Comments on: Chilean Blob Mirrored St. Augustine Monster

By: MattBille

MattBille — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:44:46 +0000

The octopus tissue identification was by Roy Mackal in the 80s, followed by Eugenie Clark and others reidentifying it as blubber, followed by Richard Ellis among others protesting they were ignoring the physical question of how a giant featureless mass could result from a whale carcass, followed by the Chilean example demonstrating that it could happen… I think the St. Augustine carcass falls into the category of “probably but not quite definitely explained.”

By: sonofthedestroyer

sonofthedestroyer — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 06:55:04 +0000

What does whale blubber look and feel like? If it is fat, then it should be lot less rubbery and solid than the St Augustine and Chilean carcasses. Unless blubber has some other qualities to it that I am not aware of. Here is a video which shows two scientists giving contradicting information on the St Augustine monster. Was on the Monsterquest episode.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:50:15 +0000

I’ll give you the similarities in appearance, but similarities does not mean conclusive. I’m also going on the evidence that the tissue tested was said to be octopus tissue.

And while technology has gotten better, I remember reading that initially the St. Augustine globster was thought to be the rotting carcass of a whale too, but that upon looking the mass over, there was enough doubt that tissue samples were taken and examined. The end result is that even in 1938, it was determined that the tissue was not whale, but octopus.

Did they make a mistake back then? While it may be possible, the examiner of the tissue was confident enough to make the distinction between whale blubber and octopus flesh–there was obviously some discrepency between the tissue sample and whale blubber.

That’s why the St. Augustine carcass stands out for me–and so far, I’m not convinced that it was whale blubber.