Father and Son Scared by unknown creature

For those interested visit the below website for drawings and the full story.

www.cnb-scene.com...

This sighting happened Tuesday, Sept. 26, on Briggs Road near LaCrosse between 9:15 and 9:30 pm. The creature almost flew into their windshield, was an estimated 6-7 feet tall, sported batlike, leathery wings with a span of 10-12 feet, long claws on its feet and "hands" and a snarling expression on the face. They both somehow felt it was angry it had been seen.

See this before.. quite a good encounter and write up here. Looks like a reptilian alien to me but I can't fathom what it was up to there? Any ideas anyone else?

I do not consider this to be factual at all.
They sat in their car. Driving calmly, as you do. Then out of nowhere a beast flew right at their windshield. They continued to drive calmly, and did not swerve.
I don't car if you have nerves of steel. If something like that happened, you would swerve. When the creature flew away, they stopped, and got out of their car to be physically ill. The sight made them ill for several days to come.
Again, if you were disturbed enough to immediately be physically ill, let alone for several days, there would be no chance that you could remain calm enough to keep the car steady.

Witnesses claim that the creature looked like it was hungry. How can anyone who has never even seen this type of animal know that it was hungrey, just by a glimpes of it? Anyway, after an investigator arrived, along with a deer hunter (how convenient) They found a mutilated deer. It was not shot, cut up, or bitten. Just mutilated. Even though the creature was deemed hungry, it mutilated, but did not eat it's prey. Leaving it's head and torso, but taking or consuming the only the legs... This defies natural logic.

My conclusion? False.

Originally posted by Gear
I do not consider this to be factual at all.
They sat in their car. Driving calmly, as you do. Then out of nowhere a beast flew right at their windshield. They continued to drive calmly, and did not swerve.
I don't car if you have nerves of steel. If something like that happened, you would swerve. When the creature flew away, they stopped, and got out of their car to be physically ill. The sight made them ill for several days to come.
Again, if you were disturbed enough to immediately be physically ill, let alone for several days, there would be no chance that you could remain calm enough to keep the car steady.

My conclusion? False.

I'm not saying this is real but the article did say that they did swerve. here is the part.

Their reaction? Immediate illness. In seconds, both became physically ill, and the son, who was driving, swerved and then pulled the truck over into the ditch so he could vomit. The son, who wishes his identity kept private, vomited six or seven times. Wohali retched, as well, and both remained sick for an entire week. The son was so frightened by the encounter that he refuses to discuss it.

Originally posted by Gear
I do not consider this to be factual at all.
They sat in their car. Driving calmly, as you do. Then out of nowhere a beast flew right at their windshield. They continued to drive calmly, and did not swerve.
I don't car if you have nerves of steel. If something like that happened, you would swerve. When the creature flew away, they stopped, and got out of their car to be physically ill. The sight made them ill for several days to come.
Again, if you were disturbed enough to immediately be physically ill, let alone for several days, there would be no chance that you could remain calm enough to keep the car steady.

Witnesses claim that the creature looked like it was hungry. How can anyone who has never even seen this type of animal know that it was hungrey, just by a glimpes of it? Anyway, after an investigator arrived, along with a deer hunter (how convenient) They found a mutilated deer. It was not shot, cut up, or bitten. Just mutilated. Even though the creature was deemed hungry, it mutilated, but did not eat it's prey. Leaving it's head and torso, but taking or consuming the only the legs... This defies natural logic.

My conclusion? False.

You obviously didn't read it properly. They did swerve:

Immediate illness. In seconds, both became physically ill, and the son, who was driving, swerved and then pulled the truck over into the ditch so he could vomit.

As for your "conclusions" about the deer carcass. it is entirely possible the animal only got to finish the rear portion before either being disturbed or perhaps it got full. Not even a Lion could eat an entire Deer in one sitting. Very often, predators will either eat what they can before being disturbed/chased away by other animals, or take the carcass with them to eat later.

Originally posted by stumason
You obviously didn't read it properly. They did swerve:

Immediate illness. In seconds, both became physically ill, and the son, who was driving, swerved and then pulled the truck over into the ditch so he could vomit.

Yes. They did swerve. Not to avoid the creature, as it had already flown away. They swerved to be physically ill.

Originally posted by stumason
As for your "conclusions" about the deer carcass. it is entirely possible the animal only got to finish the rear portion before either being disturbed or perhaps it got full...

Yeah, but it was not eaten. There were no bite marks. It was just mutilated. While it is likely that it may have been disturbed while 'consuming' it, it does not seem likely that a predator that size would have had it's full by such a small amount.

Originally posted by stumason
Not even a Lion could eat an entire Deer in one sitting.

Sorry, but I just had to...
Ofcourse lions could eat an entire deer in one sitting. Lions dont eat deer.

Originally posted by Gear
Yes. They did swerve. Not to avoid the creature, as it had already flown away. They swerved to be physically ill.

interpret it how you like, but the chronology is hardly clear. They describe that whole paragraph as over in seconds. From sighting to swerve.

Originally posted by Gear
Yeah, but it was not eaten. There were no bite marks. It was just mutilated. While it is likely that it may have been disturbed while 'consuming' it, it does not seem likely that a predator that size would have had it's full by such a small amount.

A man sized animal can eat an entire deer? I would like to see that, I really would. Also, if you found a half eaten burger, but could find no bite marks, would you assume that it hasn't been eaten? Half of the burger has just got up and walked away?

My partner, when she eats a BK Whopper for example, will tear it and then consume. Odd thing that she does (she doesn't like bits getting in her teeth, apparently), but I think that adequately explains how an animal could dismember and then eat, rather than just bite into.

Absence of something is not neccesarily proof of it's absence.

Originally posted by Gear
Sorry, but I just had to...
Ofcourse lions could eat an entire deer in one sitting. Lions dont eat deer.

Maybe I should suffix that with Mountain, then. I thought, seeing as we were discussing North American Zoology, that the descriptive "Lion" may have been self explanatory. Obviously, I thought wrong.

Let me rephrase it for you.

Not even a Mountain Lion could eat an entire Deer in one sitting.. happy now.

Although I am sure an African Lion would eat a deer, given half a chance

hmmm...maybe some one's just having a picky day. Because that statement doesn't say they swerved to vomit. It says they swerved and then pulled into the ditch to vomit.

Originally posted by stumason
A man sized animal can eat an entire deer? I would like to see that, I really would.

It was said that the deer looked to weigh about 60 pounds. That's about 28 kilograms. For a larde, or 'man sized' carnivore, this would be an 'adequate' meal. But I guess I should factor in the 'fact' that it flies. It would not have been able to eat the same amout as a terrestrial animal of similar size.

Originally posted by stumason
Also, if you found a half eaten burger, but could find no bite marks, would you assume that it hasn't been eaten? Half of the burger has just got up and walked away?

No, I would assume that a human had eaten it. Only primates are known to tear their food with their forelimbs.


Regardless, I personally just find the information provided to be a bit too 'sketchy' to accept even the possibility of this event.

Originally posted by Valhall
hmmm...maybe some one's just having a picky day. Because that statement doesn't say they swerved to vomit. It says they swerved and then pulled into the ditch to vomit.

Imagine driving down a dark country road and having the above, man-sized creature fly at your windshield, stare in at you and then swoop upwards into the night sky. This actually happened to a 53-year old LaCrosse man who prefers to be known only by his Cherokee name, Wohali, and the man's 25-year old son. Their reaction? Immediate illness. In seconds, both became physically ill, and the son, who was driving, swerved and then pulled the truck over into the ditch so he could vomit.

One word leads to say that the swerve came during the immediate event. The rest of the paragragh leads to say the swerve happened afterwood.


EDIT:

Driving.
ManBat flies down.
Driving.
ManBat flies away.
Swerve.
Pull over to be sick.


[edit on 11-11-2006 by Gear]

I think you just made my point. They swerved and then they pulled to the ditch.

This is nit-picking, gear. Whether the story is true or not, I don't think it's going to be determined off this point.

sounds very interesting

i believe it.

what it could be? no idea

Leaving aside the details of the “ encounter “ , for which I have to rely on the honesty and integrity of the witnesses and reporter

As I do not know these people , and do not have the resources to investigate the case with Any rigour – I am forced to start from the other end . and alas find that the integrity , critical thinking and investigative techniques used in this case are sorely lacking .

The dead deer they “ found “ by the roadside –

The alleged cryptid flew over the car and away into the night sky – straight up – as the witnesses claimed , how the hall does that link it to a deer found on the ground 25m away from the road side ?

Its presence at the vicinity of the incident 14 days later is such a tenuous link that far more evidence is required linking it to cryptid activity

Evidence that the “ investigators “ seem to spend scant time even attempting to find

The single photograph they choose to release , is of such poor quality , it has zero value as evidence of anything relating to the case

Were they singularly incapable of photographing the alleged dismemberment ?

Did anyone make any attempts to case the area for tracks , dander or other evidence ?

If the deer had been dropped by a flying cryptid – it would have left an impact mark , if the cryptid had alighted and deposited it – there would be no tracts other than the landing / takeoff marks – and certainly no tracks leading too or from the carcass

I thought these people were supposed to be investigators ???

Lastly , in their “ analysis “ of circumstantial events the investigator < sic > takes such a tangential departure from any hint of rational objectivity that

This is regarding the “ links “ to college student drowning deaths in LaCrosse WI .

.Another item that bears mentioning is that LaCrosse is also the unfortunate site known for many drownings of college-aged males over the past couple of decades.

Well that would have a lot to do with the rather obvious fact that LaCrosse WI is a college town, hope to three yes en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> three further education campuses

The latest happened three days after Wohali's sighting.

As the claimed encounter was on September 26th

The death by drowning they are claiming “ could “ be linked must have been the untimely death of Luke Homan

Unfortunately the “ investigator “ willfully ignores the facts of the case , choosing instead wild unevidenced speculation .


The death of m Homan was caused by cold water drowning …. With acute intoxication being the prime contributory factor ….. there were no signs of drugs other than alcohol in his system …. And no signs of physical trauma / injury ……………And the deceased was last seen drunk in bars during a beer festival………. yards from a river … “

That is my paraphrasing of the events culminating in Mr. Homan`s death .

But they are an accurate summary of the coroners conclusions .

Are these creatures some sort of death harbingers?.....Or totally unrelated? Your guess is as good as mine.

If someone claiming to be a cryptid investigator engages in such spurious “ guess work “ in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary – from both local criminal and medical investigators , and

I for one am uncomfortable accepting their prior conclusions at face value – until they have been properly dissected

The prevalent opinion in LaCrosse , Wi is that the “deaths by drowning “ are eminently preventable ,

And can be addressed by responsible alcohol retailing , proactive policing and crowd management and safety barriers along the water front in Lacrosse

Bothstaff reporters , and letters to the editor voice these concerns and advocate preventative measures they claim till solve the problem

So why the hell is a “ cryptid investigator “ attempting to link these deaths to their case .

It is IMHO a very shoddy attempt to cast “ guilt by innuendo “ association ,

Why do idiots who purport to be “ cryptid investigators “ insist on poisoning their own well, by attempting to link such spurious unconnected events. Claiming that they are circumstantial evidence for their case, when there is zero evidence – even compelling evidence that another factor was the cause ??

Why ???

Originally posted by Gear
I do not consider this to be factual at all.
They sat in their car. Driving calmly, as you do. Then out of nowhere a beast flew right at their windshield. They continued to drive calmly, and did not swerve.
I don't car if you have nerves of steel. If something like that happened, you would swerve. When the creature flew away, they stopped, and got out of their car to be physically ill. The sight made them ill for several days to come.
Again, if you were disturbed enough to immediately be physically ill, let alone for several days, there would be no chance that you could remain calm enough to keep the car steady.

Witnesses claim that the creature looked like it was hungry. How can anyone who has never even seen this type of animal know that it was hungrey, just by a glimpes of it? Anyway, after an investigator arrived, along with a deer hunter (how convenient) They found a mutilated deer. It was not shot, cut up, or bitten. Just mutilated. Even though the creature was deemed hungry, it mutilated, but did not eat it's prey. Leaving it's head and torso, but taking or consuming the only the legs... This defies natural logic.

My conclusion? False.

But you have to remember that this is a unknown creature it could behave in different ways from a normal animal.
I see you point about the driver not swerving though most people swerve when a small bird or something hits the windshield let alone a big reptilian creature.
Also what could be so repulsive that it makes people physicaly ill like the site of a mutilated deer is standable but a reptile creature is not??
im gonna say false aswel it all seems like a typical haox sinario.