Some of the mysterious blobs and what not could have been new species, but look at what we know and don’t know. We know that animal carcasses can undergo dramatic transformations in appearance due to decomposition and the work of scavengers. We don’t know whether there are new giant octopuses or other “sea monsters” at this point in time.

In light of this, any new mysterious carcass that washes up has to be held up to this, and it has to be investigated with the knowledge that it could indeed be something more mundane. What I mentioned in my post above is that I think that any proof we gather has to be done in a scientific way, mindful of what nature has up its sleeve with regards to things like decomposition and such.

I would never dismiss a mysterious carcass out of hand, but I do think there has to be a scientific approach and a realization that carcasses can and do change appearance due to various factors. I think that where cryptozoology will have a harder time is not in getting the proof, but doing it in the right way.

We shouldn’t dismiss the idea that these globsters could be new creatures, but neither can we assume that they are in light of everything we know about the effects of decomposition on animal carcasses. Science can entertain the unknown, but we also have to contend with the known, in this case decomposition and the effects of scavengers. I would rather find the truth and lean towards what we know in the absence of further evidence than assume something carelessly without evidence to that effect.

In my opinion the problem facing cryptozoology is not in getting the proof. If done properly, it won’t matter if someone wants to dismiss the findings because we will have come to those findings in a legitimate and indisputable scientific way. Where cryptozoology can have a bigger problem is jumping to conclusions that something like a globster is mysterious without considering that it may not be. If we want to be taken seriously as a field, this is crucial, it’s something we must do.

I say if we can investigate these globsters through samples, then yes let’s do so. However, let’s not come to premature conclusions without doing so. Careful, yet open minded, that’s the way to go in my opinion.

And scoftics and civilians wonder why cryptozoology has such a hard time getting proof of things…

Not only decomposition, but the work of scavengers can go a long way towards drastically changing the appearance of an animal carcass. For instance, scavengers generally start with eating away the soft tissues, such as lips, which can change the appearance to quite a striking degree.

The process of decomposition and the work of scavengers can turn the carcass of a known, mundane animal into something that appears to be something new or mysterious, and this has popped up in cryptozoology time and time again. We have the globsters mentioned here (probably almost all whales) as well as things like the “Montauk Monster” (raccoon), the famous Japanese Zuiyo-Maru “plesiosaur” carcass (most likely a basking shark), and a myriad of other cases involving what turned out to be various decomposed dogs, whales, basking sharks, and other animals.

Of course in these days of DNA testing and other more exacting scientific techniques for identifying such carcasses we can more accurately come to an understanding of what is going on. However, in the days before such innovations, there were most likely a great many strange carcasses found that were labelled as new and mysterious monsters that could have in all likelihood been decomposed mundane animals.

Likewise, one wonders how many such animals even in more modern times were uncovered and the carcasses not able to be procured for proper study. In such cases it is easy to imagine even now these animals could garner a reputation for being mysterious new animals when in fact they may just be misidentified due to their strange appearance. It always seems prudent to me to hold off on pronouncing any seemingly strange carcass as being a “monster” or something new until we can adequately confirm that one way or another.

In both instances, we may never know the real answer to what these things were, so it is neat to see that in a case like the age old tales of globsters, at least we have looked deeply into the matter and come to some answers. It may not be the “sexy” answer of new sea monsters that we all hope for, but at least we are getting to the truth and that is what I should hope all us at Cryptomundo would want.