by Chris Parker, Copyright 2008 by s8int.com
Approximately 100 years ago, “one of the most remarkable scientific discoveries ever made” was reported from the “wilds” of New Guinea. Setting aside the hyperbole, a “prehistoric monster” much larger than an elephant had been discovered and encountered not by common folks like me and you, but by “scientists”. Well, British scientists, just for the sake of full disclosure.
New Guinea is and was a huge Island north of Australia, the home itself of some fairly unusual fauna. In addition, the scientists had come across a "marvelous race of pigmies" who averaged just over four feet in height.
The huge mammal was at that time in the process of decimating that tribe of pigmies “discovered” by British scientists.
According to the article in the Stevens Point, Wisconsin, Gazette, published August 31, 1910: "The expedition was sent out by a committee appointed by the British Ornithologist's union to explore the great Snow mountains in Dutch New Guinea, and consists of several famous scientists, headed by Walter Goodfellow, the naturalist."
Returning to the pigmies for a moment, what is interesting about them is that in the same Islands, but in a different location were the “typical Paupuans”, who averaged just over seven feet in height. Clearly, the two populations had become separated genetically, one group destined to excel as jockeys and the others in the NBA.
"According to the official reports, the Gazeka is of gigantic size and fearsome aspect. It is black and white striped, has the nose of a tapir and "a face like the devil."
Among the English inhabitants of the island, the animal is known as Monckton's Gazeka, in honor of Mr. C. A. W. Monckton, a former explorer In New Guinea, who first reported its presence in the mountains.
Mr. Monckton, during his ascent of Mount Albert Edward, in the west of British New Guinea, discovered the huge footprints and other indications of the very recent presence of some tremendous monster that had evidently been prowling on the grassy plains surrounding the lakes on the summit at an elevation of about 12,500 feet.
He followed the trail all day, and came upon the monster at dusk, just as it was devastating a settlement of the pigmies.
The little natives were screaming and running for their lives, although they turned every now and again to aim their poisoned arrows at the brute.
Monckton let fire as soon as he was able to get in a proper position, and the huge Gazeka at once turned upon him. As it reared upon its hind legs and pawed the air it looked to the hunter as big as a house, standing fully 25 feet high.
Two of Monckton's bullets seemed to take effect, as a stream of blood flowed freely from the animal's shoulder, but before Monckton was able to reload the animal turned and fled. By that time it was too dark to follow him, and Monckton never had another opportunity to renew his pursuit.
None of the inhabitants was brave enough to repeat Monckton's attempt to capture the brute and until the British expedition reached New Guinea he has prowled around with impunity, occasionally descending upon the rudimentary huts of the pigmies and destroying those who failed to fly in time.
The British explorers were aware of Monckton's experience, and in fact, it is believed that one of the principal objects of the expedition was to secure a specimen of the strange monster".
Number one, that you probably never heard of it. Scientists discover and view a gigantic, unknown “prehistoric”, “dinosaur”, supposedly extinct millions of years ago, along with physical evidence of its existence in the form of gigantic footprints and yet the story is not commonly known.
If in fact the story was better known, it should have had the impact of forcing science to be a little more circumspect before immediately identifying every supposed eyewitness sighting of a “monster” as a decayed basking shark or a figment of someone’s imagination.
At the very least, the skeptics might be good enough to wait until some of the evidence is in.
The second thing that stinks about this story is the proximity of the pigmies of this story and other pigmy encounters in New Guinea to the area where the bones of the “Hobbit” were discovered.
If the average height of these pigmies was just over four feet, then obviously, some of them were below four feet tall and some of them were undoubtedly, well below average (some above the average as well). No one suggested at that time that they might be “Hobbits”, (Homo floresienses) a completely separate human species. The lastest salvo in that paradigm against paradigm war was fired here.
"On April 25, 1977, the Japanese fishing vessel Zuiyo-Maru - while trawling in waters about 30 miles east of Christchurch, New Zealand - caught in its nets the 4,000 pound carcass of an unknown animal.
While dragging for mackerel at depth of approximately 1,000 feet, the crew of the Zuiyo-Maru (and for a short time the executives of the Taiyo Fishery Company) suddenly found themselves the unwitting owners of the most astounding cryptozoological find of the 20th century.
The massive creature was brought aboard ship and then hoisted above the deck. At first the badly decayed corpse was thought to be that of a whale or possibly a giant turtle who's shell had been removed, but quickly talk on the Zuiyo-Maru soon began to turn back the oceanic clock toward the Cretaceous period, when those on deck began to talk in hushed, but excited voices about the carcass being that of the long - at least presumed to be - extinct plesiosaur.
In spite of the obvious scientific significance of the find, the captain and crew unanimously agreed that the fetid corpse had to be thrown overboard in order to avoid spoiling the rest of the catch.
Luck was on the side of science however, for as the oily, film-covered carcass was being hoisted up - in preparation for its disposal - the creature suddenly slipped through its bindings and fell onto the deck.
This fortunate turn of events gave 39 year-old Michihiko Yano - a graduate of the Yamaguchi Oenological high school - the opportunity to examine the creature even more closely.
After a preliminary examination, Yano was still unable to identify the animal, but he believed that the corpse was unique enough to warrant a detailed description, and he also knew that he was the only man for the job.
At that point Yano - realizing that his time was short - began to take a painstaking series of measurements, concluding that the total length of the carcass came in at an impressive 33-feet.
Yano then ingratiated himself into the hearts of fortean researchers worldwide when he borrowed a shipmate's camera and snapped five of the most famous photographs in cryptozoological history.
As if to further prove that he could cut the mustard as a scientist, Yano proceeded to remove 42 pieces of what he referred to as "horny fiber" from one of the anterior fins, in the hopes that these specimens would assist marine biologists in future identification efforts.
Finally, after just an hour of intense study, the Zuiyo-Maru carcass was thrown over the bow"....American Monsters
“On July 28, 1977, the Zuiyo Maru carcass was commented upon in the international science magazine New Scientist. A scientist from the British Natural History Museum in London had the same opinion as Bjerring and Persson: that the remains were not from a plesiosaur.
The decomposition pattern of a basking shark, whose spine and braincase is relatively highly ossified for a cartilaginous fish, can be expected to produce a similar shape to a plesiosaur; the first parts that fall off during decomposition are the lower jaw, the gill area, and the dorsal and caudal fins.
Bengt Sjögren (1980) concluded, "it was the infamous old ´Stronsay beast´ that once again haunted like on innumerable other occasions. The scholars in Japan went into the same easy trap as the Scot naturalists did in the 19th century."
However, some Japanese scientists criticised the shark hypothesis. Professor Yoshinori Imaizumi of the National Science Museum of Japan said, "It's not a fish, whale, or any other mammal." and professor Toshio Kasuya agreed, "If it was a shark, the spine would be smaller, and the neck itself is too long as shown in the picture. I think we can exclude the fish theory."
The above mentioned Fujiro Yasuda ruled out a mammalian origin and claimed: "No animal of that size has such an elongated body" (Welfare & Fairley, 1981). He concluded that the stretching of the body and positions of fins were totally different from that of any known shark, and added: "We can't find any known species of fish that correspond with the animal caught outside New Zealand.
If it is a shark, it is a species unknown to science." Two other Japanese scientists, Obata and Tomata from Tokyo National Museum of Science also agreed that no known species or genus of animal fit the appearance of the Zuiyo Maru creature.
Also, when the carcass samples were tested for amino acid levels, variances occurred from the levels expected in a basking shark. However, this could be explained by the fact that the carcass had been decomposing in and leached by seawater for some time.”… Wikipedia
Number one, the carcass. Number two, even creationists have stopped suggesting that this creature was anything but a larger than normal basking shark because the paradigm has prevailed.
One thing we do know is that most scientists appear to have a bias against the discovery any prehistoric creature in our time, so their skepticism has to be put in context. Also, of course we should mention that indeed it could have been a shark.
However, there were variations in the amino acid report which though suggestive is certainly not conclusive. We are also struck with the fact that the crewman; Yano, (who measured and prodded and photographed the creature and who had some relevant training) and many Japanese scientists who studied the creature were convinced that it was not a fish/shark and that it was something completely unknown.
One would certainly believe that a crew of experienced fisherman and a man with oceanographic training could have recognized a decaying shark for what it was—if that is what it was.
An article in the New Mexican, August 1, 1977, acknowledges that the crew insists that what had been pulled up from a depth of 1,000 feet was a “prehistoric monster”.
"It was no shark and it wasn't a whale either," Akira Tmiaka, captain of the 2,355-ton fishing boat Zuiyo Maru, said Sunday. "It was a monster," he said. "It had four large legs or flippers on its body. I saw them clearly from the ship's bridge."
Also, according to the New Mexican;
“Professor Tokio Shikama, an authority on prehistoric plants and animals at Yokohama National University, identified the creature as a plesiosuurus, a species of sea animal formerly believed to have become extinct 140 million to 150 million years ago.”
"I poked it and my fingers went in, (the flesh had become so loose," said deck hand Masahiro Kawano. '"We know all about fish fat and flesh.
Nobody would have mistaken that for fish meat."
Well, somebody would.
The following excerpt from a story about petrified giants appeared in the October 28, 1923 edition of The Ogden Standard-Examiner:
“The other discovery in Oregon also serves to substantiate the Arizona theory that a great race of giants once populated the Pacific Coast.-and-also tends to disprove scientific beliefs that human body will not petrify.
This discovery is that of the body of a giant woman, apparently hewn from stone but which persons who have viewed it declare is a petrified human. The stone giantess was discovered less than three months ago in the almost impenetrable recesses of the Klamath Forest Reserve by a corps of hydroelectric engineers.”
The 1923 article goes on to say that the figure of the woman is embedded in the rock; that she appeared to be either kneeling or praying with one arm covering her face.
“The clearness of outline and vividness of pose indicate the master art of a Rodin (19th century French sculpture, i.e “the thinker”) Those who examined the figure declare it gives evidences of having been exposed to the elements for centuries.”
Keep that quote about Rodin in mind, we’ll come back to it. One of the themes of this 1923 article was human petrification. Scientists insisted then if not now that such a thing is impossible.
The, problem with human petrification is that the process itself is supposed to take million s of years and science simply can’t accept the notion of humans being turned into “billion year old “ granite, for instance, let alone giant humans.
This particular artifact was normalized however in the following way and with the following story:
"The story of the "Lady of the Woods" has now been told many times -- too often to be repeated here in much detail. The interested reader is encouraged to look further into the various accounts relating to this fascinating episode of local history.
All of those mentioned here may be found in the library at Crater Lake National Park, home of the "Lady of the Woods."
Dr. Earl Russell Bush, official surgeon for the U. S. Engineers in 1917, was stationed in Crater Lake National Park during the summer of that year. The pressure of his duties had lessened considerably toward the end of the season.
Seeking some manner in which he could occupy his free moments productively and, at the same time, express the feelings of love and inspiration which the lake and surrounding country had aroused in him, the concept of a sculptured figure occurred to him.
Such a figure would be a symbol of the park's wilderness and little-noticed richness of life -- its fecundity, as Dr. Bush has so frequently expressed it.
After wandering through the forest and finding at some distance from the main camp a rock that suited his desires, Dr. Bush persuaded the blacksmith, William Ivy, to make an appropriate set of tools. The work began on October 4. Progress was slow, especially because of the hardness of the rock.
Fortunately, with his background as a doctor, he was not discouraged by the lack of a model.
Unfortunately, winter and its hazards are here very much at hand this late in the year; little time remained for carrying out this project. Then came the day of departure, October 19, the figure still lying incomplete against the surface of the boulder.
Dr. Bush had continued his carving for about a week without notice by other members of the staff. Feeling a sense of slight embarrassment about this undertaking, he had mentioned to no one the purpose of his visits into the woods.
However, curiosity and the persistent tapping of hammer and chisel eventually led a few to seek out the site of this activity. Although he was reassured by the praises which came forth upon their viewing the results of his efforts, Dr. Bush pledged them to secrecy.
Mr. Alex Sparrow, Superintendent, was alone granted permission to let Mr. William G. Steel, U. S. Commissioner, know about it the following summer. Thus, in 1918, Mr. Sparrow covered the stone chips with pine needles and took Mr. Steel to see it, pretending that he had discovered some Indian carvings which Mr. Steel didn't know about.
"The old gentleman, an authority on the Klamath tribe, was not to be fooled.
Said he, 'In the first place it isn't an Indian woman for she has too long legs; in the second, the concept is not Indian but rather classical.' Told the truth he joined the others in secrecy but wrote to me for details." (Bush, 1953).
This secret was well guarded by all who shared it. Mr. Steel was U. S. Commissioner for the park until 1934, and Mr. Sparrow was Superintendent until 1923, but it was not by either of them that the secret was finally revealed.
The discoveries of the "Lady of the Woods" which were made during the following years provided several remarkable speculations as to how the figure had been created and, for those who did recognize it as a work of man, some extraordinary tales in respect to the motivation of the sculptor……Crater Lake..
Number one, the 1923 newspaper story refers to the woman as a giantess and although the description of her pose seems to match --and part of the Klamath Forest is in Crater Lake Park, the statue falls short of being that of a giant. Maybe the real petrified lady was Dr. Bush’s model?
Number two, the explanatory story itself is incredible. Some guy lets everyone know that he was the sculptor several years after it had been discovered and become a sensation? He snook away several years before it was “discovered”, went to some obscure part of the wilderness for some barely articulated "poetic" reasons and chiseled out this sculpture, in what two weeks?
Not only that, he did this his very first sculpture in granite, without a model and after his work on it, never sculpted again? There is no way that this guy sculpted those rounded arms out of granite on his first try at sculpture. Remember that first sculpture of a horse that you did that everyone thought was a ladybug?-- And you were working with clay! Again, fellow art critics, the 1923 news article compares that petrified woman/statue to a Rodin. As an expert on the topic says:
“Granite is harder than limestone. That said, some limestones are virtually as hard as granite, and both stones can be extremely difficult for inexperienced carvers. Carving stone is hard to do--period!!!
If it's your first time carving stone, try a very soft, forgiving material such as soapstone. If you've never carved any material at all, you might consider starting in wood--the reductive process and tools are roughly similar, and you might find you'd get a better feel for the process and then move on to a harder material.”..Rocco L.
The distance across the Bering Strait from Siberia to Alaska's Seward Peninsula is approximately 55 miles. From at least 1923 to 1956, a series of sightings of huge creatures, all believed to be dinosaurs were sighted, living or dead in those cold, fairly proximate locations.
In 1923, a team of adventurers and a “priest” ministering to the local natives in that area of the Arctic, hunted and eventually encountered a giant dinosaur, a Ceratosaurus, or so it was claimed, with a 700 pound moose in his mouth and a bad attitude. That story was covered in these pages previously Here.
"The prehistoric thing, larger and bulkier than four elephants, lurched down the ravine, sweeping rocks and boulders aside like pebbles, it's head, high above the ground, bore in those awful Jaws a 700-pound moose”.... …Hamilton Evening Journal, July 14, 1923.
That sighting remains unexplained.
Seven years later, the first of several Alaskan “dinosaurs” appeared and as a gift perhaps to the skeptical among men, had the good grace to be dead. It’s a lot easier to identify something as a basking shark or a dead whale if its not up and moving around with a 700 pound moose in its mouth. Of course, they really could have all been dead basking sharks and killer whales.
In the Oakland Tribune, of November 25, 1930, the following headline appeared:
“Giant Prehistoric Lizard Found in Alaskan Glacier”
“Confirmed reports were received here from Valdez that the body of a giant amphibian lizardlike creature with fur, in perfect condition, has been found on Glacier Island near there.
The strange creature, reported to be 42 feet long, including a tail which measures 18 feet, was believed to be preserved since prehistoric times by being encased in ice in the upper reaches of the Columbia Glacier”.
Sixteen years after that “lizardlike” prehistoric appearing creature was discovered, another one was found-in Alaska.
The Traverse City Record-Eagle had the following familiar headline on October 25, 1946:
Prehistoric Monster Found in Alaska
"ANCHOR POINT, ALASKA, Oct. |2d— (UP)— Anthropologists from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks were enroute here today to examine the body of a huge, lizard-like creature identified tentatively as a prehistoric tyrannosaurus or gorgonosaurus.
It was believed to have been preserved in a glacier until washed ashore here Wednesday. Although positive identification by experts has not yet been made, Fairbanks physicians studying anthropology texts said the “creature' was "definitely prehistoric" and may belong to one of two species”.
The creature measured nearly nineteen feet from tip to tail. It’s head measured 2 feet by 2 ½ feet and its mouth featured a row of teeth 18 inches long.
“The animal had large hind legs and a heavy thigh bone which measured, approximately 4 feet from the hip to the first joint. The forelegs were short and heavy.
Leathery skin on the head and neck was covered with bristly hair and flesh almost completely covered the head, shoulders and hips. The backbone had broken through the animal’s side and there was some evidence of decomposition”.
Ten years later, in Alaska, on July 23, 1956, the Oakland Tribune had the following headline:
“MONSTER: Huge Hairy Beast Lies On Beach”
The monstrous carcass was discovered on the beach 60 miles southeast of here two months; ago by Earl Flemming,”
….Conservative estimates place the size of the monster as more than 100 feet in length and 15 feet wide at its broadest visible point”. The creature was reported to have been covered with two inch long reddish brown hair; to have teeth which were six inches long and five inches wide at the base; ribs extending from five to six feet from its spinal column.
The story noted an expert saying that the hair ruled out any potential whale identification. Of course, some suggested that it was a prehistoric monster that had formerly been encased in a glacier.
Collectively, these mysterious creatures are all collectively considered to have simply been whales or killer whales.
The details of each story have been lost in the scientific and skeptical assault over the years and so the fact that characteristics such as large backbones, hair and long tails, as well as the detailed measurement of thighs and forelegs precludes such an easy explanation.
Not only that, one of the creatures described as lizard- like was mostly intact. Since killer whales and whales are somewhat common to the area you’d think that the locals might have been able to correctly identify a dead whale. And why do dead whales look “prehistoric” anyway?
“CALAVERAS SKULL, a famous fossil cranium, reported by Professor J. D. Whitney as found (1886) in the undisturbed auriferous gravels of Calaveras county, California. The discovery at once raised the still discussed question of "tertiary man" in the New World.
Doubt has been thrown on the genuineness of the find, as the age of the gravels is disputed and the skull is of a type corresponding exactly with that of the present Indian inhabitants of the district.
Whitney assigns the fossil to late Tertiary (Pliocene) times, and concludes that "man existed in California previous to the cessation of volcanic activity in the Sierra Nevada, to the epoch of the greatest extension of the glaciers in that region and to the erosion of the present river canons and valleys, at a time when the animal and vegetable creation differed entirely from what they now are...." The specimen is preserved in the Peabody museum, Cambridge, Mass”….Classic Encyclopedia
This story achieved new prominence when it was written about in Michael Cremo’s and Richard Thompson’s 1995 Book: Forbidden Archeology, The Hidden History of the Human Race.
Evolutionists/materialists have been trying to kick dirt on this fossil since its discovery because it completely falsifies the human evolutionary timeline. They also hate the idea of this artifact because creationists keep citing it as proof that evolutionists hide from bad facts.
They have declared the issue closed and as a matter of fact it is quite commonly referred in the context, not of a controversy, but in the context of a hoax.
Here’s a common version of that story:
“The Calaveras Skull was a hoax perpetrated by miners in Calaveras County, California.
On February 25, 1866, miners found a human skull in a mine, beneath a layer of lava, 130 feet (39 m) below the surface of the earth, which made it into the hands of Josiah Whitney, then the State Geologist of California as well as a Professor of Geology at Harvard University.
A year before the skull came to his attention, Whitney had published his belief that humans, mastodons, and elephants had coexisted in California, and the skull only served as proof of his convictions.
After careful study, he officially announced its discovery at a meeting of the California Academy of Science on July 16, 1866, declaring it evidence of the existence of Pliocene age man in North America, which would make it the oldest known record of humans on the continent.
However, its authenticity was immediately challenged. In 1869 a San Francisco newspaper reported that a miner had told a minister that the skull was planted as a practical joke. Thomas Wilson of Harvard ran a fluorine analysis on it in 1879, with the results indicating it was of recent origin.
It was so widely believed to be a hoax that Bret Harte famously wrote a satirical poem called "To the Pliocene Skull" in 1899.
Nevertheless, Whitney did not waver in his belief that it was genuine. His successor at Harvard, F.W. Putnam also believed it to be real. By 1901 Putnam was determined to discover the truth and he headed to California. While there, he heard a story that in 1865, one of a number of Indian skulls had been dug up from a nearby burial site and planted in the mine specifically for miners to find.
However, Putnam still declined to declare the skull a fake, instead conceding, "It may be impossible ever to determine to the satisfaction of the archaeologist the place where the skull was actually found."
To further complicate the issue, careful comparison of the skull with descriptions of it at the time of its discovery revealed that the skull Whitney had in his possession was not the one originally found.
However, J.M. Boutwell, investigating in 1911, was told by one of the participants in the discovery that the whole thing was indeed a hoax.”...... WIKIPEDIA
Number one, who knew that coal miners were such practical jokers? “Lets find the skull of an ancient human and hide it in the depths of a coal mine were those eggheads are sure to find it and have a conniption.
This gag will upset the who evolutionary timeline and plunge the scientific world into controversy. Who needs safe working conditions, health and retirement benefits and a decent hourly wage when we can have this kind of fun in our off hours”?
Who exactly were the perpetrators? It’s always said that someone claims that someone planted the evidence. But who exactly? Where are the details? In other words, this artifact is declared a hoax by exactly the kind of evidence that science wouldn’t accept if trying to establish it as a bona fide artifact.
However, a scientist (William Orville Ayres an American physician and ichthyologist.) who examined the skull early on, definitively ended all arguments by proving that the find is in fact genuine. Writing in the American Naturalist, he did so by first reminding his readers of all of the previous finds that had been made of similar character, location and import to the Calaveras Skull.
It stinks that his comments are not so well known because they would have carried the day for those interested in the truth.
“What manner of man then was this Ancient Man of Calaveras? Let him speak for himself. All notice of the skull described by Professor Whitney has been purposely omitted till this moment, because it is by far the most important " find " yet made, and it is worthy of being considered by itself and in the present connection.
In the belief that Professor Whitney was the victim of a sell, the question is often asked whether there is any evidence that the skull was actually taken from the shaft to which its discovery is credited.
Now with all due submission to previous judgment (or mis-judgment), I maintain that that question is of only secondary importance. The skull speaks for itself, and notwithstanding that its lower jaw is gone, it talks good English, whatever its vernacular may have been in the days of the flesh.
That it came to Professor Whitney from the hands of Mr. Mattison (or as I always heard him called, Matthewson), of Angels Camp, is certain. Where did Mr. Matthewson get that skull? I do not know, nor is the precise spot of much consequence. He says he took it from his shaft near what was then called the Forks of the Road, above Angels.
Suppose he did, or suppose he foolishly tried to humbug the geologist, what does it matter? He got the skull somewhere, and wherever it might have been first found, it surely was imbedded in the auriferous gravel, and it had become so imbedded at the time the gravel was originally deposited.
But it has been said that it is a modern skull which had become incrusted after a few years of interment.
You say, that is a bold assertion ; how do you know it ? I will tell you ; I know it, because the skull told me so. I saw it and examined it carefully at the time when it first reached Professor Whitney's hands.
It was not only incrusted with sand and gravel, but its cavities were crowded with the same material; and that material was of a peculiar sort, a sort which I had had occasion to know thoroughly. It was the the common " cement " or " dirt" of the miners; that known in books as the auriferous gravel.
This is an article "sui generis-" it is not easily imitated. No skill possessed by Mr. Matthewson or any one else could have been sufficient to give the skull the characters which it had as I saw it. It is most certainly no fabrication.
This assertion, however, is never made by any one knowing the region. The gravel has not the slightest tendency toward an action of that sort. The skull would either decay and waste away, or it would remain unchanged; and added to this comes in the fact that the hollows of the skull were crowded with the solidified and cemented sand, in such a way as they could have been only by its being driven into them in a semi-fluid mass, a condition which the gravels have never had since they were first laid down.
No, no ! Let the skull tell its own story, and believe what it says, because it brings its own proof. Whatever age belongs to the gravel deposit under Table mountain belongs to the Calaveras skull, entirely irrespective of the "question of honesty or dishonesty in the alleged finder.
Wherever he found it, I believe its age to be beyond cavil”......The Man of Calaveras, American Naturalist
The problem the Calaveras Skull has in telling its story, like all such stories that don’t fit into that of the ruling scientific paradigm, is that its proponents are more bone headed than he is as they continue to perpetrate their own great hoax, the theory of evolution.