It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Seen only yards away from a party of schoolchildren, the animal has a thick, shaggy coat, rounded ears and large front limbs which would be powerful enough to tear human flesh.
Disappointingly for those who possess a vivid imagination, the most likely explanation yesterday was that the Beast is nothing more supernatural than a large and hairy wild boar.
Originally posted by Esoterica
Um, that "enlargement" is a separate photo. This is an enlargement of the best in the photos with schoolchildren. It's obviously different from the first picture in the article. Different pose, shape, and foreground. One has a boulder, the other has a bush.
[edit on 7-31-2007 by Esoterica]
Originally posted by XHAZX
This is how I interpreted it..
Originally posted by Gemwolf
LoL! One of those forehead-slapping moments that make you go "Duh!"
Still - the newspaper (source of both pictures) doesn't claim it to be the same picture/beast... I wonder what's the story?
A photograph of an animal taken on Dartmoor is "almost certainly" not a big cat, according to a local expert.
The picture was taken by falconer Martin Whitley, who stumbled across the creature by accident near Hound Tor.
The area inspired Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles, but Mr Whitley said there was "definitely nothing supernatural" about the animal.
But Danny Bamping, founder of the British Big Cats Society, said he "just couldn't see it" being a big cat.
"I've studied the pictures and I just can't see it being a big cat," he told BBC News."
I wouldn't completely rule out a dog or a pony, but my money would be on a hairy wild boar".