Dartmoor Beast Identified As New Species Of European Giant Hyrax?

Status
Not open for further replies.
common_sense_seeker said:
So she's an expert on photograph spotting of her own dog is she, despite them being different in color?!
Click to expand...

But was it a different color? You say the beast had some grey in it. Couldn't that just be the light shining off the shiny parts of his coat? Take a look at my picture in my avatar. My hair is a solid brown color...but since apparently I was using a good conditioner, my hair is nice and shiny. Light reflecting off these shiny parts makes my hair look lighter in some parts, than it really is, in the low-res photo.

She may have been there on the same day, but that doesn't make it her dog! :roflmao:
Click to expand...

Wow..what color is the sky in your world? What's more likely? That it was a previously unknown giant species of an animal that lives no where near the area, in a completely different climate?
 
The photo in the ForteanTimes article (which anyone can register free of charge for) shows the colours of the people in the background quite vividly, with reds, browns and blacks etc with which to compare shades and lighting effects. When done, one can see that the color of the animal can be catagorically stated as shaggy black with grey tinge, with a grey neck and throat area.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
" A historical literary figure"
So you admit than Conan Doyle existed then?
And, in consequence, that his theories on the Dartmoor beast have validity?

Have you read the story yet?
Click to expand...

..........................waiting.
................................................waiting.

OK, don't read the story.
I'll tell you.
The point of the Conan Doyle Story is that the Spectral Hound is not a demon, but a large dog.
Probably a Newfoundland, just like Lucinda's dog.
Even Conan Doyle didn't believe in the Hound, and he believed in Fairies!
 
common_sense_seeker said:
Please read the above carefully and think before replying.
Click to expand...
I originally took you to task for this remark.
FailstoSeekCommonSense said:
The area is bigger than that (the 400 square miles noted CaptainKremmen), there's no limit to their range, just like the big cats that roam undetected. There's no difference.
Click to expand...
I pointed out that Dartmoor was smaller than this. (368 square miles).

Your response, which I have only just noticed:
common_sense_seeker said:
Please read the above carefully and think before replying.
Click to expand...
I readily concede that the subtlety of your argument was not evident at first. You seem to think that the hyraxes could be roaming well beyond the confines of Dartmoor. That does render my initial criticism invalid, but it simply raises two (not one) errors in your thinking.
1. Big cats are territorial, therefore they very definitely have ranges.
2. There are major roads and urban settlements surrounding Dartmoor, so why aren't we seeing there corpses as road kill, or hearing of frightened housewives startled as a hyrax plunges through their rose garden?

CSE, your proposal was amusing at first. Your adherence to it once the dog's owner has come forward is simply pathetic. If I was a decent sort I would take pity on your stupidity and just walk away, but frankly I find your willful ignorance offensive and am happy to seek out any opportunity to hold you up to ridicule. God, or nature, or chance, did not give us a brain to waste on such nonsense. Grow up for ****'s sake.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
The photo in the ForteanTimes article (which anyone can register free of charge for) shows the colours of the people in the background quite vividly, with reds, browns and blacks etc with which to compare shades and lighting effects. When done, one can see that the color of the animal can be catagorically stated as shaggy black with grey tinge, with a grey neck and throat area.
Click to expand...
No answer to this have you mainstreamers?
 
It has been answered clearly by more than one poster. Stop being congenitally stupid. Oh, wait. If your condition is congenital, then I guess you can't stop.

The dog is not in the same location as the people in the background. Therefore it is not necessarily in the same lighting conditions. Therefore it will not necessarily display as clearly as they do.

You are completely ignoring that we do not see directly, but that our optical system interprets what is there. Look at this site and scroll down to the chessboard. Here the 'black' square is actually the same shade/colour as the white square. They appear different because of their context. The situation with the dog is analogous.

So you have three potential explanations for the differences:

1. Specific lighting conditions on the subject and the rest of the environment.
2. The way the visual system works in the human brain.
3. Technical capability of the camera, its setting and the film characteristics.

You have heard of Occam's razor, haven't you? Here we are with a woman quite readily saying "it's my dog", but you wish to propose that there is more evidence for it being a creature wholly unknown to science. I mean really!:rolleyes:
 
What's wrong with finding the truth to a monster mystery? Better for everyone surely? They would become protected and a vast area of habitat will become protected as well hopefully. A giant species of the ice age, intelligent enough to remain undetected under our noses? What a story!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top