, however, ALL SUGGESTIONS MUST BE SUGGESTED BEFORE OCTOBER 8^TH. If all of the open spaces are not filled by October 8^th, I will fill them in myself. I do not want to have to do that so please give as many suggestions as possible.  Once again, I would just like to emphasize how much I need you to spread the word. Thank you for your consideration and, please, post as much feedback as you find humanly possible.

The Sa’ir and Other Bible Bigfoots

The term “Bible Bigfoot” is very direct and does not “beat around the bush” as the term goes. However, the Bible is much vaguer about the issues and refers to things of a controversial background just like any other animal. It speaks of these so-called “Bible Bigfoots” as giants of the Earth and Children of Esau. Although these terms do show forth a point little description is provided and the whole issue becomes more difficult to prove. Of the most famous of the biblical hominids, the Sa’ir is by far the most famous. “Sa’ir” is the Hebrew word for “Hairy Ones,” but the term was translated as Satyr, a Greek mythological being that is described as being half man, half goat. The mistranslation caused the general public to assume that the “mythical creatures” in the Bible are all metaphorical and do not imply actual animals in the least bit. The investigation was staunched and the general populous automatically assumed that the statements were all symbolical. The question was reduced to a bare minimum of endorsers.

                                                                                                                  

“But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and there houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there and satyrs shall dance there.”

“The wild beast of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.”

These two verses specifically mention the satyr in scarce areas of the Earth and accompanying other animals of the desert. The satyr is not described in either of these two verses which therefore limit our knowledge on such a matter. But the fact is that the Sa;ir is not the only biblical Bigfoot. There are others and the first I would like to reference is that of the Children of Anak, the Anakims.

“And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahimam, Sheshai, and Talmai, the Children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt)… and there we saw the Giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the Giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

“The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted as giants as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims… a people great and many, and as tall as the Anakims; but the Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead”

“A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, who can stand before the children of Anak! Understand therefore this day that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee.”

These verses all share a similar tale of Giants that roamed in biblical times. Do they still exist? Decide for yourself, but allow me to help you. I have included a list below that shows all of the names and corresponding references to Bible Bigfoots.

Bible Bigfoot (B.B.)	References (Ref.)	B.B.	Ref.
Sa’ir	Leviticus 6:1-30 Isaiah 13:21 Isaiah 34:13	Emims	Genesis 14:5 Deuteronomy 2:10-11
Anakims	Numbers 13:22, 33 Deuteronomy 10-11,21 Deuteronomy 9:2, 3	Rephaims	Genesis 14:5
Avims	Deuteronomy 2:23	Giborei tsayid	Genesis 6:4
Children of Esau	Deuteronomy 2:12, 22, 29	Zuzims and Zamzummims	Genesis 14:5 Deuteronomy 2:20
Horites	Genesis 14:6 Deuteronomy 2:12	Nephilim	Genesis 6:4 Numbers 13:33 Deuteronomy 2:11, 20 Deuteronomy 3:11 Joshua 12:4 Joshua 13:12
People of Bashan	Numbers 21:33 Deuteronomy 1:4 Deuteronomy 3:11 Joshua 9:10 Joshua 12:4 Joshua 13:12

Is The Many-Finned Extinct?

Before I actually begin to question the issue of the possible extinction of the Many-Finned, I should probably first give a decent diagram of what the Many-Finned is. This particular cryptid was endowed a fairly self-explanatory name by none other then the Father of Cryptozoology himself, Bernard Heuvelmans. Heuvelmans gave it its name after several reports of a Sea Serpent with a ridge of fins on its back. The typical “Sea Serpent” has several humps on its back, as popular media and other organizations would have you believe. But Heuvelmans was able to classify several other Sea Serpents other then the “Many-Humped,” the “monster” that haunted the media. The “Many-Finned” was just one of these which also included “Yellow-Belly,” “Father-of-all-Turtles,” and “Super-Otter,” to name a few.

The first time that an individual had actually attempted a mass classification project was in Heuvelmans’ In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents. Previous to this compilation, people had attempted to say that there was one and only one type of Sea Serpent in existence. Never before had any body ever put any stock in the reports of giant sea centipedes. With the help of Antoon Cornelis Oudemans’ unpublished archives, Heuvelmans’ superior intellect came to the conclusion that there was a strange creature living in the waters of many bays, especially of those within the possession of Vietnam.

The Vietnamese Many-Finned is called Con Rit by the locals. This term means “millipede” in Vietnamese and implies the giant wonder living within the depths of Vietnam’s waters. The first recorded sighting was in February 1846; however Bernard Heuvelmans considers the report to be that of Many-Humped rather then Many-Finned. The next report occurred on August 28, 1852 aboard the Barham. It would be another 4 years before another report would come to light. On July 8, 1856, the Princess’ crew saw a fantastic spectacle with a “ridge of fins”. The Princess’ tale is most likely the most famous of Many-Finned reports, but it was certainly not the last. There were 11 Many-Finned reports in the 19^th century alone. In the 20^th century there were 14 additional reports, with the last occurring in 1935. This is where things get slightly more confusing.

In the prime of the Many-Finned, reports randomly disappeared into thin air.  Previous to 1846 and 1852, there had been no sightings of what would eventually become known as the Many-Finned. Not even a century after, the Many-Finned allegedly goes extinct? This seems unlikely, but not impossible. There is possibly even a way to explain it.

Assuming that the Many-Finned population was small in the beginning of the 19^th century and it slowly grew towards the mid-century. Eventually, the population would slowly grow and towards the turn of the century it would grow to a maximum. Once the population began to grow, food and mating would become a competitive part of life. The population would then correct itself and go back down. At this point, excessive hunting usually finalizes the extinction, but in this case, there is nothing of the kind. Typically, the competition would diminish and the population would retain its healthy size. But the Many-Finned just disappeared without any official reason. It would require additional information in order to speculate on this subject further. I regret to say, but all of my theories on this matter are unpublished and I am reluctant to enclose any information available in my book. I would like to apologize again for the inconvenience, but I cannot reveal any theories without knowing for sure that the information would not be used in a competitors book, blog, or other means of publishing.

Under The Radar: Survivors of Extinction

The general public has long been driven by the pressing possibility that some supposedly extinct animal had survived the trials that supposedly sent it to the grave. Cryptozoologists often resort to the local fossil record to provide plausible theories for cryptids. Bernard Heuvelmans is often regarded as the pioneer of that method, and rightly so for he did say almost exactly that in his unprecedented compilation, On the Track of Unknown Animals. Ever since that initial suggestion, scientists have been seriously contemplating what can and cannot be deemed ‘extinct’. The mystery of those animals that have gone under the radar persists to fascinate me. I have decided to document 9 survivor cases that are often regarded as possible survivors of God’s most sickly plague; extinction.

Basilosaurus: The Basilosaurus meaning “regal reptile”, otherwise known as the Zeuglodon meaning “saw toothed” is often thought to be one of the most reliable sea serpent theory. It was known to live along North America, Europe, Egypt, and New Zealand, all of which are locations that often boast sea serpent reports. It is a popular theory especially in the analysis of creatures such as Cadborosaurus and the Chesapeake Bay Monster. It was known to use echolocation, a feature often included in an examination of Loch Ness Monster and Champ sightings. It is very likely that the Basilosaurus is the ultimate theory for sea serpent and lake monster sightings.

Plesiosaur: The Cadborosaurus is often theorized to be a title encompassing multiple cryptids. The Plesiosaur is usually the other theory in the case of the latter. It was a possible candidate for the identity of the Loch Ness Monster in Roy P. Mackal’s The Monsters of Loch Ness. Those that choose to research sea serpents and lake monsters will typically come to the conclusion of a survived Basilosaurus, while the Plesiosaur is a far more famous theory. The first article I ever read on the subject of the Loch Ness Monster specifically mentioned the Plesiosaur as a plausible result to years of ‘Nessie’ analysis.

Ceratops: The most famous representative of the Ceratops family is the Triceratops, but the Triceratops is usually not the theory presented by cryptozoologists in an attempt to speculate on the result of mysteries such as the Chipekwe and the Emela-Ntouka. The Ceratops family is a typical theory in mysteries of strange African killers like the two mentioned beforehand. The Chipekwe is an extremely famous “living dinosaur,” seconded only to the Mokele-mbembe. Although the Ceratops theory is famous, it is not widely endorsed amongst intellectual theorists. That award rests on the back of the Arsinoitherium.

Arsinoitherium: The Arsinoitherium is a two horned rhinoceros-like animal that is actually a close relative to the elephant. It is often considered to be the most reliable theory for the identity of the Chipekwe and all of its ethnological variants. I would consider this theory to be the most of all the other considerations. The only real issue is that the two horns are situated horizontally in the Arsinoitherium’s case whereas the Chipekwe’s horns are reportedly situated vertically. Perhaps the Arsinoitherium is completely irrelevant to the Chipekwe’s case, and maybe not.

Pterosaurs: Pterosaurs are often considered to be a possible survivor of extinction, even by highly prestigious scientists. According to testimonial evidence, the pterosaur might have survived and taken refuge on the island of Java under the title of Ahool. There have also been reports of an “olitiau” and “kongamato” in Africa that could represent a small population of pterosaurs. It is truly amazing to contemplate what might have survived in the remotest corners of Earth.

Sauropods: The Mokele-mbembe and the Isuququmadevu are both cryptids that are often considered to be living sauropods like the Brachiosaurus, only smaller. The Mokele-mbembe is often estimated at a size of 30 to 35 feet in height. Such a creature is well-known by paleontologists as a sauropod and that is what most cryptozoologists have come to realize is the most credible identity for creatures such as the Mokele-mbembe.

Moas: The Moa is a large flightless bird that was a relative to the ostrich, diatryma, and Aepyornis. It was a resident on New Zealand until it went extinct around the 16^th or 17^th century. At least that is what most zoologists think. According to all evidence, the moa has maintained a small population ever since the time that it supposedly died. Bernard Heuvelmans spoke of it as a “living fossil of Oceania” and it instantly became a famous story amongst all that chose to take up the case. Perhaps the Moa did survive past our set “extinction” date for it.

Thylacines: The Thylacine, or marsupial wolf, supposedly went extinct in 1899 when the last known one died in captivity. People assumed for years after that that a few Thylacines survived, but the idea faded after a quarter of a century and the general public assumed that all of the Thylacines had perished. That was all changed when photographic evidence that opposed the original information was presented and now the possibility of its survival has lived on through many written works and individuals.

Mammoths: The Mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) is impossibly famous and therefore difficult to convince the general public of its survival. Individuals as famous as Bernard Heuvelmans and Willy Ley have pondered on the possible survival of the Mammoth. In On the Track of Unknown Animals, Heuvelmans presents the theory that the Mammoth has survived in small forested regions in Siberia. Ley does not support the theory, however, and sets it aside as a childish fancy. It is not impossible that it is more than that.

All of these possible survivals never cease to amaze me. I enjoy studying them on a daily basis and would like to delve further into their precepts. But more than even that, I would like to educate the whole world on this matter, and will not stop until my amount of viewers reaches a maximum. I would encourage all of my readers to post this on Facebook or Twitter and share it with as many friends and family members as possible.

A Strange Hybrid: The Pizzly

The strange hybrid of a Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) and Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is known by popular media as either the Pizzly or Grolar bear. Hybrids are rare in the wild, but not so unusual in captivity, which often causes the illusion of frequency. Previous to 2006, Pizzlies were being born in captivity, but there had been no evidence displayed to prove the possibility of wild Pizzlies. As far as we were concerned, the rarity that few had been able to see was not natural in the wild. The main reason for this assumption was that there was no sufficient reason for them to believe that the Polar bear and Grizzly bears’ distribution overlapped. All updated evidence showed that the two species would never mate because their populations were too far apart. This all changed in 2006, when suddenly viable evidence proving that these two monstrous species’ distributions had overlapped in recent years came to light. National Geographic reported:

May 11, 2006—DNA analysis has confirmed that a bear shot in the Canadian Arctic last month is a half-polar bear, half-grizzly hybrid. While the two bear species have interbred in zoos, this is the first evidence of a wild polar bear-grizzly offspring.

Jim Martell, a 65-year-old hunter from Idaho, shot the bear April 16 on the southern tip of Banks Island, the CanWest News Service reports.

Wildlife officials seized the bear after noticing that its white fur was interspersed with brown patches. It also had long claws, a concave facial profile, and a humped back, which are characteristics of a grizzly.

Now the genetic tests have confirmed that the hybrid’s father was a grizzly and its mother was a polar bear. “I don’t think anyone expected it to actually happen in the wild,” said Ian Stirling, a polar bear expert with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton.

Polar bears and grizzlies require an extended mating ritual to reproduce, Stirling said. Both live by themselves in large, open habitats.

To prevent wasting their eggs, females ovulate only after spending several days with a male, Stirling explained, “Then they mate several times over several days.”

In other words, the mating between the polar bear and grizzly was more than a chance encounter. “That’s what makes it quite interesting,” he added.

Stirling says the hybrid has no official name, though locals have taken to calling it a “pizzly” and a “grolar bear”.

I think the keywords in this article are “more than a chance encounter,” which means, in other words, there have been other cases of this that have gone undocumented and there will be more. While this was and is the case, this so-called ‘prophecy’ would not be fulfilled for almost 4 more years. The case above was special only because it was the first documented report of a Pizzly. The second case in 2010 was unique for an absolutely fantastic reason: it was a second generation Pizzly. The CanWest News Service reports:

Sunday, May 2, 2010:

ULUKHAKTOK, N.W.T.—An odd looking bear shot a few weeks ago by an Inuit hunter in the high Arctic is a rare grizzly-polar bear cross, scientists have confirmed.

Moreover, the animal—with the creamy white fur of a polar bear, but with the big head, long claws and ring of brown hair around its hind common to the grizzly—may be the first recorded second generation “grolar bear” found in the wild, said the N.W.T. Environment and Natural Resources Department in a news release.

“A wildlife genetics laboratory has since conducted DNA testing on the samples, and the results of the testing point to the animal being a second generation hybrid bear which resulted from the mating of a polar/grizzly bear female with a male grizzly bear,” said the release.

Hunter David Kuptana shot the bear on April 8 while it roamed the sea ice just west of Ulukhaktok, on Victoria Island.

“The animal appeared unusual to the hunter and he provided samples from the bear to Environment and Natural Resources officials for testing to determine the species,” said the environment department.

Polar bear-grizzly hybrids—known as either “pizzly” or “grolar” bears—are very rare.

Although several suspected sightings have been made in that past few years, only one hybrid—shot by a U.S. Hunter in 2006—had been confirmed in the wild.

A warming climate has prompted hungry grizzly bears to move north, encroaching on polar bear turf, according to experts. That migration means the two types of bears are expected to come in contact more often, competing for territory and, potentially, mating.

This “second-generation” Pizzly means that there is positive confirmation of at least 3 to ever live in the wild. There are of course more than 3, but, for now, we can only positively identify 3. Now, you may be wondering how the Pizzly is at all pertinent to cryptozoology. I can give two reasons. (1) It was a former zoological conundrum and, like the okapi, can teach cryptozoologists and zoologists alike to be more open minded and (2) the Pizzly is a suspect in a current cryptozoological mystery.

MacFarlane’s bear is a specimen that passed through many hands before finding its current residence in the Smithsonian Institute’s storage unit. The only remnants of the original bear shot in 1864 are a skull and off-white pelt. Many theorists have pressed the theory that MacFarlane’s bear was a very early specimen of Pizzly. The case never ceases to fascinate cryptozoologists or anyone else that chooses to take up the case. I myself have several pages of unpublished research in regards to the topic (all of which will be published in my upcoming compilation). I would encourage all of those that have found themselves in a state of fascination while considering the prospect of the Pizzly to commit to further research.

The 5 Most Transparent Photographic Hoaxes In Cryptozoology

In cryptozoology, there are infinite amounts of unfortunate hoaxes that cause perpetual confusion and negative feelings towards those that study animals that are supposedly depicted. Some of these hoaxes are so painfully obvious that it is difficult for us cryptozoologists to not point them out. In this post I would like to dedicate some space to the top 5 most obvious hoaxes in the history of cryptozoology. The particular hoaxes that I am targeting here are those of the photographic kind. A few of these hoaxes literally made me laugh at there transparency.

1.     The Cottingley Fairies Photographs of 1917

 

In 1917, Elsie Wright and Frances Griffiths took several pictures of fairies that supposedly visited them in their backyard. They claimed that the fairies portrayed in the photographs were completely real and that all inquiries into their validity would end in positive evidence supporting the photos. Sure enough, checks into the reliability of these two girls’ story concluded with baffled investigators. As far as anyone was concerned, the photographs were genuine. One reporter claimed that “these dancing figures are not made of paper nor any fabric; they are not painted on a photographic background”.

Although the two girls had many people convinced of the photographs’ validity the more intelligent analysts new of its status as a hoax, even if the evidence did not back it up. Eventually, Elsie Wright did admit that the photographs were first taken without the fairies and then retaken once fairy drawings were cut out of magazines and glued onto the background. Besides Wright’s testimony, there is yet another bit of information that argues the truth about these photos. All of the fairies look the same, but the proportions are all wrong. Also, the younger of the two, Frances Griffiths, was never actually looking at the fairies, but the camera. I believe that the fairies would be slightly more interesting than the camera taking the pictures.

Despite Wright’s honesty, Griffiths continued to argue that only a select few of the pictures were faked and that one (the photograph above) was real. She could not, however explain why the hoaxed photos of fairies were not all that different from the “real” fairy.

2. The Kasai Rex photograph of 1932



In 1932, John Johanson claimed that he had caught a picture of a tyrannosaurus rex living in the Kasai region of the Belgian Congo. Along with the photograph, he attached the following letter describing his whole experience with the so-called "Kasai Rex":

On February 16 last I went on a shooting trip, accompanied by my gunbearer. I had only a Winchester for small game, not expecting anything big. At 2 p.m. I had reached the Kasai valley (sic).

No game was in sight. As we were going down to the water, the boy suddenly called out "elephants". It appeared that two giant bulls were almost hidden by the jungle. About 50 yards away from them I saw something incredible - a monster, about 16 yards in length, with a lizard's head and tail. I closed my eyes and reopened them. There could be no doubt about it, the animal was still there. My boy cowered in the grass whimpering.

I was shaken by the hunting-fever. My teeth rattled with fear. Three times I snapped; only one attempt came out well. Suddenly the monster vanished, with a remarkably rapid movement. It took me some time to recover. Alongside me the boy prayed and cried. I lifted him up, pushed him along and made him follow me home. On the way we had to transverse a big swamp. Progress was slow, for my limbs were still half-paralyzed with fear. There in the swamp, the huge lizard appeared once more, tearing lumps from a dead rhino. It was covered in ooze. I was only about 25 yards away.

It was simply terrifying. The boy had taken French leave, carrying the rifle with him. At first I was careful not to stir, then I thought of my camera. I could hear the crunching of rhino bones in the lizard's mouth. Just as I clicked, it jumped into deep water.

The experience was too much for my nervous system. Completely exhausted, I sank down behind the bush that had given me shelter. Blackness reigned before my eyes. The animal's phenomenally rapid motion was the most awe-inspiring thing I have ever seen.'

I must have looked like one demented, when at last I regained camp. Metcalfe, who is the boss there, said I approached him, waving the camera about in a silly way and emitting unintelligible sounds. I dare say I did. For eight days I lay in a fever, unconscious nearly all the time.'

There are two reasons for us to assume that this is a complete hoax. The first is that the gun boy that was with him pointed out the elephants that he knew full well they did not have the right gun to shoot. He was not expecting big game meaning that the bull elephants should never have been pointed out. The second is an even larger reason to disbelieve this whole experience. The particular reason I am referring to is the proportions in the picture. First the creature is reportedly 48 feet long. This would make the skull 12 feet in length and the rock it is balancing itself 36 feet tall. The "deep waters" in the report must have been at least 24 feet deep. All these proportions are extremely absurd and should not even be considered.

3. The Yeti Photograph of 1986

 

The Yeti photograph, taken by a man named Anthony Wooldridge, is a rare breed of hoax. Unlike the other hoaxes listed in this post, this photograph was not an intentional hoax, but an accidental misidentification. Wooldridge had been following a trail of abnormal footprints all day and finally came across what he had determined to be the Abominable Snowman. He watched it for some time and noted its complete lack of movement. What he caught in the photograph was all he saw. Assuming that we had the creature caught on video, the only difference would be the occasional movement of the camera caused by unsteadiness of hand.

Years after the photograph was taken, the public was informed that the picture was genuine, but that the subject was not. In fact, as it turns out, it was a rock that bore a striking resemblance to an unknown hominid. The real offense in this case was misidentification, not intentional hoax. There is really not much more to say beyond that point.

4. The Skunk Ape Photograph of 1997

 

The photograph in question is much like the Yeti photograph mentioned above, but with one major difference. The photographer that snapped the photo, Vince Doerr, does not believe that the animal in the photograph was real. He puts minimal stock into the reliability of Skunk Ape reports, but he believes that the subject is nothing more than a man in a gorilla suit. He said “I just think someone’s playing games… if I thought it was real, I would have run in there, beat it to death, and sold it to the National Enquirer.”

Those that support the possibility that it is an authentic photograph with an authentic subject argue that it is probably a relative of the orangutan. The theory that it is a Pongid of some sort has often been pondered, but leading orangutan experts have all agreed that it is not and that Doerr is correct in saying that it is a hoax. The question I have been forced to reduce this whole incident down to is ‘what is the subject of the photograph?’

5. The Loch Ness Monster Photograph of 1934

 

This photograph is definitely the most famous of all of these hoaxes. The unfortunate decision of Lt. Col. Robert Kenneth Wilson to take a hoaxed photograph of what would become the most famous cryptozoological creature: the Loch Ness Monster. The photograph he took was taken on April 19, 1934 and became known as the infamous Surgeon’s Hoax. With a small amount of doctoring, a photograph of a toy submarine became the ultimate atomic bomb for Nessie (the title since given to the Loch Ness Monster). This metaphor has two valid uses in this situation. The first is an atomic bomb of fame and the second of evidence. But the second, unlike the first is not a constructive attribute, but a destructive one.

The fame that was built from the photograph was eventually turned into satire when Wilson admitted to hoaxing the photo. The construction that was built was torn down just as fast through the course of events that ensued after the confession that condemned the Loch Ness Monster to extinction. This unfortunate hoax will need to be forgotten in order to allow the mystery to be solved.

Three of the five hoaxes above are from viable possibilities of actual animals (excluding the Cottingley Fairies and the Kasai Rex). It is unfortunate that Wilson had to produce such a damaging effect on the Loch Ness Monster, but the other 2 are accidents are unintentional in some way. Hoaxes are not as simple to solve once performed and require mending not long after the creation of it. Once they are created there is little chance to turn back. I have chosen this topic in order to discourage potential hoaxers from doing the unspeakable and damaging the repertoire of cryptozoology with a hoax.