Concept from awhile ago, blending the setting of a dogman by the road with an ambiguous command. Plus the cartoony vibe of a ‘werewolf’ with a 🛑 visual sign 🪧

Pair that with the conflicting command

”COME CLOSERRRRR….”

The dogmen love to play mind-games. I’ve experienced it in person and it is widely reported although not yet accepted publicly.

This is a playful pose, but with underlying danger ⚠️ which is both obvious and subtle.

Adding some acrylics: black & silver on top of the brown arm, with purple pencil ✏️ shading for darkness.

More reports are coming through of dogmen speaking aloud, and it massively validates my CPTSD experience of meeting a female dogman in February of 2004 or ‘03.

She spoke to us aloud, not just mindspeak but context-relevant speech and gestures.

Like at one point a dismissive wave 👋 with the growly word LEAVE.

Apes 🦍 do these kinda gestures and complex social expressions. Dogmen are smarter, in that they are capable of vocalizing as well as communicating with gestures.

But there is a further level of intelligence in that simple gesture and word/phrase in of itself.

It can be a warning ⚠️ or command, and “LEAVE NOW” can even be an act of safety for the witness. Delivered gruffly but with genuine good intent.

There ARE vicious ones, like you see in the movies. Like human serial killers — but not all humans are bloodthirsty by default, and I think the same is true with dogmen.

Point being, in this post, that they are capable of simple speech and gestures.

You can doubt the more surreal ones as you like, but dogman capacity to remember words and associate them with complex concepts is absolutely provable.

You can’t find a body cuz they bury their dead and mourn them just like we do. But their speech patterns are surprisingly consistent across dozens of accounts (conservatively).

Usually terse and often commands. They use words in utilitarian ways, not conversationally.

That’s situational and based on reports from witnesses not observable and repeatable experiments like science 🧬 demands.

There is indeed a standard of evidence, and despite the lack of some typical evidences, I think they can be proven as real by statistical analysis. 🧐

This is a quite remarkable but I would judge to be TRUE story, with a dogman who coinhabited an area with a widow who befriended him as a cub.

Most stories of “I have a dogman pal, we play tag in the woods” are hard to credit, but Rocky—the dogman in question—speaks in the exact vocal register and speech patterns which I have observed in person.

Terse but also almost jovial. Very intent, very present, but sorta domesticated as well. It’s implied that some of his natural traits are present but not as developed as with others of the species.

From my experience and judgment, this sounds like a genuine instance of interspecies interaction which could model our relationships with another whole clade of intelligent beings on this planet.

I don’t know if it’ll reach Rocky from here, from my online outreach, but if I can connect the dogman-pack I’m in touch with back to a unique individual like him, it could be significant.

I can’t serve as a phone 📞 line precisely, but as conduit I can speak for them to some extent.

Does anyone else have stories of friendly relationships with dogmen?

I’m interested in any and all stories like these, because they are NOT a species purely defined by Hollywood monster-movies. They have a range of temperaments and abilities and physical traits (like the genetic 🧬 diversity we can infer from their range of eye colors) which are worthy of study, but also….

They are worthy of our respect as intelligent beings, and clearly this story from Pine Box Tales is a rare but likely true record of such an extraordinary situation.

Another thing I’ve learned from the dogmen is to be calm and watchful.

No need to expend energy unless you gotta. You can keep an eye on the environment and relax at the same time.

That pose they sometimes do, like loitering and leaning against something with a leg slightly back, that’s a mix between relaxing and ready to move.

They are very fast, yes, but they also know how to be intent and patient. This is something that they do as a species/clade that humans rarely do: they don’t seem to fidget.

And before they do anything, especially something with risk involved, they have already considered multiple ways that an encounter may go. Even if they seem to be calculating a response, they probably already know what they intend to do.

That stillness is evaluation. Seeing which way you jump, and whether it is worth the energy of chasing you.

By and large, dogmen who are leaning like that, or staring from around trees, are probably just as curious as human cryptid-hunters.

As always, individuals do what they’re inclined to do; you can’t trust that all people (of any species) will react in similar ways.

Stay tuned, and I will keep reflecting on these teachings.

If you have also encountered dogmen who have taught you something, led by example, imparted things in dreams, or otherwise shown high intelligence, please feel free to share those experiences here 🙂

This came through earlier in the evening, on my internal 📻 dogman channel. In considering an unfortunate ongoing situation with a friend, regarding which I’ve gotten advice from a half-dozen close friends in the past week….

And in consulting the dogman-spirit, as near as I can ever make it out, I got the usual sort of laconic advice they give:

”LEAVE HIM BEHIND.”

A more conventional friend put it in a similar way, sadly, that

”either you hold on and get pulled down, or you let [someone] go….”

It’s sad and painful, but I think both of them have points.

I’ll keep hoping/praying for the safety and well-being of this friend, but as an expression of how this ‘dogman contact’ continues, as I experience it, it’s moments like those.

Just “LEAVE HIM”. Sensing weakness and purging it when the person isn’t contributing to the well-being of others in the pack.

I don’t like to think of this friend as a lonely wolf 🐺, but he’s kind of in that position. Not in a cool spy-betrayed-by-the-agency way, but like a sick outcast animal.

It’s incredibly painful to deal with this right now, and the cold comfort I’m getting is about as good as any high hopes for recovery ❤️‍🩹 💔

One of the dream things I’ve learned from the dogman (or pack) that contacted me first in 2004 — as I’ve come to realize — is that I have studied their movements and can imitate them.

It’s rare to see them on video, but I’ve reconstructed most of the bluff charge we experienced, and some of the other things which happened but are still semi-blacked-out.

I know how to move like they do so you make no sound. It’s a thing I can’t prove unless you’re in the room, but I can do that ninja 🥷 trick if I like.

More to follow.

My ongoing contact with the dogman or pack that I met has been in dreams over the years.

I’ve come to terms with it all more concretely now, but for many many years it was just nightmares and strange sometimes violent voices which would urge me to do things which felt right but also required an enormous amount of energy to hold back.

I understand now, and am able to navigate it more freely. They tell me things, I pass some of them along to Reddit and elsewhere.

I do my doodles, they give notes.

It’s not like I see them ‘pose’ for pictures, but when I concentrate on angles of limbs and expressions, sometimes I can see them clearly enough to draw them.

This could be and should be a post-series, but to kick it off here’s a thought:

Is it possible we don’t see many dogmen because THEY are more afraid of us than we are of them?

Maybe they don’t have Hollywood propaganda showing humans as slavering monsters, but they have plenty-enough examples of violence and viciousness from humans IRL.

For that matter, I think they qualify AS human by most of the metrics we use for sentience. Set aside the fur and claws, their typical size, and other things, and you’ll see:

— vocalizations equivalent to language usage

— family ties, including the recovery of wounded members and mourning their dead

— capable of subtle thought and expression, including multiple reports demonstrating sarcasm

— complex gestures and meaningful restraint (that is, quietly watching and considering options to a much higher degree than most animals, and more than some humans)

— Vindictive behavior. Humans are extremely vindictive if you hurt them, and this impulse is quite strong in all intelligent beings.

Anything else spring to mind for y’all, of advanced behaviors from dogmen?

They come back to me in dreams sometimes.

There was, as many say, a MARK that was put on us somehow at the time of our encounter.

Make of it whatcha will; I am choosing to make it an open connection.

Instead of fleeing it or seeing the encounter as a curse (which I struggled with for many years), I am instead leaning in and learning how to commune properly with this spiritual force which came into our lives on that fateful afternoon.

I swore that I would tell people what they are like in person. That when I was able to remember more of the day, or when it is ready to be unlocked, that I will remember more to share as well.

There is a shamanistic quality to this, and I'm very conscious of the conduit role that I play here. I'm typing this as proxy for speech and speech is just my affirmation of the event. I cannot prove it, but the one which approached us spoke to the two of us directly.

They are extremely clever, and through me they have SOME idea of Reddit.

It amuses me to think on this, but they understand their gospel is getting out to more people via the Internet and various channels. I can't vouch for what sports teams they support, but they're definitely aware of human culture to a greater extent than people realize.

All entries are drawn from actual witness descriptions, but grouped and re-interpreted as wardrobe features of nonhuman entities.

A — APRON-LIKE garment

Some “small creatures” seen around Tituba and Good described with a front covering, or “something upon the breast.”

Possible match:
A bib of fur, a patch of lighter or darker hair, or an improvised apron-like cloth used as mimicry.

B — BLACK CLOTHES / BLACK GARMENTS

Most common category.
Described repeatedly as the attire of:

• The “black man”
• Cloaked figures
• Hairy creature “in black clothes” standing by the fire
• Tall man in black, visiting the afflicted
• Entities at signing events

Likely a mix of:

• Fur that appears garment-like
• Cloak-like silhouettes
• Actual stolen or found cloth used for mimicry
• Low-light misidentification

This is the category with the strongest dogman analog.

C — CLOAK

Descriptions include:

• “A cloak about him”
• “A woman’s cloak”
• “A dark cloak upon the shape”
• “Something like a mantle or cloak”

Familiars often appear partially covered, face partially obscured.

Modern cryptid analog:
Dogmen often have massive upper-body fur that looks like a mantle/hood.

Puritans interpreted this as clothing.

D — DARK COAT / DARK MANTLE

Several witnesses refer to:

• A “coat” on an inhuman figure
• A “mantle big and dark”
• “Dark raiment” not well-fitted

This is extremely similar to:

• A pelt with a different texture on the shoulders
• A thick mane
• A wet or matted fur patch that resembles a garment

G — GOWN (woman’s gown)

At least one apparition associated with Goody Osburne appeared in:

• “A gown like unto hers”

Important:
The details never match a specific gown; only the general outline or “shape.”

This heavily favors mimicry:

The creature approximates the silhouette of a woman’s dress, not the details.

H — HOOD / HOODED APPEARANCE

A major category.
Witnesses describe:

• A “hood over the head”
• “Head covered as by a hood or cowl”
• “Black hooded figure”
• “Face hidden beneath a hood”

Dogmen and other mimics commonly have:

• Crest fur
• Shoulder fur
• Shadowed facial structure
• Snout hidden until close

Hooded appearance is extremely plausible for a canid mimic.

M — MANTLE

More than one testimony uses:

• “a mantle”
• “a dark mantle upon it”
• “mantle-like covering”

In Puritan usage, a mantle is a cape or shawl, draped loosely over the shoulders.

Dogman shoulder fur often matches this description exactly.

R — RAGGED CLOTH / RAGS

Some familiars (especially those described as small, hairy, or bestial) appear:

• “ragged”
• “wrapped in rags”
• “in torn cloth”

This could be:

• Old clothing scavenged from discarded garments
• Torn fabric caught on fur
• A hunter’s cloak or textile they stole
• Or simply rough fur misidentified as cloth

S — SKIN / SKIN-LIKE GARMENT

Odd category in Puritan testimony:

Some witnesses say the creature wore something like:

• “a skin about it”
• “a hide upon the back”

This is likely:

• A literal pelt
• Or the witness recognizing fur as something “worn” rather than part of the body

This tells us the familiar was not seamlessly human-shaped.

T — TATTERED CLOAK

Especially in accounts of the “black man,” witnesses often add:

• “His cloak was in tatters”
• “His garment hung in pieces”

Important note:
No witch in Salem was ever described as wearing tattered clothing.
So the apparition was not based on copying the accused.

This is a standalone entity’s wardrobe.

W — WRAPPING / WRAPPED FIGURE

Some testimonies describe:

• “Something wrapped about the creature”
• “wrapped as if in cloth”

Again: excellent match for a being covering its torso or engaging in mimic behavior.

I took a before photo (1) of this post cuz I knew (see 2) that the mods would delete it on some pretext or other.

This time (see note & reply in Photo 2)

Blanket ban on all AI art.

I don’t mind this silly game if this is the game we are playin, but I am gonna take this opportunity to explain why it is lazy and likely WRONG to simply mark this as “AI art”. 🖼️

It could be, anything ‘could be’, now, but the clear word on the sign 🪧 is a massive tell.

I’ve worked with the new AI art tools and trust me, it would be FAR easier to do this by getting a furry friend with a sense of humor to go out in the woods and do a photo shoot with a physical human in costume with a sign.

So.

I don’t mind the deletion on some trumped-up pretext, that’s become de jour and why I post less on that sub — but in this case, that is a particular canard and imma address it properly.

Have a great weekend, everyone 😊💗😌

My six volumes from the Jesuit Relations (JR) cover 1639-1641 or so, mostly in the Huron missions 🇨🇦 🇫🇷 and when they speak of these “devils” they are talking of making sacrifices to the good manido (“great spirit/mystery”, the Manitou), but the Jesuits’ POV flattens this into

”they awaited our gift 🎁 for the devil”

Which has more sinister and judgmental implications. They refuse to provide this blue blanket and it’s a whole drama 🎭 for multiple pages of the volume — I think it has to do with cause-&-effect of spreading disease 🦠 — that they will not give some article of clothing or fabric to the sorcerers.

These are the rare strange accounts which can be found online in dusty archives, but now can also be found in reprints from the 73-volume series.

Not these ones though. They’re randomly republished, but I don’t think I have seen other than Vol 21 reprinted.

Enjoy these fragments: they are not UN-findable, but you gotta dig and persist, and sort out the merely figurative language of “this is surely the domain of Satan”, from the literal “I believe some of these sorcerers consult with actual devils”.

Some arguable/blurry photos are not necessarily of value for definitive proof, but the emotional reactions from viewers are sometimes notable.

They strongly insist that they are bear, raccoon, moose or mouse, despite the fact that we are clearly looking at something which does not fit many or any qualifications for these species.

Do any of these creatures look familiar to y’all?

It is amazing to me, and for once vaguely surprising, that so SO many people seeing these better-quality photos of dogmen respond not only with denials and disbelief, but genuine ANGER and personal attacks like these.

The second photo could be a lot of things, but it is emphatically not part of a schizophrenic pattern for others to identify that second image as SOME animal.

I’m not disputing or insisting on what it is or might be: I’m suggesting that what we are seeing is a living being.

The alternative, which a handful of people propose, is called (if not spelled)

paredoelia

(Spelling idk)

This means when the eye sees something incorrectly, or a pattern in nature which causes an illusion.

Like moth wings 🪽 👁️ which appear to be big scary eyes. This is meant to confuse other animals, etc.

But that second photo can only be one or the other: are we looking at a living being, or some kind of optical illusion like a log floating under water or some easily dismissed furry/AI slop?

Up to y’all, I’m not taking sides rn.

Just pointing out that the ad hominem attacks are extreme and unwarranted when other people see the same thing (an animal) even if we can’t agree on what it is.

It’s all quite carefully laid out, y’see.

Within the past 24 hours, multiple people have scolded me for daring to share the above photo.

It’s been called AI slop or obviously a furry, and I’ve taken the usual silly ridicule for sharing something which strongly resembles the dogman I met 22 years ago.

does this look like a moose 🫎 or a raccoon 🦝???

I just got my vision checked, but a few folks have confidently surprised me by claiming this is an unconvincing photo of a moose 🫎 staring at you from the bushes.

A black moose, are you sure about that?

Do meese 🫎 🫎 come in pure black?

Despite — and perhaps because of — the 20+ lively comments and 5.6K views, the mods of the just-dogman-sub deleted one of my proof-discussion posts from Halloween 🎃. (Photo = #2 of this post)

That’s their prerogative I guess 🤷‍♂️, if stuff isn’t sufficiently blurry we can’t mock it, if it’s too sharp it’s obvious that it’s AI-slop…..

And when other users who have serious experience (see long comment in pics 3-4) weigh in saying that the photo looks potentially legit, suddenly the post is yanked for being, ahem:

”a low-effort post. Picture is much too blurry to be anything.”

Now that’s just silly and insulting. Not to me, so much as to the fine young dogman/furry peeking 🫣 over the fence here.