It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Monongahela Monster

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:13 PM
Now this one is interesting.

January 1852: A whaling ship known as the Monongahela encountered a huge eal-like sea-serpant beast, longer than the entire ship. (latitude 3° 10'S and longitude 131° 50'W)

"After an epic struggle, which lasted an exhaustive 16 hours, the corpse this over 103-foot long, male animal ascended to the surface of the sea. Seabury prepared a detailed account of the entire incident, which included a complete description of the creature itself and even an aside to his own amazement, claiming it was "the strangest creature I have ever seen in the ocean."

"Seabury described the creature as Brownish-yellow in color and serpentine in shape. Its head was compared to that of an alligator and was measured to be 10-feet long, with jaws that contained 94 teeth each. The teeth each measured approximately 3-inches in length and were extended and recurved, much like those of a snake. Its lower jaws apparently contained seperate bones."

"The animal did not have flippers, but bore four webbed, paw-like protrusions, not unlike a reptile. That having been said, the creature also displayed some decidedly unreptillian chracteristics, such as a 4-inch thick layer of blubber and a pair of whale-like blowholes. The animal was also said to have air breathing lungs, though one was appreciably (3-feet) larger than the other."

"After all of the necessary details were chronicled, the captain - realizing that his ship could not possibly bear the weight of such a carcass - ordered the crew to cut the creature loose, but not before he had his crew hacked off the animal's monsterous head as evidence of their unique encounter. After being decapitated, the animal's head was supposed preserved in a large, pine box."

On Feburary 6, of the same year, the Monongahela encountered a brig known as the Rebecca Sims, which was journeying to Bridgeport. The ever savvy Seabury passed a written account of his ship's encounter with the sea monster on to the master of the Rebecca Sims, one Captain Gavitt.

"Gavitt pledged to the pass the information on through Bridgeport's post office when his brig arrived. It must be assumed that Captain Gavitt kept his word, for a number of newspaper reports of Monongahela's encounter appeared throughout Europe, including an article in the London Times, dated March 10, 1852. "

!!! > Tragically, that was the last that was ever heard from Captain Seabury and his crew, as the Monongahela - and presumably the head of the monster - went down off the shore of Umnak Island near the Aleutians during that same expedition. < !!!

There is a boat wreackage out there with proof of a giant eal-like sea creature, just like the Kraken, we should find someone who can go and find it and bring back the proof.

Heres the artical:

And again in this page, which lists other accounts of 'evidence gone missing' (at the end of the page)

The ships manifest is listed in this collection but it doesnt say what was on it: This acount states that there were 2 ships, when in fact there was only one, the second ship only encountered the Monongahela ship AFTER the battle.

As for evidence of the ship:

"In addition, Edwards had learned that many years after Seabury's account had hit the headlines, the name board of the Monongahela had been discovered on the shore of Umnak Island in the Aleutians. So what had happened to the ship? As no other trace of it has apparently been found , if the incident was indeed genuine did some catastrophe occur during its continuing voyage that consigned the Monongahela and its entire crew to the bottom of the sea--thereby returning its unique cryptozoological cargo from whence it came

[edit on 14-7-2006 by Majestic 12]

[edit on 16-7-2006 by masqua]

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 01:57 AM
I've heard this story before. And it does sound so amazing. Here's my observations and opinions. The captain seems to be describing a mosasaur in amazing detail.

A head shaped like an aligator - mosasaur.
Recurved teeth - mosasaur.
Lower jaw with separate bones - mosasaur.
"four webbed, paw-like protrusions" - mosasaur.
A pair of blow holes - the mosasaur nostriles are on the top and almost middle of its head.

Now, the size. 103 feet. That is sowhat larger than the largest know mosasaur. Which is I think about 60 feet. But, fossil records are incomplete so who knows, they might have gotten a lot bigger than that.

Now my opinion. The details are almost too good. I really, really want to believe this is truely an account from 1852, but I think it is a modern hoax. If someone can produce the newpaper from 1852(or a reproduction of it from a reliable source like a library) that relates the story then I'm sold, I'll believe.

I love mosasaurs. They are one of the most awsome creatures to ever live. It would be both wonderful and terrifing to find out they are still alive.


posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:18 AM
Thats the most interesting story I have read all night. I wonder if we can use the power of google earth and maybe find this large head oursleves. 1852 is pretty recent, if arch's can find ships from ancient greece then i think it wouldnt be unheard of to look for this puppy.

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:54 AM
Yeah, but there's a difference in looking for a shipwreak in the meditereanean sea and looking for one of the coast of alaska. I love diving, but man, not up there. brrrr...


posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 08:39 AM
Could use a sub, but I dont think my budgets that high up

Still, it could be a mosasaur, since one has not been recorded for thousands of years they could of evolved to be even bigger.
And that evidence is sitting at the bottom of the ocean, waiting for some lucky submariner to make a couple of hundred K's in cash when he finds real proof of a mosasaur alive today, or at least in the last few hundred years.

EDIT: I also find it wierd that only the name board was recovered, could someone be involved in covering up this wreck? Since no other trace of it has been found.
I could understand that today, but I dont think the US government did biological mutant testing in the 1800's so they wouldnt need to cover anything up.

[edit on 15-7-2006 by Majestic 12]

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Majestic 12
EDIT: I also find it wierd that only the name board was recovered, could someone be involved in covering up this wreck? Since no other trace of it has been found.
[edit on 15-7-2006 by Majestic 12]

Yes, that is an odd fact that occured to me when reading the article. Again, I would use it as "proof" of a hoax. Last night I spent a while looking for the original London Times article but all i found was dozens of articles that refer to said article. If that article really exists then I think the story is true. Anyone know where to find a 1852 copy of the London Times? None of the libraries in my town are very big....


posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 05:10 PM
Interesting I've never heard this story before. I'm really not sure, but I'm leaning towards some odd form of living prehistoric whale. Some of them looked kinda reptilian. Thats just the best thing I could think as an explanation...

Someone should really search for that shipwreck...

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 08:31 PM
It went down in 1852? I'm not sure there would be any evidence worth finding even if it WAS true and someone DID find the ship. Things decay different underwater, but 1852 is still a long time ago, plus the pine box might have opened upon hitting the bottom or even broke in the process of sinking, making the head available for consumption of any sea-life that wanted to eat it. There are many things about this that are unclear, and many variables that could have damaged any evidence. Its not even very clear what happened to the ship. I think that realistically, this will have to just continue to be an anecdote for cryptozoologists to share and enjoy.

edited to add picture

[edit on 15-7-2006 by Nicotine1982]

[edit on 15-7-2006 by Nicotine1982]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:36 AM
Try sending an email to the London Times website, they must have a copy someware.

Also, how quick does bone decay underwater?

EDIT: Okay I sent an email to the London Times and to the biggest library in London.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by Majestic 12]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:02 AM
interseting story probaly a surviving mosasaur like vasilis said or some marine dragon i dunno lol

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:44 AM
If there is nothing but bone left. then there won't be much proof of anything.

It would be neat to recover the skull, and it would make the story a great deal more believable, but there would be no proof that the beast was alive when they caught it. They could easily found the skull of a dinosaur and spread the story to the other ship in order to build publicity for when they arrived.

Now wait there a minute, I know what your thinking. Your thinking that Carbon Dating would prove the monsters age right? It might, it might not. Carbon dating is not 100% reliable, and with the skull sitting at the bottom of the sea, in a ship with the possible remains of more recent cadavers, the sample could easily become contaminated. The only way the find would have 100% credibility would be if it managed to become mummified inside the box, and that is a long shot.

The second fact to consider would be the ENORMOUS budget you would need to recover the ship/its cargo. Think along the lines of the search for the titanic, only without the scientific community supporting you. It would be an impossible undertaking, and with very little chance of payoff.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by Nicotine1982]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:57 PM
I dont know anything about dateing old bones and such, but if they found a skull, would they not be able to determine its age and when it was alive ? Also I dont think that anything could be found in waters like that now that I think about it. But it would be great to see something like this dredged up from the depth.

"Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water"......

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 07:42 AM
Okay folks,
The London Library has:

We have Times Digital Archive 1785-1985, as well as hard copies of The Times. We also have The Times on microfilm.

And the historic news database has:

We can supply the Times for the required date at the price of either £29.95 rolled in tissue and sent in a strong presentation tube, or (other options, etc.)

If anyone lives near the London Library at 14 St. James's Square, London, SW1Y 4LG and has a digital camera, give me a shout, otherwise I will have to buy a copy.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Majestic 12]

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 08:07 AM
hang on -- there are options :

anyone know a freeloading student who can get the correct password for this columbia university archives

or just submit a request here : thompson gale archive

i dont know just how much you will get out of a " free trial " -- but its reasonable to expect a single page of your choice

IIRC my library had the microfiches in its genealogy section -- and i have an access card -- so i will try tommorow , or wedensday

hope this helps

but on a more pesermistic note -- i have reservations that this " story " exists in the times archive -- as if it did wouldnt just one of the " researchers " who have re published this story have gone to the effort of aquiring the origional story -- it would be a very compelling peiece of evidence

the quote you were given - of USD$ 30 for one item sounds IMHO daylight robbery

esp seing as institutions like columbia , seem to offer it free to students with the correct credentials .

i have other issues with the tail -- but they will keep till my next reply

[edit on 17-7-2006 by ignorant_ape]

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 09:42 AM
Its an original copy, so something from the 1800's would cost that much.
I will ask them if it does contain that artical.

posted on Jul, 17 2006 @ 11:12 AM
Guys, it is really in the Times this is what they said:

This is the reference and the headline for the article you might be referring to:

The Times, Wednesday, Mar 10, 1852; pg. 8; Issue 21059; col A

Capture Of The Sea Serpent.

Article CS134383210

This information comes from The Times Digital Archive. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow us to email the actual text.

The article is signed off by Charles Seabury, Master, Whale Ship Monongahela, of New Bedford. It is originally from the New York Tribune ?Feb 6.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Nicotine1982
It would be neat to recover the skull, and it would make the story a great deal more believable, but there would be no proof that the beast was alive when they caught it. They could easily found the skull of a dinosaur and spread the story to the other ship in order to build publicity for when they arrived.

Every fossil you have ever seen is just that, a fossil. A fossil isn't a bone, it is stone that slowly replaced the bone or somesuch. So, finding an actual skull made of bone would prove the creature was alive some time in the past few centuries.

But again, I really have my doubts about the story.


posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:12 AM
Wow! Good find Majestic! So this article is real. Damn. I am never going swimming in the ocean again.


posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:35 AM
Would'nt it be likeley for the bones to of decomposed by now, seeing as there are no bones left of the people who died on the Titanic and that was more recent?

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:26 PM
So if it was recently alive then all of the minerals and such would have not "created" a fossil. If that is the case then it would be bone, hence it could be proven real.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in