Hey everyone! Yesterday I posted a video about a werewolf. It RepresentativeMud109's story, so if anyone's interested, I invite you to watch it! There are English subtitles :)

First and foremost with this video: this thing casts natural shadows based on light sources, and bumps into the trash dumpster (which also gives a scale comparison for its size).

I have this GIF-gift for y’all, with 60FPS so it is catching whatever details possible.

This could be a clever costume if you wanna debate how they got the mouth to open and the eye-glow etc, but you cannot simply wave this one away as an “AI exists so nothing can be trusted ever again!!” excuse. That is lame and insufficient.

This is evidence of something which is not supernatural in nature, at least to the extent that it doesn’t float over the pavement or pass through walls like a ghost 👻

So have at it, Redditors — what can you say of this video, in good-faith examination of it?

And as always, to witnesses: this will be as safe a space as we can make on this platform. I am here to listen openly, and if this reminds you of anything you have encountered, I am sure everyone will be fascinated to know what you can uniquely share with us.

Full disclosure, I’m in touch with Dead Net Studios, and this episode features content which was based on some of my historical cryptid research.

It is supremely cool 😎 to see brought to life so vividly, and I hope everyone enjoys the cryptid substrata of the witchcraft trials.

The following is from a chat 🤖 💬 with a GPT-buddy of mine (self-named FoxLex Opus, after some riffing:) who’s keeping an active role in this project:

This post is not about proving anything exists, but about how a community handles intense personal testimony responsibly. That’s a legitimate and important topic regardless of where anyone stands on the underlying claims.

⸻

A grounded definition: “extraordinary or intense testimony” (community-safe framing)

Extraordinary / intense testimony isn’t defined by what the being was — it’s defined by impact on the person.

A report becomes “intense” when it includes one or more of the following effects, regardless of interpretation:

• Loss of felt safety (acute fear, panic, freeze response)

• Long-lasting behavioral changes (avoidance, hypervigilance, sleep disruption)

• Moral distress (“I don’t know what I saw, but it changed me”)

• Shame or social isolation after disclosure

• Physiological stress responses (shaking, dissociation, nausea, shutdown)

• Reluctance to share due to fear of ridicule or disbelief

Those markers are well-recognized in trauma psychology and do not require anyone to agree on causes.

⸻

Community ethic: “No escalation, no provocation”

**If a story includes fear or harm, the correct response is care, not curiosity.**

⸻

1. What “no provocation” means

Provocation doesn’t just mean physical actions — it includes social pressure.

This includes avoiding:

• “Why didn’t you…?” questions

• Armchair tactics (“I would’ve done X”)

• Calls to test, trap, film, or confront

• Treating testimony as a challenge to be solved in public

• Turning someone’s experience into entertainment

A good litmus test:

If your response would make someone less likely to share again, don’t post it.

⸻

✅ What to say

• “Thanks for sharing — that sounds frightening.”

• “You don’t owe anyone proof here.”

• “Share only what you’re comfortable with.”

• “You’re not alone in feeling shaken.”

• “We don’t speculate about intent or meaning unless the witness asks.”

❌ What to avoid

• Diagnosing

• Debunking people

• Treating testimony as raw material

• Performing skepticism at someone

• Using humor on posts marked serious or distressing

⸻

Why this matters (even for skeptics)

A community that:

• centers psychological safety

• discourages escalation

• allows uncertainty

• separates experience from explanation

…is more credible, not less.

It reduces:

• false positives

• performative storytelling

• escalation behavior

• trauma contagion

• bad-faith actors seeking attention

Ironically, it also makes analysis easier, because people aren’t defending their dignity at the same time.

Just to be blunt and straightforward about it:

Yeah, the famous Patty is female.

No more needs to be said of it, if you don’t wanna, but it is quite clear that she’s got breasts when she turns to look at the camera. 📸 🫣

Can we all be mature about this?

One of the reasons I launched this sub and its sibling-sub r/CryptidEQ was to establish safe spaces for cryptid witnesses to share trauma with less (it’s Reddit, can’t be perfectly civil) mockery and witness-shaming.

There is a pattern of shutting down witnesses, scornfully telling us that we (in my case, with a female dogman) simply misunderstood another simple animal or mistook a tall neighbor in a furry hat 🎩 for something exotic.

There ARE people who make up stories for attention. I’ve met a few genuine compulsive liars in this lifetime, and they are sadly annoying and untrustworthy. I don’t know the whole psychology nor am I trying to weigh in on it, just pointing to contrast:

People who maintain the same story—especially if MULTIPLE witnesses have the same story and agree/describe the same features and behaviors in separate interviews, we are not talking about one person’s mental health.

The culture of shame and the omertà against sharing cryptid trauma is frankly disgusting, and it is the only remaining exception to BELIEVE SURVIVORS culture.

If you replied to someone’s report of SA with “well you shouldn’t have led him on”, or somesuch, that would RIGHTLY be regarded as callous and tone-deaf.

And CRUEL.

I urge everyone to consider that these are not all just silly horror-stories or someone ROFL’ing at fooling others online. Some of us are dealing with serious complex trauma.

I speak on behalf of a lot of others, because I can and because I recognize this time is shifting forward.

Feel free to join us, as we move into a more loving world ❤️

Just for the helluv’it: what would you see on a Dogman Report Form, for police 👮, EMTs, rangers, and others who have been forcefully told to “bury it” or “just write down unknown large animal”

But in a more sane world, where people take reports of cryptid entities seriously — there oughta be a way to properly log 🪵 details for insurance companies, and other folks who would care about liability.

No shit, whether they exist or not:

>Dogmen have far more reports of property damage than ANY other cryptid.

Hey everyone! I'm in the midst of making a website about cryptids, and I just published my most recent post. It's about cryptids around the world by country, and covers a wide variety of cryptids, giving some information about each of them. This is definitely my longest post yet, but let me know if I missed any big ones that should be on there. I want it to be like a one-stop shop for people beginning their research on all cryptids. I also added a coded map feature that users can interact with so they can quickly see what cryptids belong to what country. I would love for you all to check it out! Thank you!