Cryptozoology forums > General Cryptozoology > Main lobby > view thread
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 2:40pm 
The only conclusion I've reached is that these people are wrong, since they fail to grasp the simple realities of the firearms in the test used to "prove" their theory.

A modern rifle slug isn't a musket ball.
A smooth bore musket isn't a rifle.
A silver slug fired from a rifled bore will not spin and thus will tumble or wobble and have poor accuracy - as they demonstrated.
However, a French peasant in 1765 would not have owned a rifle, he'd have owned a large diameter, smooth bored musket.
He would have shot a large diameter ball, not a slug which weren't even invented until about 1855 by a man named Minie - hence the Civil War "Minie Ball".
It doesn't matter if a ball tumbles or not when exiting the bore, since after all, it's round.
A smooth bore musket is quite accurate enough to hit a small target out to at least 50 yards as evidenced by the many millions of dead killed in wars prior to the introduction of the rifle.
The animal was reportedly shot at 20 yards, well within that range.
The diameter of the ball used would have been roughly twice the diameter of the slug used in their test and would have done twice the damage.

Their conclusion is based on the bad data above - that the animal couldn't have been killed as claimed, thus the shooter was lying and is the real culprit.
If the data is wrong, it follows that the conclusion drawn from that data must also be wrong. And... the data is unquestionably wrong.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Rangoon posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 3:03pm 
Wapedia - Wiki: Rifling

Rifling was invented in Vienna in 1520. It wasn't used in extensively military weapons until the civil war because of the slow rate of fire. It was first used in the 7 years war or the "french and Indian war" and was extensively used in the eastern US in the form of the Kentuckey long rifle in a time period close to 1765.

Just for the record I tend to think that MQ is purely about sensationalizing cryptids and "promoting the mystery". The megladon epi is the funniest of all.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 3:21pm 
The point was that a French peasant would not have owned a rifle. He couldn't have afforded it, particularly as in this case he was the poorest man in the village and lived in a shack at the edge of town. Maybe the local land owner owned a rifle, but not this guy.
The show simply proceeds with the assumption that he was shooting a rifle, based on absolutely nothing except their own misunderstanding. Then goes on from there to have him shooting a slug, which didn't come around until the Minie' ball, a hundred years later.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Wildphotographer posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 4:21pm 
The point was that a French peasant would not have owned a rifle. He couldn't have afforded it

So you are also an expert on 18th century French economics?

The show was well produced and took careful pains to look at both of the main characters' theories.

Is there ANYTHING you like Keith?
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 5:01pm 
So you are also an expert on 18th century French economics?

Enough to know that not one in 10,000 arms were rifled, and that those that were, were very expensive items.

The show was well produced and took careful pains to look at both of the main characters' theories.

I have shown that they didn't take careful pains. They got the data upon which they based their conclusion absolutely wrong.

You are free to disregard the facts and believe their theory if you choose.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: busterggi posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 5:44pm 
I know we can't stand one another but when you're right, you're right.

They did a terrible job.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: AustraliaMegalania posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 6:06pm 
AM, now this is interesting and something that I confess that I had not heard before. These other outbreaks you write of, was any "beast" killed to end these sprees and if so what sort of animal was it thought to be?

MJ, there's to many links to post here, but if you google search " 1693 Benais killings", "Vivarais killings" they are all linked to the gevaudan beast even though they are a a century apart.

i find it interesting that the victims and witnesses of these attacks would most likely of been familiar with wolves and their appearance. and yet nobody could identify this animal, only that it could be described "wolf-like."
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Wildphotographer posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 6:56pm 
They did a terrible job

This is your opinion, not a given fact.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: MJLehde posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 8:05pm 
At what point does someones opinion have to part ways from a given fact? There is no reason that the two things can't be one in the same. If I were to say that I saw a movie in which George Washington picked up a machine gun at the Battle of Gettysburg and shot the Kaiser before flying away in his X-Wing to attack the Hindenburg it's possible that someone else might say that they'd seen the same show and found it very enjoyable even though I was left twitching on the floor twisted into a fetal position. Maybe the production values were high and the special effects first rate and the audience slapped each other on the back after the credits but that doesn't change the basic fact, yes "fact" that the makers got a whole bunch wrong. Now if someone doesn't care about historical and technical accuracy it might still make for an Oscar winner of a movie in their book.
I will agree that saying "they did a terrible job" is subjective in the sense that by KK's standards the job was terrible because the makers of "The Real Wolfman" made many, many mistakes and false assumptions and then provided tests that didn't relate to the question to back up their foundationless theory. That these mistakes were made isn't really in dispute here and they were enough to ruin the show for some of us. You can try to claim otherwise but we're back to that George Washington shooting the Kaiser thing and you can try to say "well maybe he did shoot him" but frankly we do know and your saying otherwise doesn't help your cause. It maybe that you have different standards of what makes for a good show. The production values were very nice, the scenery was attractive and the cut aways were well done. The terrible job verdict is subjective and therefore is not a given fact. That they made many, many mistakes is not an opinion but a given fact. Perhaps the entertainment value trumps accuracy in your book.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 7:44pm 
I don't know why you'd think that I can't stand you... There's only one person on this entire board that I actually dislike, and you aren't him.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Wildphotographer posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 7:02pm 
Keith, you are welcome to your opinion, but trying to back up what you say with these alleged facts is simply adding fuel to the fire. In my opinion, the show was well done. In your opinion it was not. You don't have to "prove" your opinion...it is what it is...an OPINION, not the facts in a legal proceeding.

It is folks like you and HootOwl that sometimes make this a miserable place.

Just chill out, man. You'll enjoy life a lot more than trying to prove everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. This is a place where some, if not most of the posters, come for a little diversion. For you, it seems you come here to bolster your self image, which seems to have had a negative effect.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 7:40pm 
Well, you may come for diversion and not care about the facts, but others want to arrive at the truth rather than perpetuate myths. You questioned my opinion, I attempted to show you the mistakes the show made. I'm sorry if that makes it "miserable" for you.

Really, I hardly know how to respond to somebody who doesn't want to know the truth. Your attitude is incomprehensible to me.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Mon, Nov 9 2009, 6:52pm 
I hardly know how to respond to somebody who doesn't want to know the truth.

That's quite laughable, when you say you know more than your own govt. regarding Israel's stockpiling of non-agreed WMDs, unlike ANY OTHER COUNTRY in the world.

lulz
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: the_larynx_of_gordon_lightfoot posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 5:26pm 
The point was that a French peasant would not have owned a rifle. He couldn't have afforded it, particularly as in this case he was the poorest man in the village and lived in a shack at the edge of town. Maybe the local land owner owned a rifle, but not this guy.
The show simply proceeds with the assumption that he was shooting a rifle, based on absolutely nothing except their own misunderstanding. Then goes on from there to have him shooting a slug, which didn't come around until the Minie' ball, a hundred years later.


This is what they were alluding to in a possible connection with the Catholic Church of France. A poor peasant wouldn't have owned a hyena either. Nor would he waste making silver bullets from precious silver coins. Their theory was that the church, in trying to make the poor peasants terrified of the wrath of god, supplied him with all the tools necessary.

And I thought the History Channel did a good job on the show (I've found the two-hour MonsterQuest episodes to be MUCH better than the later one-hour ones like the weak "Feral Dogs" and "Flying Rods" episodes). In the Gevauda episode, I thought the character types of the investigators were a little cliched (the hard nosed, no BS New York cop and the dreamer cryptozoologist), but it worked for me. I had heard the theory of the Beast of Gevaudan having a human connection before, so this wasn't anything really groundbreaking, but it was quite entertaining.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 6:07pm 
OK, so the Catholic church gave a peasant a trained hyena and an expensive rifle and sent him out to eat 100 members of the congregation as part of some masterful plan to explain hell to the peasants. If not the Catholic church, then surely it was the Lutherans or the Masons or the Jews or a local aristocrat with a hyena fetish.

Couldn't we come up with a simpler explanation?

If only there was a large "wolf-like" carnivore documented throughout European history as preying on human beings, like... a wolf?
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: the_larynx_of_gordon_lightfoot posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 10:52pm 
It's possible that it could have been wolves, but not likely IMO. Wolves just don't kill people and ignore livestock like that.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 11:44pm 
It may be as simple as the livestock being guarded by dogs, while children weren't. Why have a fight to the death with a sheep dog every time you want a meal, when there is unguarded two-legged prey traipsing all over the place?
There's no reason to drag in trained hyenas and Jesuit plots to explain away a wolf with a quirk. It took down 103 people in four years, so it had obviously found a safe and productive meal ticket.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: the_larynx_of_gordon_lightfoot posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 12:02am 
Your point about predators picking victims by the path of least resistance is true. But in looking at wolf behavior, a wolf killing a human is rare. I could see a few attacks and deaths in France during these years being attributed to wolves, but not that many. I can't say for sure, but there should have been more than enough deer, rabbits and other prey items in France at that time for wolves to look at before they went to dining on humans.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 12:59am 
Actually, European wolf attacks aren't rare at all. I don't know why, but historically they are much more aggressive than North American wolves. Still, this is an unusual case, but there are plenty of plausible explanations - the most likely being an injured animal that was incapable of taking down wild prey. Surely that's a lot more plausible than a trained hyena?
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:15am 
Actually, European wolf attacks aren't rare at all.

Another misconception. Historical records show more atacks on humans in Europe, most probably due to hunting only being carried out by the landed classes & thus, less fear of people being present in wolves here than in North America. There have been no fatalities, & so few attacks as to be virtually none, in the recent past. In NA, However, as can be seen here, this isn't the case, particularly in Alaska. Human encroachment seems to be a big factor, not rabies.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 12:16pm 
Historical records show more atacks on humans in Europe, most probably due to hunting only being carried out by the landed classes & thus, less fear of people being present in wolves here than in North America.

Thanks for making my point.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:08pm 
Historical records, yes. In the past 100 years, no. Historical doesn't mean recent history, as you claimed. All I've done is point out & correct your claims that wolf attacks in Europe ARE more common than thought. I've shown that not to the case & pointed to the rise in attacks on humans in the USA, particularly in your own home state, as well as outlining the likely reason.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:20pm 
1765 is not recent history. There would be few recent attacks in any case, since the species has been extirpated from 99% of its former range.

I think you're right that it has everything to do with historical conditions rather than any genetic or species traits. North Americans were almost universally armed, while Europeans generally not. And of course, Europe had frequent large scale wars that left plenty of dead around to teach wolves that people were a tasty alternative to wildlife.

In any case, there are many hundreds of documented wolf attacks in old Europe, while almost none in North America.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 2:23pm 
And now the reverse is true. Wolf attacks in Europe ARE extremely rare. In the USA, & especially Canada & Alaska, they're on the up & up & up.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 3:00pm 
Wolf attacks would naturally be down in Europe since you've killed almost all the wolves. As for North America, I'd hardly call one or two isolated wolf attacks in the last decade, a trend of any kind.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 5:38pm 
There've been more than "one or two" & you know it. I, personally, don't feel too responsible for the wolves' persecution in Europe, which is, rightly, being addressed & has been for some time now, where protection is possible. And we don't really go in for shooting them with high-powered rifles from helicopters either.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:12pm 
You wrote

Actually, European wolf attacks aren't rare at all.

You're wrong.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 1:27pm 
OK grammar queen, you win.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 2:21pm 
Wrong and ungracious. Maybe you'll be less specious next time, since this is the second time you've attempted to press this false assertion as true.

Good luck with your wolves.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 3:07pm 
It's not a "false assertion". Wolf attacks in Europe were quite common right up until the animals were wiped out. Wolf attacks in the US are rare both now and in the past - they happen, but are uncommon.

Note: In Scotland, during the reign of James VI, wolves were considered such a threat to travellers that special houses called "spittals" were erected on the highways for protection.[3] In France alone, historical records indicate that between the years 1580-1830, 3,069 people were killed by wolves, 1,857 of which were non-rabid.[4]Italian records indicate that between the XV-XIX centuries, 440 people were killed by wolves in central Padania.[5] In Imperial Russia 1890, a document was produced stating that 161 people had been killed by wolves in 1871.[3] During the First World War, starving wolves had amassed in great numbers in Kaunas, Vilna and Minsk and began attacking Imperial Russian and Imperial German fighting forces, causing the two fighting armies to form a temporary truce to fight off the animals.[6] After the fall of the Soviet Union, documents were discovered indicating that a number of wolf attacks had occurred in villages during the Eastern front. This information was apparently suppressed by the Soviet government in order to hide the consequences of the mass confiscation of firearms during the war.[7]
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 5:44pm 
Ah, Wikipedia, the saviour of the refuseniks. Hardly the last century though, is it?

You seem to have ignored the researched article & statistics I linked you to regarding the sharp rise in wolf-human attacks in the USA of late & to be turning the convo into some sort of national competition. It's not. The facts are the facts, & I gave them to you on a plate. Wolf-human attacks in Europe are rare.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Thu, Nov 5 2009, 6:07pm 
Ah, Wikipedia, the saviour of the refuseniks. Hardly the last century though, is it?
...Wolf-human attacks in Europe are rare.


It's difficult for non-existent wolves to kill people. There's also a noticeable drop in the number of smilodon attacks of late.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Fri, Nov 6 2009, 3:06am 
You always seem to let your personal biases get in the way of accepting the truth, & now you say there are hardly any wolves left in Europe? It would appear that you're determined to carry on regardless, so just let me emphasise: in Italy, Spain, Russia, Poland & France, the wolf population is recovering well, with adequate protection & conservation measures in place (unlike Croatia, Bulgaria et al). The Scandinavian Eurasian population is still extremely low. Yet in all of these countries mentioned, aside from one unauthenticated attack on a shepherd in 2001, there have been virtually no wolf-human attacks (& NO kills) in the past 100 years, thereby nullifying your point that wolf-human attacks in Europe aren't rare. There's no point continuing down another line when your original assertion has been proved incorrect, unless you're arguing for the sake of it, so I'll leave it at thatr, unless you want further statistics proving the sharp rise in wolf (& bear) attacks on humans recently in the USA, especially Canada & Alaska.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Fri, Nov 6 2009, 10:05am 
Stu, you can throw cougars in there with the wolves and bears.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 6:14am 
As in a "sharp rise" in attacks on humans? Keith ignores the research recently carried out & which I linked him to, showing clearly that wolf-human attacks in North America are on the increase. I don't think anyone can doubt that, knowing the reasons.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Mon, Nov 9 2009, 7:35am 
I'm not getting into the pissing match, and I've not heard much about wolf attacks here, but it does seem that cougar attacks are on the rise, which some people attribute to our moving in to their range, but which I think tends to coincide with the banning of cougar hunting in a few states.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Mon, Nov 9 2009, 7:53am 
Pissing match? See it as you want. I prefer to view it as correction.

As to cougar attacks, I think it may be a combination of both reasons you posit.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Tue, Nov 10 2009, 12:19pm 
Yes, I agree that a combination of those reasons is logical and probable.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Tue, Nov 10 2009, 12:22pm 
What an extremely well-mannered & thoughtful response.

Are you peri-menopausal?
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Wed, Nov 11 2009, 1:10pm 
I don't know, is that better or worse than being peri-winkled?
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Thu, Nov 12 2009, 4:49am 
In your case, probably.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Sat, Nov 14 2009, 2:36pm 
Cool.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Fri, Nov 6 2009, 12:28pm 
Stu, you can keep running on with this silliness if you please, but really, it's getting tiresome. The numbers of people documented as killed by wolves (when they existed) in Europe number into the thousands. The numbers of people killed in North America is negligible, both in the past and today.

The reasons for this are debatable, the facts are not.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 6:12am 
The numbers of people documented as killed by wolves (when they existed) in Europe number into the thousands.

Where are these killings? You said attacks here aren't that rare, as I've clearly quoted from you. And you continue to insist it to be the case, even when you've failed to produce no links or statistics to back up your ridiculous claims, & have been shown a recently-researched paper clearly proving wolf-human attacks in the USA & Canada, particularly Alaska, to be on the rise.

Boy, it must be eyewatering to even contemplate removing that gargantuan stick wedged firmly beyond the reaches of solar rays. Good luck with that.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 11:30am 
I posted links to documented wolf attacks numbering into the thousands in western Europe. France alone has documented 3000 people killed by wolves. That's just a fact of history, but of course facts mean nothing to you.

Even today with wolves wiped out across Europe, there are still more wolf attacks there than in North America.

The researchers uncovered a number of reports of predatory attacks in Europe, mainly on children and to a lesser extent on women. The largest number of records comes from pre-20th century France, Russia, Estonia and northern Italy.

Interestingly, the researchers discovered that predatory attacks in Europe in the 20th century are rare, despite better record keeping and easier access to records that technology brings. Moreover, as already mentioned above, they could find records of only 17 people killed by wolves in Europe and Russia in the last fifty years and no fatalities in North America.

Wolf Trust - Wolves Killing People - Results
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 11:48am 
Even today with wolves wiped out across Europe, there are still more wolf attacks there than in North America.

False & deflective info. I don't dispute the historical evidence, that's a given. But your assertion that there are more wolf-human attacks in Europe than North America today is both disingenuous & flies in the face of the facts I linked you to. I think we'll leave it at that, despite your barely-concealed glee at the fall of wolf population levels in mainland Europe. Wolf attacks in Europe today are so few as to be virtually nil.

Killer Wolves

Six injured in rare wolf attack

First fatal wolf attack recorded in North America?

Dog saves family from wolf attack

From IWC News:

Though still rare, wolf attacks are increasing as expanding human populations move into wolf country and collide with wolf populations that are also expanding in many places. Of the 27 documented wolf attacks in North America, all but five occurred between 1970 and the present. "It is predictable," says Mech. "People and wolves are living closer together, a small but increasing number of wolves are being fed and learning not to fear people, and the number of wolf attacks is increasing accordingly. We do need to pay attention to this trend but we also have to maintain perspective that wolf attacks will always be rare relative to the other risks we face in daily life."

Stop feeding wild animals, & wild animals will mostly stop feeding on you.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 12:14pm 
Do you not understand the difference between one person killed by wolves, and seventeen people killed by wolves? This is based on a concept called "numbers" with "seventeen" being a larger number than "one".

So, even though today there are many more wolves in North America than in Europe, there are far fewer people killed by wolves here in recent years (one) as opposed to seventeen in the last fifty years in Europe.

If you want to take the fatalities back 300 years or so, we'd still have just one documented fatality in North America, while Europe would show thousands.

The reasons are debatable (it's possibly as simple as rural North Americans commonly being armed, while Europeans generally weren't), but the numbers are not.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 1:54pm 
So now it's kills as opposed to attacks? Changing the rules halfway through won't work. Present-day Europe sees no wolf attacks. In North America they're on the rise. If you don't believe the statistics provided by your own country's research teams, that's not my problem, it's yours. Have a nice weekend.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 2:01pm 
Present-day Europe sees no wolf attacks

Except for the 17 deaths noted in the study I linked.

We have no comparable data on attacks, which is a very relative term anyway. Is a wolf nipping somebody while stealing a baloney sandwich, an attack? Is a wolf biting a researcher while being collared, an attack?

We do have hard data on deaths. In recent history, the numbers are 17 European deaths to 1 North American death. In all documented history, the numbers are thousands of European deaths to one North American death.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 2:10pm 
From your favourite, Thickipedia:

Nonetheless, with the exception of one attack on a French shepherd in 2001, modern Western Europe has had very few attacks and no recent fatalities due significantly to the near complete lack of wolves in Western Europe.

"Lupus," a German group of wildlife biologists, says it has documented 250 encounters between people and wolves in the Lusatia region and there were no problems in any of the cases.

[In North America.....] In modern times, as humans begin to encroach on wolf habitats more contacts are being recorded. Often the contact is because the person is walking their pet dog, and the wolf pack considers the dog a prey item, inciting an attack. Retired wolf biologist Mark McNay compiled 80 events in Alaska and Canada where wolves closely approached or attacked people, finding 39 cases of aggression by apparently healthy wolves, and 29 cases of fearless behavior by non-aggressive wolves.

Hmmmm indeed.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 2:31pm 
Western Europe has had very few attacks and no recent fatalities due significantly to the near complete lack of wolves in Western Europe.

Duh! How many times do I have to repeat that fact? But of course, Europe consists of more than nearly wolfless Western Europe, and deaths still occur - seventeen in fact, vs one in North America.

biologist Mark McNay compiled 80 events in Alaska and Canada where wolves closely approached or attacked people

How awful! "Closely approached"... shudder... And where is the comparable study in Europe showing how often wolves "closely approached" people? I was once was once closely approached by a badger and I still have nightmares...
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Stu posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 3:03pm 
How do you think the badger feels?
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: KodiakKeith posted Sat, Nov 7 2009, 3:43pm 
He just wants to forget the whole thing.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: MJLehde posted Tue, Nov 3 2009, 10:10pm 
Just wondering if you've seen a movie called "Brotherhood of the Wolf"? It's a dang fun flick about the Beast of Gevudon and involves conspiracies and the Catholic Church and some full blown nutsoid evil wealthy land owner. There are nice special effects, decent acting, great fight scenes and even some hot babes and nudity tossed in. Heck blow something up and it's darn near the perfect movie for most guys. The problem is that it's "based upon actual events" and isn't a documentary. Not that documentaries haven't begun to play fast and easy with the truth, I thought "Bowling for Columbine" was crap because it sported factual holes that you could drive a truck through, but saying that something is based upon actual events doesn't mean that it's true or even close to true but once that idea gets stuck in the public mind set it's there for good.
A good example is the movie "JFK" which had a whole bunch of stuff, historical facts, wrong but director Oliver Stone said that he doesn't think that facts should get in the way of a good story. Mel Gibson said the same thing about the stuff that he got wrong in "Braveheart". "Braveheart" was an outstanding movie, "JFK" somewhat less so but totally false parts, made up facts in other words, of both movies are regularly sited by people who don't know the first thing about history as being true.
There really is no evidence that there was any sort of conspiracy by the church or anyone to train a hyeana,,,(can you even train a hyeana?) and then set it upon the public for any reason whatsoever. However there is a kick butt action movie called "Brotherhood of the Wolf" that suggested that very thing and now it just gets parroted back.
Again I realize that it is subjective to call the Real Wolfman show crap or poorly made but that they got a whole bunch of stuff wrong shouldn't be in dispute. Believe as you like but it comes off sounding like someone asking a real anthropologist a question based upon an episode of the "Flintstones".
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: AustraliaMegalania posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 2:55am 
MJLehde, yes people can train hyenas


The hyena man of Harar
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: MJLehde posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 11:37am 
Thanks for the interesting piece on a fellow who can feed hyeanas and not have them rip his face off and while that in itself is far more than I would be willing to attempt it isn't "training" in the sense that you can take Fido the hyeana out, point to some chick up the vally, say "sick'm" and expect him to do your neferious bidding. In the show the wolf expert made the point that you cannot train a wolf, something I confess to not knowing, but those same folks were later in the same show willing to take on faith that you can train a hyeana. I think the difference is between the terms "train" and "tame" and it appears that you can tame a hyeana just as you can a wolf but if, according to the shows expert, a wolf is untraineable I don't see why it should be assumed that a hyeana isn't.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Rangoon posted Wed, Nov 4 2009, 1:20pm 
Just wondering if you've seen a movie called "Brotherhood of the Wolf"?

I enjoyed the movie myself. Having said that there were numerous moments, like most entertainment driven films,where the viewer is challenged by events and must suspend disbelief.

As far as the back story goes I find more interesting things to think about than werewolves.

1) For example it is set in a time period just preceding the American and French revolutions. Is it a surprise that the plot revolves around an evil noble who uses his exotic African pet to murder peasants?

2) The lead protaganist is actually the King's taxidermist? Well consider his mission was to taxidermy a wolf into a monster to sooth the country folk with a "scientific answer"

My take on the "beast of Gevauden" is that it is based on a series of unconnected deaths threaded together on a framework of folk myths rooted in and centering around werewolves but having nothing to do with that. I do think as Gerry said that there were many agents of death in that time period and little in the way of CSI assets to accurately determine if an animal killed or simply gnawed on a corpse.

goon- thinking the power of myth is most powerfull force of all within the human imagination.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Fri, Nov 6 2009, 10:08am 
The one thing that bothered me about that film was the martial arts fight scenes. They just seemed to out of place.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Rangoon posted Sun, Nov 8 2009, 1:56pm 
I tend to agree Gerry though they were cool though in a way if you suspend disbelief(grins). The Iroquois/mohawk dude was a cool charecter but he should have come from China for the way they played it. I'm sure the fact that this was a French movie played somewhat into what the audience was expected to swallow by way of dalliance with cultural fact.

goon
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Mon, Nov 9 2009, 7:32am 
I did enjoy the movie. I think the fight scene from Last of the Mohicans would have been more the type to use in the French movie. Still, I'd watch it again.
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: bendo posted Thu, Nov 12 2009, 8:00am 
Careful.....someone will come back with a no wolfman has been documented as being killed in Europe by the use of martial arts in the last 100 years. OR, you may asked to defend why martial arts can't be used in movies and what makes you an expert on it OVER AND OVER AND OVER!!
Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman"
From: Gerry Bacon posted Sat, Nov 14 2009, 2:38pm 
LOL I'm no expert on anything, nor would I waste time defending a lack of Asian martial arts in movies that pre-date the movement of such martial arts from the Far East.


Close Window