Comments on: Hairy Monster Kills Whales 1923

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 03:03:16 +0000

Well, I’m naturally suspicious of “Globsters”, but I seem to recall some reports that placed the creature in the sea and swimming about, maybe I was wrong, as I was with the Mays Landing Kangaroo source…Looks like I have to check my resources again…

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:18:27 +0000

I’ve never understood why anyone in cryptozoology took this story seriously. The “other reports” of hairy things washed ashore, when they could be checked at all, have turned out to be identifable (if decomposing) sea creatures. Charles Fort, writing much closer to the time of the newspaper story, was unable to verify anything about it.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:15:45 +0000

I had always found this incident quite amazing and fantastical, and although it always retained a certain fascination for me, I could never bring myself to quite believe it…that is, until I heard the other reports. That even one other person would report a beast as implausable as this lends weight to its existence. I haven’t a clue as to what it is, nor how it could hide from man as well as it does, but I am much more confident now that such a thing may be lurking in the depths even now…

By: cradossk

cradossk — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 02:22:08 +0000

Haven’t there been some very similar sightings, one in south Australia I think, then one by a scientist in the artic (I think Alaska?) who found a one frozen in a glacier?

By: One Eyed Cat

One Eyed Cat — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:10:54 +0000

That is an interesting variation on the Trunko story. I understood The whales did the killing although the description of the strange animal is very close to what I have heard

By: TemplarKnight21c

TemplarKnight21c — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:13:24 +0000

Sounds like some sort of mutant jellyfish or something to me. Far-fetched, possibly, but definitely possible and plausible. The fur and snout indicate mammalian origins, although, to have escaped detection up to that point, and after that point, it would have to be able to hide underwater longer than sperm whales, as well as dive deeper (which is quite long and deep), or live in the deep sea. The former is more likely, I think.

By: Scarfe

Scarfe — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:11:24 +0000

A bizzare description, although from the details, I have a hard time imagining what this headless thing would look like. Too bad there is no indication how something with no head and possibly no arms (does it have flippers or something?) could kill two whales or for what reason.

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 15:07:35 +0000

As Researchers, what can we learn from today’s stories about poorly-described “wolves”, “whale-killers” and “dodus”?

IMAGERY.

What if Mr. Fowler had taken the time, during his night at the hotel, to sketch the animal he had encountered in the road? What if Mr. Ballance had attached detailed drawings to the measurements he took from the recuperating “white-haired monster”?

See how much more successful all our efforts can be when locals can compare sketches, drawings and now, photographs?

SO? So, encourage a witness to immediately sit down and draw whatever image he or she can recall, to add as many details and notes and side inserts and comments as possible! Even if the encounter or sighting occurred many years ago, just discussing the event can create marvelous recall!

Also, keep film or chips IN the camera until they can be “downloaded” in a safe and controllable environment!

Add to the graphic data-base, and always carry a camera ~ always!

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:07:12 +0000

I know. Isn’t that incredible?

Goes to show, I guess, that some people just don’t have their priorities properly aligned.

By: stompy

stompy — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:03:16 +0000

remembered an appointment?

Oh look a monster! Well I must be toddling along then…