They made a movie loosely based on the Beast of Gevaudan, "The Brotherhood of the Wolf."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_the_Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_the_Wolf
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
History Channel - Beast of Gevaudan
- Thread starter The_Shootist
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
bigalexe
Member
As has been stated regarding ammunition: In the 1700's they probably were using round ball muskets/pistols or blunderbuss guns. This means that talking about rifling is pretty much way off target (excuse the bad pun) for this test.
Also as far as aggressiveness goes not long ago (I believe in the last month) there was a hiker killed by a wolf in a Nova Scotia provincial park. So wolves can be aggressive.
On a side note that ventures away from the physical: The theory is that what kills a werewolf about the silver is the metal itself coming into contact with the monster. Also werewolves of myth are reputably large creatures normally larger than man although represented as being thin around the waist area. This means that hitting a werewolf would not require much accuracy. What also helps about the element killing the wolf is that it doesn't matter where you hit the monster so its an even easier shot.
Also as far as aggressiveness goes not long ago (I believe in the last month) there was a hiker killed by a wolf in a Nova Scotia provincial park. So wolves can be aggressive.
On a side note that ventures away from the physical: The theory is that what kills a werewolf about the silver is the metal itself coming into contact with the monster. Also werewolves of myth are reputably large creatures normally larger than man although represented as being thin around the waist area. This means that hitting a werewolf would not require much accuracy. What also helps about the element killing the wolf is that it doesn't matter where you hit the monster so its an even easier shot.
doodle bug
Member
Hi . Yes i have to admit i am that werewolf !!! i moved up north 239 years ago to escape the media coverage !!!! damn television / newspapers. Never been able to sit down proper since i caught a couple of pure silver .44 magnum slugs in the rump ???? when i retired from serial killing i took a job as a truck driver!! less hours/ more money. IF YOU BELIVE THIS THEN YOU REALLY DO BELIVE IN WEREWOLFS. HA HA HA
Last edited:
Cosmoline,
Do you have links detailing these attacks?
The circs are important.
Generally speaking, human proximity to wolves does not automatically result in attacks. And, when a wolf attacks a human it should be examined to determine why it took place. "Because wolves are toothy predators!", raises more questions than it answers to folks who aren't steeped in myths or superstition.
No one questions why cougars attack people, but when a red fox bites someone the first step is to rule out rabies.
I submit that the same scrutiny should be afforded to any alleged wolf attack. In this day and age (and in areas where wolves' preferred eats are plentiful and competition from other predators is minimal) "foul smelling humans" don't get billing on the menu of healthy wolves.
And, because the "balance of nature" is now a footnote in history there are (in many areas) too many predators and too much disease that is too easily spread, and a wolf attacking a human warrants more than cursory investigation or mere acceptance as resulting from the critters' nature.
EDIT: See next post
Do you have links detailing these attacks?
The circs are important.
Generally speaking, human proximity to wolves does not automatically result in attacks. And, when a wolf attacks a human it should be examined to determine why it took place. "Because wolves are toothy predators!", raises more questions than it answers to folks who aren't steeped in myths or superstition.
No one questions why cougars attack people, but when a red fox bites someone the first step is to rule out rabies.
I submit that the same scrutiny should be afforded to any alleged wolf attack. In this day and age (and in areas where wolves' preferred eats are plentiful and competition from other predators is minimal) "foul smelling humans" don't get billing on the menu of healthy wolves.
And, because the "balance of nature" is now a footnote in history there are (in many areas) too many predators and too much disease that is too easily spread, and a wolf attacking a human warrants more than cursory investigation or mere acceptance as resulting from the critters' nature.
EDIT: See next post
Last edited:
HOUNDDAWG wrote:
HOUNDDAWG says:
According to this link http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html you are correct and there are many wolf attacks in North America.
It's been suggested that some wildlife officials are reluctant to accept the data and they refuse to recognize the attacks unless strict evidentiary criteria are met.
So, I dunno now....
At least one modern researcher claims that there are no verified cases in modern times of wolves attacking humans in the US except one and that unfortunate soul was wearing a fur coat and hat, it was during a snowstorm, and it was likely a good faith error on the wolf's part and it didn't kill the victim.
__________________Cosmoline replied with:
That's not true. A kid was bit up here a few years back. And a fellow was killed in Canada.
HOUNDDAWG says:
According to this link http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html you are correct and there are many wolf attacks in North America.
It's been suggested that some wildlife officials are reluctant to accept the data and they refuse to recognize the attacks unless strict evidentiary criteria are met.
So, I dunno now....
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 948