When Spring-Heeled Jack fever hit the foggy streets of London in 1838, The Times reported that on the 14th April the same year, another Spring-Heeled Jack was on the rampage, but in Sussex. Peculiarly, in this instance ‘he’ was described as a bear. Strangely, in several discussions held at Mansion House in the capital, the spring-heeled marauder, was said to have many guises, and was described as a ‘ghost’, ‘bear’ and a ‘devil’.
The Times wrote: ‘Spring-Heeled Jack has, it seems, found his way to the Sussex coast. On Friday evening, between nine and ten o’clock, he appeared, as we are informed, to a gardener near Rose Hill, “..in the shape of a bear or some other fur-footed animal”, and having first attracted attention by a growl, then mounted the garden wall, and ran along it upon all fours, to the great terror and consternation of the gardener, who began to think it time to escape.
He was accordingly about to leave the garden, when Spring-Heeled Jack leapt from the wall, and chased him for some time; the dog was called, but slunk away, apparently as much terrified as his master. Having amused himself for some time with the trembling gardener, Spring-Heeled Jack scaled the wall and made his exit. The fellow may probably amuse himself in this way one to often.’
Sunday, January 31, 2010
FRISWELL'S FREAKY FEATURES: Lucky beggar
Some months ago Alan Friswell, the bloke who made the CFZ Feegee Mermaid and also the guy responsible for some of the most elegantly macabre bloggo postings, wrote me an email. He had an idea for a new series for the bloggo. Quite simply, he has an enormous collection of macabre, fortean, odd and disturbing magazine and newspaper articles, and he proposed to post them up on the bloggo.
X-RAY WRANGLE REMOVES RELIGIOUS RELIC !To be honest, there's not a whole lot that I can say about this one, except: "Lucky *********."
DALE DRINNON: Meeting Old Nic
Some years ago I came across a photo of a bull shark that had been caught in Lake Nicaragua and used as a plate in the book A Natural History of Sharks. The shark had teeth marks on its tail and the more I looked at the photo, the more I realized that the pattern of the teeth in the bite mark were unusual. They were set wrongly to be either a caiman or a crocodile on the one hand, or another shark on the other. I went back to get a copy of the photo later but later editions cropped off the unsightly bite mark from the photo. A native is holding up th shark in the photo which gives an exact scale.The bull shark is known to be a man-eater, and in this case some unknown animal was chasing it and nipping at its tail while it ran away. It seems that the creature, whatever it was, did not get a good enough grip on the shark's tail so the shark got away, only to be caught later by the fisherman.
I did find reference for a po
rosus croc fighting with a bull shark but this is the wrong hemisphere for those crocs and the toothrow is different, being wider and more divergent in the back and with a peculiar notch in the front, and some of the marks seem to indicate a double toothrow.Now alligator gars have been found occasionally in the Gulf of Mexico and in Lake Nicaragua, according to the Wikipedia entry, and it seems that although they are usually freshwater fishes they can also tolera
te brackish or salt waters. The alligator gar is the second-largest fish known to live in North America, and ten-foot-long specimens are on record, while rumor has it that they can reach 18 or 20 feet long. They have vicious mouths with a double row of sharp teeth and at times they can be damn near unkillable 
(they are ganoid fishes and their scales are much tougher than ordinary fish scales, and it is said that sometimes bullets and axheads aimed at them only glance away making sparks)And so I propose that Old Nic, the monster of Lake Nicaragua, is a large and surly type of alligator gar instead of being a plesiosaur or anything else. The encounter inspired me to make the mockup of the incident which I include above.
RICHARD FREEMAN: RESEARCH INTO ALIEN ANIMALS
A new publication coordinated by the Global Invasive Species Programe has found that New Zealand is the country most under threat from invasive foreign species with no less than 222. The least effected country was Equatorial Guinea with 9. They looked at 57 countries and found that, on average, there are 50 non-indigenous species per country which have a negative impact on biodiversity. 542 species were documented as invasive. But Professor Melodie McGeoch, lead author on the publication and member of the Centre for Invasion Biology this there are actually far more.
"We showed that regions with low development status and little investment in research have lower than expected numbers of invasive aliens." She said. The rise in international trade has helped species to colonize countries that they could never have reached naturally.
The pathogenic chytrid fungus, which was unknown until 1998, is thought to be the cause of the decline and extinction of many amphibian populations around the globe. The disease, caused by the fungus, can be spread by humans and a host of other species, ranging from exotic fish to African Clawed Frogs.
The yellowhead, a bird endemic to New Zealand, has suffered considerably in recent years due to a surge in the number of rats. Two populations of the Yellowhead are now extinct and three more are significantly falling in number.
But the impact of invasive alien species can be successfully controlled. The black-vented Shearwater, a seabird native to Natividad Island off the Pacific coast of Mexico, was under threat from cats, goats and sheep. But since they've been eradicated, the status of the bird has been reduced from Vulnerable to Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List. Similarly, the control of the Red Fox in south-western Australia in the last decade allowed the population of the endemic Western Brush Wallaby to recover sufficiently for it to be downlisted on the IUCN Red List to Least Concern.
"We showed that regions with low development status and little investment in research have lower than expected numbers of invasive aliens." She said. The rise in international trade has helped species to colonize countries that they could never have reached naturally.
The pathogenic chytrid fungus, which was unknown until 1998, is thought to be the cause of the decline and extinction of many amphibian populations around the globe. The disease, caused by the fungus, can be spread by humans and a host of other species, ranging from exotic fish to African Clawed Frogs.
The yellowhead, a bird endemic to New Zealand, has suffered considerably in recent years due to a surge in the number of rats. Two populations of the Yellowhead are now extinct and three more are significantly falling in number.
But the impact of invasive alien species can be successfully controlled. The black-vented Shearwater, a seabird native to Natividad Island off the Pacific coast of Mexico, was under threat from cats, goats and sheep. But since they've been eradicated, the status of the bird has been reduced from Vulnerable to Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List. Similarly, the control of the Red Fox in south-western Australia in the last decade allowed the population of the endemic Western Brush Wallaby to recover sufficiently for it to be downlisted on the IUCN Red List to Least Concern.
LINDSAY SELBY: Canvey Island beasts
In November 1954, The Canvey Island Monster was the name given to creature whose carcass washed up Canvey Island, Essex ,UK A second, more intact, carcass was found in 1955. It recalls the Montauk monster in modern times.
(seen here for more info: http://www.montauk-monster.com/)
The 1954 creature was described as being 2.feet 3 inches (68 cms) long with reddish brown skin and bulging eyes and gills. It appeared to have hind legs with five-toed horseshoe-shaped feet but no forelimbs. Its remains were cremated after an inspection by zoologists who said that it posed no danger to the public. Nearly 3 months later Reverend Joseph Overs found another carcass of the creatures about 2 miles from the first creature's discovery This creature was larger and the carcass in better condition. Described as about 4 feet ( 120cms) long and an estimated weight of 25 pounds. It had the same large eyes, nostrils, sharp teeth, and gills with the same legs and feet as the first creature.
In 1999 journalist Nicholas Warren looked into the 1954-55 findings. He was unable to locate any official records at the Plymouth Marine Biology Association Laboratory or the National Rivers Authority about the creature being identified or listed as unknown. . He found that there were accounts from some locals who believed the creature was an anglerfish. Later he received a letter from Alwyne Wheeler, formerly an ichthyologist at the Department of Zoology at the Natural History Museum, informing him that in his opinion the specimens were anglerfish, and that their fleshy pectoral fins are often mistaken by lay observers for short legs with feet. There was a 68lb specimen caught on the shore of Canvey Island in 1967 .However, others have speculated that the creature may have been an Ogcocephalidae or Batfish .This species of fish already possess leg-like fins and also have reddish coloured skin.
If this was a mis-identification then what does that say about the modern day Montauk monster?
(seen here for more info: http://www.montauk-monster.com/)
The 1954 creature was described as being 2.feet 3 inches (68 cms) long with reddish brown skin and bulging eyes and gills. It appeared to have hind legs with five-toed horseshoe-shaped feet but no forelimbs. Its remains were cremated after an inspection by zoologists who said that it posed no danger to the public. Nearly 3 months later Reverend Joseph Overs found another carcass of the creatures about 2 miles from the first creature's discovery This creature was larger and the carcass in better condition. Described as about 4 feet ( 120cms) long and an estimated weight of 25 pounds. It had the same large eyes, nostrils, sharp teeth, and gills with the same legs and feet as the first creature.
In 1999 journalist Nicholas Warren looked into the 1954-55 findings. He was unable to locate any official records at the Plymouth Marine Biology Association Laboratory or the National Rivers Authority about the creature being identified or listed as unknown. . He found that there were accounts from some locals who believed the creature was an anglerfish. Later he received a letter from Alwyne Wheeler, formerly an ichthyologist at the Department of Zoology at the Natural History Museum, informing him that in his opinion the specimens were anglerfish, and that their fleshy pectoral fins are often mistaken by lay observers for short legs with feet. There was a 68lb specimen caught on the shore of Canvey Island in 1967 .However, others have speculated that the creature may have been an Ogcocephalidae or Batfish .This species of fish already possess leg-like fins and also have reddish coloured skin.
If this was a mis-identification then what does that say about the modern day Montauk monster?
UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIAL FROM ROBERT SCHNECK
Hi Jon,I just finished the book [In the Wake of Bernard Heuvelmans by Michael Woodley] and it's a gem. It was the first crypto book that I've read in a very long time that taught me a lot about biology and zoology.
Thank goodness for the CFZ Press; I can't imagine anyone else would've published it.
Now to look at the catalogue in the back...
Robert
RICHARD FREEMAN: SEA EAGLES IN SUFFOLK? YES PLEASE!
With its 8 foot wingspan the sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) is one of Eurasia’s most spectacular birds. It was once resonably common in the UK numbering over 400 individuals in the 1700s. But, as with most big, spectacular animals it proved to be an inconvinience to humans and was hence wiped out in the UK by 1916.
In 1975 they were re-introduced into western Scotland, by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), in association with the RSPB. Despite deliberate persecution they have thrived, rearing 42 chicks in 2007. They have been a boon for the tourist industry in places such as Mull. They have now been re-introduced into Eastern Scotland as well
Plans are afoot to continue the project in Suffolk thanks to Natural England and the RSPB. As with every possible re-introduction just about every animal hating, ill-informed, non-scientist windbag has come out of the woodwork with pathetic bleatings against the wonderful project.
Chief amoung these kneejerk naysayers is Suffolk broadcaster Libby Purves. In an on line article so pompous it could have only been written for The Times Purves lets fly with a stream of vitriol.
“They want to spend more than £600,000 to introduce the birds to Suffolk (Norfolk saw off the scheme a year ago). They claim “vast” popular support — though you could doubt the validity of a sample of 500 people asked some saccharine question about whether they fancy seeing one. Enthusiasts insist that it is a “reintroduction”, on the ground that sea eagles once lived here.
Mark Avery, of the RSPB, says with that familiar tone of scorn for his own species: “Man is the reason they are missing, and it is for us to put that right.” Nobody has actually proved that Suffolk is their ancestral homeland — there are some uncertain 18th-century bones — and Andy Evans, of the RSPB, indeed, was last quoted saying feebly that “sea eagles must have been here in Roman times”.
Well the fact is Ms Purves, that man is the reason why many species are missing from the UK. The brown bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx and Europen bison and the moose to name but a few. Five extirpated creatures the eagle owl, the capercaillie, the large blue, the beaver and the wild boar are back and I think we should al welcome the sea eagle as the next on the list to return. We destroyed these creatures in Britain and it falls to us to bring them back. Personally I would wecome all of the above in wild places like the Highlands of Scotland. Of cours bears and wolves could not be brought back to Suffolk but the sea eagle could.
In 1975 they were re-introduced into western Scotland, by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), in association with the RSPB. Despite deliberate persecution they have thrived, rearing 42 chicks in 2007. They have been a boon for the tourist industry in places such as Mull. They have now been re-introduced into Eastern Scotland as well
Plans are afoot to continue the project in Suffolk thanks to Natural England and the RSPB. As with every possible re-introduction just about every animal hating, ill-informed, non-scientist windbag has come out of the woodwork with pathetic bleatings against the wonderful project.
Chief amoung these kneejerk naysayers is Suffolk broadcaster Libby Purves. In an on line article so pompous it could have only been written for The Times Purves lets fly with a stream of vitriol.
“They want to spend more than £600,000 to introduce the birds to Suffolk (Norfolk saw off the scheme a year ago). They claim “vast” popular support — though you could doubt the validity of a sample of 500 people asked some saccharine question about whether they fancy seeing one. Enthusiasts insist that it is a “reintroduction”, on the ground that sea eagles once lived here.
Mark Avery, of the RSPB, says with that familiar tone of scorn for his own species: “Man is the reason they are missing, and it is for us to put that right.” Nobody has actually proved that Suffolk is their ancestral homeland — there are some uncertain 18th-century bones — and Andy Evans, of the RSPB, indeed, was last quoted saying feebly that “sea eagles must have been here in Roman times”.
Well the fact is Ms Purves, that man is the reason why many species are missing from the UK. The brown bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx and Europen bison and the moose to name but a few. Five extirpated creatures the eagle owl, the capercaillie, the large blue, the beaver and the wild boar are back and I think we should al welcome the sea eagle as the next on the list to return. We destroyed these creatures in Britain and it falls to us to bring them back. Personally I would wecome all of the above in wild places like the Highlands of Scotland. Of cours bears and wolves could not be brought back to Suffolk but the sea eagle could.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
