27 replies to this topic

[Overdueleaf]

I am with clobhair on this one... half rotten black bear head... hence why it doesnt show the rest of the body as it would give away its identity... here is a news flash for you but things that have been dead awhile do not look the same as when they were alive... the closest thing that this resembles is that of a black bear.. here is a skull to compare the teeth/canines too as well as overall shape

 blackbear skull.jpg   78.77K   8 downloads

[Clobhair-cean]

If this was submerged for some time, then probably the skin/fur is not where it would be on a live animal, things could have shifted while it was sloshed around on the edge of the water then picked up and carried for some distance, while being so decomposed. I see nothing very out of place for a half-rotten ear that could have been nibbled on.

The important bit is the skull and the teeth, because they are the least perishable parts, and those point to at least some carnivore, with a bear as the most probable contender for the owner.

[PlanB]

My opinion:



da bears.

[orangepeaceful79]

Clobhair-cean, on 17 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

If this was submerged for some time, then probably the skin/fur is not where it would be on a live animal, things could have shifted while it was sloshed around on the edge of the water then picked up and carried for some distance, while being so decomposed. I see nothing very out of place for a half-rotten ear that could have been nibbled on.

The important bit is the skull and the teeth, because they are the least perishable parts, and those point to at least some carnivore, with a bear as the most probable contender for the owner.

Thanks, Clobhair for knowing all the stuff you know.  Kudos, man.

[Insanity]

I would agree that belongs to a bear.  What looks like the ear further back may be torn skin or such, but the canines and diastema behind the lower canines suggest a bear.  There is an area shaped like a pentagon with a dimple-ish center, that is probably a shrunken eye.  It is in the correct relative position.

Nose, eye and ear lie in almost a straight line on bears, so the ear is probably about midway from the eye and what looks to be an ear, but closer to the top of the head.

If there was some scale, could do a better ID.  Could assume what lumber was used in the deck.

Edited by Insanity, 17 January 2013 - 02:16 AM.

[DieChecker]

The fence is the real mystery... 2 by 4 or something else??? Dun, dun, dunnnnnnnnnnnnnn.......

[Insanity]

Just saying having some sense of scale would be preferred.  Too many people take pictures of objects they claim is unknown or mysterious and never include anything to be useful in determining scale.  My guess is 2x6 for the piece it is sitting on.

[orangepeaceful79]

I'd agree 2X6, Insanity.

[Insanity]

The skull probably ends just before where the ear-like bit of torn flesh is, and that portion is likely the skin of the neck, with the vertebrae, neck muscles, trachea and esophagus removed or otherwise fallen out.  Seen similar with deer heads that hunters remove in the field.  That would account for the ring shape of it as well.

Given that with bears, the nose, eye and ear are in a roughly straight line, if that ear-like bit was an ear, the eye would be quite low, virtually on the jaw joint.  Again, it's probably the skin from the neck.

Edited by Insanity, 17 January 2013 - 03:44 AM.

[Wolfman 1993]

Sweetpumper, on 16 January 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

LMAO.  Plus, it would've left a trail of victims near the scene.

that really kind of depends, if you study folklore, there's all different intentions that a werewolf could have. not saying they exist, of coarse, but if you go back to the early days, people that claimed to be a werewolf would say that they'd team up with witches to fight away the devil and demons. some tribes even wore wolf skin belts to "take the wolfs skill and fight like a beast during a war". Hollywood kind of took everything out of proportion when they started making werewolf movies. anyways, I'm not really sure what this is at all. I'll usually have a hard time saying an animal looks ugly, but this takes the cake.

Edited by Wolfman1993, 17 January 2013 - 06:31 AM.

[Wolfman 1993]

perhaps a vampiric llama

[fatbadger2]

Wolfman1993, on 17 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

perhaps a vampiric llama

please let it be this!

Edited by fatbadger2, 17 January 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Wolfman1993, on 17 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

perhaps a vampiric llama

An explanation equally as credible and supported by evidence as any other cryptid you could mention, as none of them are supported by any evidence of any kind, whatsoever.