okay i was snaping shots of these wierd broken down trees in this pit about six blocks from my house its huge with woods and somtimes kids mess around with sleds down there so out of the corner of my eye i see movement then i turn around and i see ths panther looking thing tering into the woods i got the heck out of there and i havent gone down there since

There's loose panthers throughout the UK and Australia...don't see why there wouldn't be a few in North America.

you see panther figure or just eyes ?

Because he needs some ansers!

Ok you don't post your location, you saw a panther like black thing, ran away and have never gone back?

The mind boggles at the possibilities......

Care to give us any more information?

Kevin A.

i agree kevin we need more info maybe along the lines of who? what time? where? when? why? did godzilla99 get a pic? these are things that everyone is going to ask you.( even a better description of the being would good! )

You had a camera and were taking pictures yet you didn't get one of this unknown black shape you think you saw?

he has not said that yet he could have and just didn't think ti post it

?? Did you read Mad Manfred's post?


I don't see why there can't be any running around either, to be honest. Won't be a puma anyway.


The thread title sounds like something from a Lovecraft story

lol@Lovecraft

i'm still trying to figure out why people make threads like this...

the lack of information is disturbing.

It's the equivalent of calling 911 and not telling the operator where you live or the details of what happened.

"Operator, someones been shot!"

*click*

"Hello? Sir? Where was the person shot? Where are you? Are you still there????"

so the question is did you get a pic pf this thing? it would be of help to see one, also more info would be nice. if you dont have a pic can you describe this thing for us ?

Is this the same report as the OP's other thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=111580

?

Yes, Mad Manfred, North America has several large native wild cats, in a range of sizes, and panther is the common name here for a black individual of any of the varieties.

Here is Minnesota's (godzilla says elsewhere that that is where the sighting occurred) description of its cats, cougars, which are very rare there:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/cougar/index.html

I don't believe there is any modestly large animal, real or imagined, that some black bear has not been mistaken for.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/bears/index.html

Black bears are up to half again the body weight of cougars, are plentiful, sometimes stand on two legs, and frequently wander into or near human habitations.

Whatever it was didn't chase you when you ran. A bear might well not. As for a cougar? If you act like lunch, then you probably will be lunch.

Except for the fact cougars don't exhibit a melanistic (black) phase. Jaguars, yes, but not cougars. "Black" panthers are truly a cryptid, anywhere beyond 200 miles of the southern US border.

Thank you, incorrigible, for your correction.

Whether or not there are northern melanistic cougars is a matter of current scholarly debate, as I understand the situation. It was not my intention to take sides in that debate.

I answered what I understood Mad Manfred to be asking. My answer to the original poster is that I would bet on a black bear. Sorry if that distinction was unclear in my posting.

but there is the fact that some rich people keep animals of that type becuase they think they are cool. (but it's not) that could explain why a black panther would be in the area in that case godzilla99 might want to call the police and give them more info then he gave us

Ia! Shub Niggurath! The Black Goat of the Woods with a thousand young! Ia Ia!

You might just be right. I can't help but wonder if there's rules or etiquette involved among those who raise panthers/leopards that they only release black panthers, and not the more common, spotted variety, otherwise known as leopards?

Gypsygirl, I'm not giving you a hard time. I only use your posting as an example. I'm questioning how the heck these "black panthers" come to be in so very many places. It seems the UK is swarming with them, and there's very few areas of the US without locally acknowledged rumors.

I mean, name a region or state of the USA that hasn't had unconfirmed sightings of "black panthers." It's amazing. With this website's worldwide subscription, we'll probably hear of more areas where "black panthers" shouldn't exist, but sightings are made. Any Aussie "black panthers" out there?

Again, for US members, cougars/mountain lions/catamounts/panthers don't exhibit a melanistic phase. That is, cougars aren't the answer to the multitude of reported "black panthers."

No such creature as a "black panther" - a panther is a black leopard/jaguar, displaying the regressive melanistic colouration.
Such regressions are rare in a wild population of animals; this is the big credibility problem with so many claimed sightings of 'black' cats in various countries - such as the UK - where they may have become established after escape and/or deliberate release to the wild.

Natural language is not bound to ontology. American English licenses the word panther as the casual name for any large black cat, both real and imagined. While this useage annoys the biologically scrupulous, I take my mother tongue as I find her, and use her words accordingly.

The original post hardly rises to take its place among the controversial sightings of black cougars. The posts are visibly impressionistic and make no serious claim to be an observation of any particular thing, only an of observation of something, made under stress and in the course of flight.

What the poster saw, as if through a glass darkly, was like a cougar except too big, in the wrong place (no cougar - of any color - having been taken in Minnesota for over a century, according to that state's officials in the link provided), atypically reacting to the poster's flight, and oh yes - of the "wrong" color.

Ursus americanus is a possibility, what with it being the right size, in the right place, reacting the right way to the poster's flight, routinely standing on its hind legs, having a history of being mistaken for other species, real and cryptish, and oh yes - often of the "right" color.

I'd not place too much stock in the state's official stance. A cougar was destroyed by police several years ago in northeastern Nebraska, a stone's throw from Minnesota. Iowa has confirmed cougar populations. There's a long history of state game departments denying or downplaying reports of cougars.

The question I pose is what are the large black cats reported from so many varied locales from around the globe? As you stated, melanism is a reclusive gene, and black specimens are quite rare in the wild, yet they're reported in odd places around the world.

Indeed, and to some degree when did the large black cat overtake the large black dog in paranormal sightings? Certainly in Britain cats only came to prominence around 1973 in the Surrey Puma cases (which included very un-cat-like black beasts in th every early days*); large 'alien' big cats were certainly deliberately released into the wild in 1976 after the Dangerous & Wild Animals Act was introduced, and these have now had 30+ years to naturalize and breed, and fill the missing apex predator niche in the British countryside.

* I am indebted to Jim Rayner for the following summary of the early Surrey Puma cases
Guildford in Surrey was also the roaming ground for the big cats – in fact “The Surrey Puma” was probably one of the first well-publicised cat sightings in the UK in the 1970s, and it did coincide with a UFO flap (big cats and UFOs sightings have gone closely together on more than one occasion). Police Inspector Eric Bourn reported that the cat looked like a puma – ginger brown and the size of a Labrador. However, another PC reported the cat to be mostly black with two white spots on the left front leg. Evidence of big cats was listed as holes in the skulls of dead animals, and of rib cages being crushed in one squeeze.

Now for some reports that seem at odds with belief that these big cats were ‘wild’ animals. Torches and spotlights did not frighten the creatures, and generally the cats did not seem bothered by close human proximity, and often did not seem to sense the approach of humans (although this may not have been surprising if they had been escaped exotic pets that had been used to regular human contact). Indeed some reports suggest that they took no notice when being fired at with a 12-bore shotgun!

The creature(s) were observed by binoculars, and were seen to raise their heads and sniff the air. Another oddity of the creatures was noted that the creature had a surprisingly flat nose, even to the point of being pig-like. Generally the creatures were about 3 ft in height. When seen in detail with binoculars, the cats were said to have slit-like eyes, again not at all cat-like features. Prints of paw marks were found in mud – but they seemed very large even for a puma at 5” across. Frequently torchlight would be shone into the eyes of the ‘cats’ but the normal high reflection back that is associated with cats eyes did not occur.

Another really odd facet was that sheep were often not remotely bothered by the presence of what should have been regarded as a large feline predator, and the sheep would be more wary of sheepdogs than the big cats; it was almost as if the two creatures were unaware of each other. Another curious factor of the sightings was the occasions when farmer’s dogs would refuse to go outside with their masters, and would even cower indoors and hide under tables etc – anything to keep away from something…

However, one noted feature of the ‘cats’ was their inability to scramble over fences and walls – this is not at all cat-like! The cats were also said to have a very noctious repelling smell – which always seemed very off-putting to sheepdogs. So we have observed features that the creatures were 3 – 4 ft tall, had slits for eyes, had large paws; they had difficulty in scaling walls and fences – often leaving scratch marks on fences in their efforts to scramble over them. I’m sure that most of you realize that most members of the cat family are very agile, and have few problems leaping up and over objects or up onto walls or into trees etc. Yet the ‘big cat creatures’ struggled to clear obstacles, and often landed very heavily. Some reports suggested the cat had abnormally long hind-legs, more like a young horse, and again quite unlike any big cat, or indeed any large predator.

During the sighting period of the Surrey Puma, sheep were found mutilated – mainly with gaping holes in their sides – this is not the normal behavior of a large cat eating something it has killed, and has perhaps more sinister connections to the animal mutilations that came to prominence in the 1980s onwards. The bite marks in the sheep suggest very powerful jaws, leaving holes in the skull bones. The general ‘kill signature’ was not that of a canine or fox. Sometimes the kills suggested that only blood had been ‘sucked’ from the prey – shades of later Chupacabras!

As the sightings progressed, more sheep were found mutilated, and some appeared to totally vanish. A new ‘creature’ was by now seen, this one a large creature with a gleaming black coat, and two white feet. It was said that the head was not in proportion to the rest of the body. Again the reports indicated a possible flat piggish nose, and a lot of whiskers, and even flat pointed ears, and at least once green slit eyes were observed.

All in all we have many reports of a creature or creatures that exhibit few attributes of a known feline, big or otherwise - yet mythology lists these as 'pumas'.