Comments on: Lake Erie Monster, 1887

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:47:49 +0000

Ok…here’s my proposal: A large sturgeon (silver dollar sized scales?!) afflicted with phosphorescent dinoflagellates being consumed in the shallows along the shore by large eels, lampreys or hagfish, which would be actively positioning themselves to eat and avoid the hardships of the terrestrial beach. The carcass, once reduced to just a trace, is washed back into the waves or dragged into the dunes.
Let’s not forget that these post-glacial lakes, the Great Lakes chief among them, are the remnant of a widely dispersed ecosystem largely gone now in our modern interglacial period and that the glacial period was not a brief climatic punctuation over our general natural history, but rather is the norm for the last few million years. What we imagine we see as normal and natural these days are in fact conditions that are non-normative for these geologically controlled glacial ages.

By: aastra

aastra — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:05:45 +0000

My first thought was of a gigantic catfish or similar such fish, and that the “arms’ were its feelers/barbels.

There have been other accounts of cryptid giant catfish in the great lakes, yes?

By: shovethenos

shovethenos — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:51:30 +0000

If the sighting was authentic there’s another explanation: It had legs and it wasn’t a fish. This is the 19th Century - many people weren’t educated or literate. So there’s a good chance the witnesses wouldn’t know how to determine what the animal was. Anything unusual that came from the water = some kind of fish.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:47:20 +0000

MM- I know. It’s an interesting exercise trying to think what these things might have been if the event actually happened. Let’s take the supposition in a different direction, while still entertaining the thought it was a real event. Let’s try the Jules Verne approach- It was a technological device misconstrued by frightened, excitable youngsters at night. Picture a Victorian High Tech version of one of our unmanned underwater exploration rovers. Torpedo/spindle shaped body, extendable ‘arms’ with probes of some kind, phosphorescent paint markings, and such.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:37:12 +0000

Of course you are quite right Ceroill and my contemplation over the arms is just entertaining the thought that this sighting ever happened at all. From what I understand, astounding newspaper articles of the day aren’t exactly known for their attention to fact.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:06:32 +0000

Ok, for fun let’s assume for now that this is not just a newspaper fantasy. What can we note-20 to 30 feet long, sturgeon shaped, wildly waving arms, phosphorescent, large scales. Thrashing about ‘in agony’. Apparently died then got washed out into the lake. The details just don’t seem to go together, in my mind. Phosphorescent? Arms? If it weren’t for the scales I might think it was a huge squid or octopus of some variety. I just can’t reconcile all the reported features as being part of the same thing. Perhaps the arms were lengths of rope or weed that were being tossed about as it writhed? Like I said this is assuming there’s anything at all to this. I have serious doubts.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:15:19 +0000

I wonder what the long arms were all about. Since there is a lack of detail regarding this feature, I find myself wondering if they ended in hands, claws, flippers, what? It would be very strange for a species of fish, if that’s what this even was, to have any sort of “arms”. Since the witnesses clearly thought they saw arms, this suggests to me that they saw these well enough to describe them as such. There are no fully aquatic species that have long arms like that, or anything that I would think could be mistaken as these. Tentacles maybe? That would be odd in it’s own right considering the freshwater setting and body like a sturgeon. Maybe it wasn’t a fully aquatic creature? What is with those arms?