68 replies to this topic

[Orcseeker]

WGH, on 24 October 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

I wonder what happened to the beast's remains?

The carcass went on display and began to stink horribly due to poor taxidermy methods. So it was buried in a location which is unknown to today.

[WGH]

So its bones must be buried somewhere then. There must be a record of the location in some archive somewhere.

[Thegreatsilence]

Beneath one of the gardens of Versailles !

[WGH]

Any info on that?

[Abramelin]

La Bete Feroce, on 25 October 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

That third picture is of Antoine De Beauterne's kill, which was most definitely a wolf, albeit a large and impressive one. Whether or not it was involved in any of the attacks whatsoever is a point of contention; he killed it in a neighboring area a ways off from Gevaudan, once the Chastel family had been imprisoned and the killings had stopped. He probably figured the real Beast had died of natural causes or some ****, and so therefore bagged the biggest ****in' wolf he could find and ran back to Paris with it to collect the bounty. And it worked. Well, wrong wolf, dip****. The Chastels got out, and the killings resumed with full force all over again, but as far as France was concerned the Beast was dead and the media lost interest on reporting new attacks.

I'll post a few pictures that do highlight hyena characteristics:





What it says: “The furious beast that is supposed to be a hyena.” The text tells of two peasants who were made into national heroes for fighting the beast—a twelve-year-old boy who led an attack on the creature on January 12, 1765, and a mother who managed to wrest her six-year-old son, still living, away from the beast on March 12, 1765. (The child later died of his injuries.)




What do I think? I like the wolf-dog theory. I think it fits. I think it is plausible with or without human culpability. But since when can wolf-dogs rend people limb from limb and decapitate them? Since when do wolf-dogs make laughing noises? Since when do wolf-dogs have black stripes on their backs, stripes and spots? Why were wolf-hounds bred and trained to kill wolves afraid to tangle with the Beast, and ended up battered and beaten on the few times that they did? The Wolf-Dog theory has holes in it. That's why this **** is so perplexing to this day.

The spots and stripes could have come from the dog parent (Dalmatian?).

Not every wolf-dog hybrid is huge, but this one may have been, and if it was at least as vicious and huge as the one my grandfather raised, it could have been able to decapitate its victims. I posted earlier that the dog of my grandfather/father killed cows, and ripped them apart. This was not your average doggy.

The laughing sounds: wolves are quite vocal animals and different from dogs, and god knows how a badly raised hybrid sounds like.

Not saying it could not have been a hyena (it seems very plausible to me), but one thing a spotted hyena does not have is a long tail.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 26 October 2012 - 09:14 AM.

[Thegreatsilence]

WGH, on 26 October 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Any info on that?

Can't be more precise though. Buffon the naturalist examinated it and stated it was a Big wolf, but the corpse was already in an advanced state of decomposition. There is apparently no trace left either of what he would have written about.

Edited by Thegreatsilence, 26 October 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[Thegreatsilence]

Nevermind about Versailles... the box which contained the Beast's remains seems to have never reached there and got stuck in a now demolished hotel called  "De La Rochefoucault"  and located at Rue de Seine, 6th arrondissement of Paris.

Edited by Thegreatsilence, 26 October 2012 - 10:43 AM.

[La Bete Feroce]

Thegreatsilence, on 26 October 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Can't be more precise though. Buffon the naturalist examinated it and stated it was a Big wolf, but the corpse was already in an advanced state of decomposition. There is apparently no trace left either of what he would have written about.

Guys, I've already covered all this in my posts on page 3.

The animal killed by Antoine de Beauterne, the Wolf of Chazes, which he claimed was the Beast of Gevaudan and which was positively, 100% identified as a wolf, was not the Beast. There is no evidence that it had ever hurt anyone. Jean Chastel, a local wolf-hunter and dog trainer/breeder, killed the true Beast. He drew an image of it after doing so; this image resembled a hyena. The body was taken to Versailles and underwent an autopsy by Marin, the same doctor who conducted the autopsy on the Wolf of Chazes. I posted his report on page 3. There is more to it; I'll post that if there's a demand. He concluded that the Beast was a wolf-dog hybrid, but was unable to determine what dog breed it came from. Supposedly, the body then began to putrify and stink, and was buried in an unknown location in Versailles.

However!

The Natural Museum of History in Paris, France has a record that they received the body in 1766, corresponding with the time the Beast was slain. Their archive states that they positively identified the Beast as a Striped Hyena.

So, I reiterate: It was a wolf-dog hybrid, or a striped hyena.

At the end of page 3, I propose a possible dog breed responsible for siring the Beast. I believe it was the now extinct (but common back then) Charnaigre hunting dog, or the Dogue de Bordeaux. The Charnaigre resembles the Beast in its artwork, was very fast with a long tail and could leap great distances. The Dogue is a giant mastiff and a true powerhouse -- and mixed with a wolf could become a lean, mean killing machine. The white spot noted on the Beast's chest in the shape of a heart is a very typical trait of Dogues. Both the Charnaigre and the Dogue are the correct color, to boot. And Chastel owned a Dogue de Bordeaux.

Lastly:

Quote

Not saying it could not have been a hyena (it seems very plausible to me), but one thing a spotted hyena does not have is a long tail.

Striped hyenas do have long tails. They also have the mohawk-like manes that span their entire back, which are often times black. This was the most noted feature of the Beast, stated by all witnesses. Bear in mind, when you actually dig into the media reports of the Beast back during the 1760s, many, many authorities in France were reporting that it was a hyena. This isn't a new theory. It's what they thought even then.

I.e. http://gallica.bnf.f...r=hyène.langFR
You may not read French, but right side of the page, second paragraph from the top. You'll notice Gevaudan comes up. This is a zoological entry on the hyena species written back then, and they credit the hyena with the attacks in Gevaudan. Food for thought. I personally am undecided as to whether or not it was a wolf-dog or hyena, so therefore I argue both sides.

[Abramelin]

Well, if it was identified as a hyena, what are we talking about?

But a hyena does not have a long and upwards curled tail as the Beast appeared to have.

And they may have shot a (domesticated) hyena, but that doesn't mean the Beast was a hyena.

[La Bete Feroce]

Thegreatsilence, on 26 October 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Nevermind about Versailles... the box which contained the Beast's remains seems to have never reached there and got stuck in a now demolished hotel called  "De La Rochefoucault"  and located at Rue de Seine, 6th arrondissement of Paris.

Where are you getting this from?
M Andre Auguste relates, Once the curiosity of the people had been satisfied, La Bete was put in a box to be taken to Paris by Gilbert Esq., servant of the Marquis d'Apcher, to be shown to the King but, either because of the heat - it was early August - or because of the slowness of the transport, the animal was quick to putrefy. Nevertheless, Gilbert arrived in Paris and went to M. de la Rochefoucauld's house, who immediately informed the King of the happy news that the animal had been destroyed.
That is an excerpt ffrom Abbi Pierre Pourcher's book, which is one of the best sources for information we have on the Beast. The box of remains was only stored at said house prior to being brought before the King. It was afterwards, once the King felt personally insulted by the state of decay and putrification of the body that had been brought before him, that the remains were buried in an unknown location in Versailles.

Quote

Well, if it was identified as a hyena, what are we talking about?

But a hyena does not have a long and upwards curled tail as the Beast appeared to have.

And they may have shot a (domesticated) hyena, but that doesn't mean the Beast was a hyena.

Nowhere was the Beast ever reported to have an upwards curled tail. It simply had a long tail, sometimes described with a white tip. And the animal that Chastel shot was positively the true Beast. It marked the end of all the attacks, and Chastel being the killer only further solidifies his culpability as being in someway connected to/complicit with the attacks. He was way too involved in the entire ordeal, from start to finish. The contention is whether this animal was a wolf-dog or a hyena. We simply have two very different conclusions, both drawn up by very reputable sources of their time.

At the very least, I've whittled down the possibilities. No longer do we have to argue that it was just a large wolf, or some extinct mesonychild roaming around France, or any other prehistoric weirdness. No, we know that it was definitely one of two things: a wolf-dog hybrid, or a hyena. Who knows, man. I've researched this subject to total exhaustion, read all the books and read all the actual reports from the 1760s, etc...

[Thegreatsilence]

Here number 11 (french) :

http://www.labetedug...es/gazette.html

Edited by Thegreatsilence, 26 October 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[La Bete Feroce]

That's going to take some time for me to translate. I'll get to work on it this weekend.

I've always felt that the key to identifying the Beast lies with the d'Apcher family. Everyone always seeks out the Chastels, the Marin Report, the Natural Museum of History, consults with the old records and reports, etc... those are futile avenues. They go nowhere. The d'Apchers were the last, confirmed folk to be associated with the remains of the Beast. There's got to be something, somewhere indicating what they did with/where they buried the body.

[La Bete Feroce]

Figure I'll button up this thread:

-  Abstract of the Report of Marin (20 june 1767):
“ … and in the Castle of Besques, the marquess of Apcher showed us this animal who looked like a wolf but with a very different face and different proportions. 300 people may certify this.
Many hunters and a lot of experts made us remark that only the tail and the posterior of this animal is of a wolf. Its head is monstrous; its eyes have a particular membrane that can conceal the eye-socket. Its neck is covered with thick reddish hairs, crossed with some black stripes; it has a white mark shaped as a heart on its breast. Its legs have 4 fingers with longer nails then wolves. They are thick, especially the front legs, and their colour is the one of a deer. This was remarkable because all hunters said they had never seen a wolf with such colours. Some also noticed its ribs did not look like the ones of a wolf, therefore this animal could turn around more easily than a wolf that has sidelong ribs. “

- "Mr de la Mothe examined the Beast. He noticed the head was monstrous, square, larger and longer than on ordinary wolf, the snout was a little bit more obtuse, ears were large, pointed and perched, eyes were black with a very particular prominent membrane, it was an extension of the inferior muscles of the eye. These membranes helped to conceal as required the two orbits, sliding under the eyelids. The opening of the mouth was very large, the incisor similar to the one of a dog, the teeth are larger, tight and irregular, the neck very large and short, filled with shaggy hair, extremely long and bushy and bearing a transverse black stripe until the shoulders; the posterior looks as the one of a wolf, except it is larger, the front legs are shorter than the hind legs, thinner than the legs of a wolf and covered by a brownish, short and smooth hair, coloured like a deer, the hair of the body is thick and long, greyish, black-spotted. The animal wore a large white stain, perfectly shaped as a heart on its breast."









The probable father:


And that's that. Not a werewolf, not a mesonychid, not a hyenadon, nor any other extinct or cryptid animal. A wolf-dog hybrid, probably the offspring of a Spanish Morning Dog (Father) and a wolf (mother). This conclusion is based on Notary Marin's autopsy and his own notes (the morning dog hypothesis is Marin's). Obviously this is an unlikely coupling, and strongly infers the guilt of the Chastel family. There was definite human involvement, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Animals do not behead their prey. Period. Even if a wolf or wolf-dog wanted to do so in direct opposition of all instinct, it would lack the bite force to succeed. The Beast of the Gevaudan ignored livestock and specifically targeted human prey. It is held responsible for sixteen beheadings. Female victims were also sometimes discovered nude. All these things tells us that there was a human agent. It is noteworthy that no decapitations occurred while the Chastels were imprisoned. Consider that along with the Chastel family's behavior, the proximity of many of the attacks to their home, the fact that the Beast would also retreat into the woods nearby said home when given chase or when wounded, and the fact that Jean Chastel killed the Beast when no one else could...because it stood right in front of him subordinately, and we have our chief suspect.

I've also cleared up the hyena theory. After being taken to Versailles and shown to King Louis XV, the body of the Beast was ordered to be buried, discarded like trash. That's the last we hear of it. Franz Jullien, a modern day taxidermist at the Natural Museum of History in Paris, France refuses to believe that great naturalists such as Buffon would have allowed such a scientific treasure/anomaly like the Beast to be disposed of in that way (it would be like if someone shot Bigfoot, and we just threw it in the trash), and theorized that, like all other significant animals of the era, that it surely was brought to the museum and put on display. Then he discovered a 19th century zoological pamphlet (I've posted this) that references a hyena in display in the museum, labelled the Beast of Gevaudan, between 1767 and the early 19th century. This, to Franz Jullien, establishes the guilt of the hyena. While this is truly coincedental, it stands to reason that the hyena on display had simply come from a menagerie in the Gevaudan, and for whatever reason was titled "The Beast of..." Perhaps someone thought it witty. Perhaps it was to draw increased attraction to the museum. It was a beast, and it was from Gevaudan - hence the title - but it was not The Beast.

In conclusion: Wolf-Dog hybrid trained by either Jean or Antoine Chastel to attack humans.

Edited by La Bete Feroce, 05 November 2012 - 01:13 PM.

[Thegreatsilence]

The Beast's skull looks more like a bear's than a wolfdog hybrid IMO. And wolfdogs tend to have smaller heads that pure wolf, which contradicts the abstract. I still stand by my position, this a cryptid known as Arenotelicon in Europe, and the Beast may have been among the last of its kind.

[La Bete Feroce]

Thegreatsilence, on 05 November 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

The Beast's skull looks more like a bear's than a wolfdog hybrid IMO. And wolfdogs tend to have smaller heads that pure wolf, which contradicts the abstract. I still stand by my position, this a cryptid known as Arenotelicon in Europe, and the Beast may have been among the last of its kind.

Are you kidding me? That's a classic wolf-dog hybrid skull. It's exactly like the wolf skull but shorter/wider, EXACTLY like a dog's, not to mention it had CANINE dentition and that we have complete, thorough measurements of its whole body and skeletal structure. Second, you are wrong: Wolf-Dogs have LARGER heads. Hybrids - when the mother is wolf and the father is dog - are generally larger than pure wolves. Third, what I posted is not an abstract but absolute, substantiated fact. You think it was some BS cryptid? Prove it. Nothing about the Beast's behavior or autopsy suggests it was anything other than a trained wolf-dog hybrid. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you likes. You'll clearly cling to rubbish theories no matter how much fact is thrown your way. I guess that's what I get for trying to rationalize on a conspiracy forum...