12 Sep

Somewhere in the middle of July 1961 on the shores of Tasmania’s most violent storm broke out among all ever recorded in these places. Tasmania, an island nation that is included in the Commonwealth of Australia and, as can be seen on any map, located in the southern part of the roaring forties, famous for its terrible storms. During these storms ashore discarded any number of muddy water and debris washed off the old time, usually lay a huge heaps significantly higher than the highest tide mark.

In August, after the powerful barn, owner Tammy town on the west coast of Tasmania, Mr Ben Fenton, and his two horseherder, Jack Booth and Ray Anthony, were preparing to brand the herd – it took place not far from the shore, two miles north of the river interview.
On the shore, they noticed – and studied – something is large, more or less circular, and as they later described, covered with short soft fur, wool resembling the well-known in these parts of sheep. On its discovery, they reported between the case. Strappers feared that their friends will raise a laugh, but Mr. Fenton, from time to time superintending the shore and noticed that the body is slowly moved into the coast, sometimes partially or completely buried in sand, and sometimes shows itself in all its glory. In the end, something was 14 miles south of Sandy Cape.

Bits of information about this subject was leaked in Hobart, Tasmania’s capital, and attracted the attention of Mr. JC Krempa, a local businessman and a biologist-enthusiast. Evaluated the information as sufficiently reliable, it is in February 1962 raised the matter with the leadership of the local museum, as a result of what would-Lo decided to get acquainted with being closer.

In early March, Mr. Kremp organized and financed the aerial. It has been successful, on 8 March and made a ground search party led by Mr. B. K. Mollisona, a representative of the research center of Australia (NITSAS) in Hobart – some described him as carried away zoology, others noted that Mr. Mollison has no degree, but very inexperienced in certain sections of Zoology. Among the members of the search party were Max Bennett (also representative NITSAS), LE Wall, and J. E. Lewis, respectively, vice president and treasurer of the club naturalists Tasmania. The expedition encountered difficulties: the beginning of flood and rivers due to rugged terrain researchers had to overcome many miles of loose, poluzybuchih sands along the coast. But they found a monster.

Subsequent developments is difficult to recover, but, according to press reports, March 11, Mr. Mollison back from the second expedition to study the monsters. This fact is of little value, but a number of incredible, although secondary events that followed his return, very interesting.

The first among them – a description of the monster, which he apparently gave to the museum, Hobart: the impressive portrait monster, published in local newspapers, accompanied by a categorical statement that it is Picture (Pictures) sea monster , made (made) by the museum Impressed by his description . This casts suspicion on history, although some extremely interesting pieces of the picture, apparently, can be attributed to a careless and incompetent description. Nevertheless, some very important points are unclear.

Does Mr Mollison gave a description, which refer to his account and if yes, then whether it was describing what he actually saw three of his colleagues, or tell them about this gentlemen Fenton, Booth and Anthony? Whatever the source, the information gives the impression of a very comprehensive, otherwise the museum could do a drawing with such an abundance of detailed parts. On the other hand, witnesses claimed that Mollison made only very general statements only tentative, such as a man is always tends to reject the fact that faced with an unknown animal science . He is always looking for an explanation – you are trying to reconcile this fact in the overall scheme, but it still it does not npisyvaetsya . Or: there is always two possibilities – either the animal is not known whether it remains a well-known animal . He also said that Mr Booth said the original trajectory of the animal and this marks the expedition found a body decomposes. Thus, it seems that the author’s description was, after all, Jack Booth. Mollison finished his statement by saying that it was not a giant ramp, but it is quite possible skatoobraznoe sea animal. The reason why he made such a surprising statement, will become clear below.

These very first statements become a kind of safety fuse, and the whole story has entered the second stage of the hunt for a monster. Usually this period all kinds of conjecture, as a rule, does not backed up and have no relation to science, who make countless , which inevitably leads to the hypotheses in the full range okolonauchnogo delirium. And this time the expectations – they were predicting the emergence of a variety of coastal monsters, ranging from whales and sharks, and ending with a giant octopus and starfish, however, is to complete the picture they have added a huge stingrays.

And the whole civilized world has witnessed the most incredible spectacle, which lasted ten days. I must say that the story is more often than any other, has appeared in the same year in the pages of newspapers. In most English-speaking countries it for several days did not leave the front pages.

Now forget about this story, it is officially buried. And I mean officially!

As the sensation she appeared in the press March 8, 1962. March 19, she was buried, and terse and highly suspicious epitaph said Senator Gorton of Australia, responsible for activities in this NITSAS strane.Ona read: «In the language of laymen, but given the nature of scientific research, this report indicates that your monster – just a large mass of decomposing blubber, probably torn from the body of the whale ».

This, as one might suppose, put an end to the mysterious history. But not so.

Mollison said that it is not a whale. He also said that he had brought from the expedition, samples of body tissue and can prove it. Nevertheless, on March 12 «experts» continued to discuss the publication and asserted that «There are no zoologist had not seen her» and that the expedition had not brought a single sample of body tissue of an animal. I’m not going to comment on these remarks, since it was at the time these samples were tested in Sydney, and scientists NITSAS detailed the results of this analysis.

Thus, it became known that on March 16, after the issue was raised in the Parliament of Australia, and as a result of complicated maneuvers involving NITSAS and other official organizations, such as the Department of the Navy and the management of museums in Australia, north-west Coast went a scientific expedition. With a few rented helicopters and arrived at the scene. In the press several times mentioned that the expedition led by Mr. E. M. Olsen, a marine biologist and senior fellow at the department of fisheries NITSAS in Hobart, and Mr. J. G. Co-lebi, a leading specialist in mammal department of nature NITSAS in Canberra. Besides, the group included Dr. E. R. Giler, Senior Lecturer in Zoology at the University of Tasmania, and two clerks. They were joined by museum director Tasman Dr. W. Bryden.

Expedition members said that if necessary, will conduct research for several weeks if needed for positive identification of the monster. However, they were on the ground not more than 24 hours and 18 March have returned to Hobart. There, in secrecy, they made up the report, who gave Senator Gorton, dealing with the federal government issues the Navy and at that moment was in Tasmania. On the following day, Senator Gorton announced cited above epitaph.

After twenty-four study sites of the remains of the body of an animal, this second expedition published a report in which interest the following points:

«The speaker of the sand of the substance was six feet in length and width – two.

Above the surface of the sand, she performed a few inches.

On the perimeter, within a few feet from the subject, in the sand were done test holes to determine the size of the body.

Since the test holes were detected particles, we have done to undermine the solid, missed the bottom rope and turned it, taking a way out of the pit.

Recovered material was eight feet long, three feet wide and ten inches in height at the thickest part, in other places thickness ranged from half an inch to four inches.

It was found several flat appendages irregularly shaped, near the location of which gives the impression of citrus segments, and the processes themselves in appearance reminiscent of cloves.

The appearance of substance, located above the surface of the sand was different from that part which was at the bottom.

In fact, a homogeneous substance, generally consisting of elastic fibrous material coated with fatty or oily substances.

From substance comes sharp rancid odor, reminiscent of a fatty acid.

Weight of the object was estimated at several hundred pounds.

In several places have been made cross-sections, with special emphasis on flat spikes.

The substance does not contain the bones, vertebral bodies, or any other hard parts.

Fibrous substance on the parts exposed to the environment, it was simply the result of decomposition and leaching of fibrous material with a fat content.

In thicker substances were found haphazardly ras.polozhennye channels having a cross-section circle diameters from 1 / 2 to 3 / 4 inches.

After examining the found substances were investigated nearby areas in order to determine the initial size of the object.

A few inches under the surface of the sand was observed pronounced non-uniform thickness of the layer of sand, impregnated with black organic matter, it proceeded from the same sharp rancid smell, like the mass of the substance.

This substance is distributed over the contour of the object found in eight feet to the north, but in the south and other areas of the substance was present only on the subject and does not go beyond it.

In the sea, this organic layer is distributed to 18 feet, but we did not consider this fact something significant, because the distribution layer corresponds to the natural slope of the shore.

Soil was investigated under a layer of black sand, but the solid substance was found.

The difference between the originally described by the size of the object and the size presented in this report, no doubt, due to decomposition and drying.

Given that the substance is a long time was on the bank and severely decomposed, in this preliminary study, it is impossible with any accuracy how to identify.

Relevant authorities have taken samples for comparative laboratory analysis,

In conclusion, we would like to express my gratitude to everyone who helped us and thanks to whom the investigation was made possible ».

This report was published on March 19, 1962 in Hobart newspaper Mercury.

It would seem that the end of history.

Oh, no!

Let’s go back to her and stared Contemplate the individual, the most glaring facts. A lot of them, and everyone makes a dissonance in the overall concept approach to the case.

These stupidity can be divided into three categories, a careful study of which leads to a unique and very appropriate conclusion – in this case it is necessary to recall the five other similar monsters, marked the last thirty years in Tasmania. These observed on the shore of animals known as sea turtles, and for the thirty years I have dedicated myself to this problem, I know of no case in which they appeared one by one, however, none of these cases are not adequately studied.

Foolishness of the first group can be defined as a contradiction, I prefer to call the second sense, since they do not make sense or are completely implausible statements by experts on the subject under consideration, and their speculations on this matter. And the third category of stupidity – the secrecy, and in this case it is clearly an official character. Usually a case of this kind of semi-official settles very quietly, or simply keep an enigmatic silence. Whatever the case, the secrecy is that the old Fort named Charlie changing images, ie the method by which the orthodox of all stripes is cut from the ugly aspects of their orthodoxy, while concealing their errors, lack of knowledge and fixity.

In this case we are primarily confronted with individuals who know or should know what they say, making a number of stupid statements, and giving detailed descriptions of (and provides the results of some tests), and later, all these statements on puyktam , categorically and convincingly refute the other person, who should also know what is at stake.

In all known to me before where the first group usually consisted of men, of which the representatives of the second group might say, are not experts in the field, and, therefore, is an object of ridicule type unable to understand and interpret what they seen. In this case, despite the series of actions that later attempts to discredit the experience and qualifications of the first group, it should be noted that it consisted of scientists, both professional and those who sarcastically called amateurs, often the latter is very, very competent and have a high enough scientists degrees and titles.

Given this, we can make only one of the following conclusions:

The first group of deliberate let the duck in order to attract attention and get to the pages of newspapers – otherwise, we must acknowledge that they are – full of idiots, absolutely does not understand anything in the sphere of its activity.

If both output erroneous, then the second group either did not see the object, which describes the first, some have been even less competent, “or consciously something« curtain ».

Unable to immediately operate four of the available options, but in this case it seems that is applicable to either one of them. The situation is suspiciously like the classic «shift image», and the suspicion is largely supported by the extraordinary secrecy officialdom, which shrouded the whole thing. It’s impossible to explain – if not the version that secrecy was considered something to hide from the public. Scientific discoveries, if they are not vital to the defense, security and prosperity of the nation, can not be classified. And how is it pathetic to read a bunch of organic matter, twenty months decomposing on the sand secluded coast of Tasmania, could pose a threat to the Commonwealth?

As I quoted the official report does not answer one very important and significant question: whether «something» is covered with a wool, fur or hair?

Only mammals have real hair (which is easy to distinguish from sherstepodobnyh structures such as bristles, the olfactory hairs, etc.), and none of the known mammalian species, including marine, matching the size of a «monster», has hair. In China, there are six chin hairs, and along the back of the head and on the forehead of a young gray whale are several strips of rare bristle. But all that related to the final act, insisted that the «monster» covered with hair or fur, as one scholar even solemnly declared that another monster discovered in 1946 in the town of Bridport, – is part of the body of a whale … and this part of the whale’s body was indeed covered with fine hair . This statement was made director of the museum named after Queen Victoria in Launceston, northern Tasmania, Mr Ellis – in my opinion, this is a classic example of the paradox.

Turning to the category of stupidity, we are confronted with the phenomena of almost classic character, as well as many differences of opinion and evasive statements. This, as mentioned above, the second stage of the search for the monster, which had a promising start and is accompanied by a host of the most incredible and truly monstrous statements made by those who ought to keep quiet.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 12, 2009 in Galaxy


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *