Global Threadz

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Monster of Monterey Bay.

The Monster of Monterey Bay (also called the Monster of Santa Cruz) washed up on Moore beach in 1925
The Monsters looks had very differing reports, although most of the reports support the idea that the animal had a long neck (possibly around twenty feet) and a tail
(around three feet). Also at least three different reports compared the front of its head to a ducks bill.

(the top pic is taken from the animal planet web site and looks like it was enhanced quite a bit and it has a play sign in the middle of it)

The following article was taken from the Monterey County Weekly's website.

The tale of Bobo, Monterey Bay’s sea creature, resurfaces.

It was a clear fall day, and the Pacific Ocean was as flat and clear as a giant mirror. From Captain Sal Colletto’s small salmon fishing boat, 10 miles off Moss Landing, the indentation of the Monterey Bay on the shore looked like a giant’s thumbprint as he headed back towards Point Pinos. After a day of luckless fishing in the waters of Santa Cruz, the Monterey fisherman was looking forward to getting home.

Suddenly, Colletto noticed something floating in the sea about a half-mile farther out. Thinking it might be a man bobbing in the ocean, he gunned the engine and headed out towards the object. When the captain got within 100 feet of the thing, he saw a creature with a head the size of a 50-gallon barrel. It was tapered to where a duck-like bill protruded from the massive bulging forehead.

Colletto started to think about how a pair of fishermen had disappeared recently without a trace. Maybe this sea monster had devoured them. Not wanting to join their ranks, he pushed his boat’s throttle all the way down and headed back towards the Monterey Peninsula. He decided that he would not tell anyone about what he had seen.

Sixteen years later, Colletto was traveling towards the fishing grounds off Half Moon Bay on his 45-foot boat, the Dante Alighieri. While the crew ate lunch in the galley below, Colletto and his brother-in-law swapped fishing stories as the craft headed northward. Eventually, his brother-in-law started talking about a strange sea creature he had spotted a few times at the edge of the deep Monterey submarine canyon. Colletto got the chills as his brother-in-law described how other fishermen had said the beast would only surface on calm, sunny days 24 hours before a strong northwest wind started to blow.

It was a windless day, and the water was smooth and silver as liquid mercury. As Colletto gazed towards the Santa Cruz Mountains, he observed something bobbing in the sea and his heart fluttered like a dying fish’s gills. He realized immediately that it was that strange creature.

“All hands on deck,” Colletto yelled to the crew. They poured out of the galley and stood on the bow of the boat, wondering what the commotion was all about.

“I want all you guys to see this,” he said as he slowly brought the boat closer to the beast. The captain then cut the motor, and the boat drifted within 50 feet of the object. The creature’s eyes were closed and it floated on the surface as if it were sunbathing or sleeping.

“It has the face of a monkey,” his cook squealed. “Let’s leave. This is a bad omen.”

“No, its face looks like that of an old man,” Colletto’s brother-in-law said.

The noise must have awakened the monster, and it slowly opened its eyes, which were as big and pink as grapefruits. The creature’s body was brown and almost as long as the boat. Its skin was wrinkled and sagged from its frame like ill-fitting clothing. Colletto thought to himself that this was a very old animal.

While the crew argued about what the animal looked like, the monster quietly slid underwater like an elderly man easing into a bath.

Following the sighting, several other fishermen saw the creature, and eventually the people of Monterey started to refer to the animal as “Bobo, the old man of the sea.” From then on, Colletto kept a camera on his vessel hoping to once again spot “Bobo” and get photographic evidence of its existence. He never saw it again.

A few years later, in 1925, a strange sea creature washed ashore on a beach two miles north of Santa Cruz. Though the dead body was decomposed, scientists including E.L. Wallace, a former president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia, did not think the carcass was that of a whale or shark. Wallace even suggested that the animal might be a plesiosaurus, a large marine reptile held over from the Jurassic period.

Whatever it was, a creature resembling Bobo was never spotted again in the waters of Monterey Bay.

An account by a Mr. E.J. Lear was published by the Santa Cruz Sentinel a few days before the body washed up on shore. This is Mr. Lears statement:

"I was driving a team toward Capitola, when suddenly I was attracted by some young sea lions not far out. They were lined up and several large lions were swimming back and forth in front of them. Much farther out I saw the water being churned to foam and thrown high up in the air. It was shiny and I took it for a big fish. A dozen or more lions were battling it, and every once in a while all would raise out of the water. It looked to me as though all the sea lions were attacking it beneath as the monster came out of the water several times. In telling of the battle of that night I estimated its length at 30 feet.

"The battle continued as long as I could see it from the road. I was driving toward Capitola with a load of sand. I have not seen the monster on the beach, but it may have been that which I saw."

A few days later a body of an animal was discovered by Charles Moore on the shore in the very same area that Mr. Lear saw the battle.
The monsters body was studied by naturalist E. L. Wallace who said "My examination of the monster was quite thorough. I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth. Its head is large and its neck fully twenty feet long. The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal. Again, its tail is too weak for an animal of the deep and does away with that last version. With a bill like it possesses, it must have lived on herbage . . . I would call it a type of plesiosaurus."" Later, Mr. Wallace offered the theory that the monster may have been preserved in a glacier for millions of years, finally being released by the gradual melting of ice, eventually ending up cast upon the shore in Monterey Bay."

There was a video made by the t.v. show Lost Tapes which airs on Animal Planet featuring the "monterey monster". I watched it hoping that there would be some truth to it... but well t.v. monster shows have once again let me down. I have been searching online for any information on a "Sharon Novak"s death, I have found nothing aside from a story of a woman swimming back to her boat and her body never being found. And of coarse the most probable answer is that a monster ate her, yeah right! The show Lost Tapes is a docufiction, and I have only seen this one episode and was sorely disappointed! If you are looking for a good story it fits the purpose well, but I am sad to say not for real science. The footage looked VERY staged. And how on earth could you get that kind of audio quality on a sailing boat?? and since when does the coastal guard not answer? and how could her boyfriend possibly hear her when she is outside on top of the boat? Well if this is a true story then it is an amazing one and I feel for her. Also the Japanese ship that found something decaying did have some conclusive evidence the dna test results were VERY close to that of a Basking shark, and to have really been a plesiosaurus the neck would have definitely been longer. There have to my knowledge been no other reports since the body of the animal was discovered on shore of a monster sighting.

If you have any additional information please feel free to comment.


crazy! are those the only pictures?

I'll post the only other one I found.

This is an account of a sighting that has remained a mystery for me and my brother for approximately 38 years now. My brother and myself, along with our Dad, were fishing in Monterey Bay in 1971 or 1972.
We had rented a 16 foot boat and were headed out into the bay with my brother at the controls. I was seated up front next to him and our Dad was sitting behind us. Suddenly, just a dozen yards or so directly in front of us, some kind of a large sea creature was starting to surface. We saw only part of its arched body, but it was directly in front of us and we both got a good, close-up look. Even though we were total amatures in all sea-faring activities and knew nothing at all about sea life, we were both convinced that we saw something that wasn't suppose to be in Monterey Bay. We both continued to describe this creature as "some kind of prehistoric sea creature". (That was about the only way we could think of to describe what we saw) We may have been young and inexperienced, but we ALWAYS have maintained that what we saw was not normal. We noted its skin texture, color, and the fact that it had large scales.
Tonight was the very first time that we have ever heard of anything like this being spotted in Monterey Bay. My brother watched the program "Lost Tapes", then just informed me! After 38 years, we now are happy to say that "We probably were right all along"!!! We have ALWAYS maintained that what we saw was not normal at all.

Listen, I have had my share of belief and doubt, but this picture is tearing me apart between reality and fiction. I mean, what are the chances of a huge creature, the size of, say, a boat, washing up on a beach? But I do believe in unknown creatures, or I think they are called cryptos or something like that. This is somewhat believable. I believe in all the cryptos: Sasquatch, Nessie, Mothman, New Jersey Devil, all those guys. As far as I am concerned about cryptos, if there are witnesses who claim to have seen it, can describe it with fear in their voices, then it's a true creature. However, science fails to accept this. there may be creatures out there that none of us will ever see in our human existence. But science fails to realize that, there may be creatures out there that are smarter than humans and have enough sense to hide from us. Or maybe they are stupid but are smart enough to avoid human existence, like hiding in uncharted territories such as forests, caves, hiding in the sky very high, or diving deep beneath the waters where humans may very well not be able to explore for a long, long time. Anyways, this creature is vert realistic to me and may be to you other people. By the way, you can call me Drake for now.

Well said, Drake. I agree.
By the way, this creature that we spotted in Monterey Bay had HUGE scales running down its back (like a dragon or something). It could not have been a whale. ... Dean W.

Well, that is peculiar. How big were the scales? It would seem that this creature is the very description out of a fairy tale or something. Were these scales arranged somewhat like that of a fish? These scales rule out whales and sharks easily. Does anyone know what creatures live in the Bay besides the Monterey Monster?

Well, I am sorry that I didn't see your post earlier! Thank you so much for posting your story on my blog! Eyewitness accounts of abnormal creatures in Monterey bay have been reported over the years so, don't feel alone. Would it be alright with you if I posted this as an "official" post? (using the name you posted on here if that's alright?) And did the creature that you saw look anything like the one in pictures above?
By the way Drake, I looked up to see if there were any other "monsters" in Monerey bay and I couldn't find anything. But, I seem to remember hearing something about there being more than one. I'll post more information if I find it. It doesn't sound like Mr. W's monster is a Plesiosaur as the Monterey monster was supposed to be.

Hmm. Perhaps this "monster" is not one, but a hidden colony of these creatures. Dean W., what have you got to say about this information? Seeing as of how you are one of the many to see this creature, I think your opinion on this matter is important. Write back soon. I stay eager to hear of your comment.

Suzanne, i just read your first story you posted, i have also seen that episode. It did look very faked. the points you made are key to the show. Its strange that they would not have information on her death (if it was real) not posted. another point to this show is how did her boyfriend her hear when she was floating away and on top on the boat? It seemed very staged. On the other episodes, like the New Jersey Devil story, the girls couldn't hold the camera still when filming the monster, yet when the mom is fighting it, it is kept focused. Chat back.

Haha exactly, that story is just... complete fiction. fun to watch but, not to be considered science on any account. There is just no way that any part of this story could've happened. Well, I haven't really taken the time to see any other of the show but, that sounds typical. ha. Thanks for taking the time to comment!

The Monster of Monterey Bay AKA Moore's Beach Monster was nothing more than the carcass of a Baird's beaked whale. Look it up and everything becomes clear; no plesiosaur, no serpent, just a dead whale that much wasn't know about in 1925.

I've done some research on it and here's what I have to say, most of the accounts of the Monterey bay monster that I've come across do not in any way resemble a Baird's beaked whale. As for this specific instance in 1925,
On a Baird's beaked whale "the lower jaw is longer than the upper and the front teeth are visible even when the mouth is fully closed" -
"The monsters body was studied by naturalist E. L. Wallace who said "My examination of the monster was quite thorough. I felt in its mouth and found it had no teeth. Its head is large and its neck fully twenty feet long. The body is weak and the tail is only three feet in length from the end of the backbone. These facts do away with the whale theory, as the backbone of a whale is far larger than any bone in this animal." -from above
Here is what a drawing of what a Baird's beaked whale looks like The head is a bit bulbous but, there is hardly a neck on a whale and from the pictures the creature appears to have a elongated neck. Contrary to the theory of it being a whale.
Also, when the Monterey bay monster was sighted a few years before it was by fisherman who one would think could tell whether what they saw was a whale or not.

The modern pictures and the above ones are spot-on for the Baird's whale. When creatures die, the carcass goes through various stages of ecay, bloating, and deformation. The appearance changes drastically, concerning various body parts or sections, logically leadim to an odd appearnace when something has been dead for an extended time period, and especially in water.
E.L. Wallace concluding the neck was 20-feet long was ludicrous, as he's clearly confusing the whale's body with the neck, of which te innards were rotted or eaten. He must have believed the creature died minutes before it washed up, I suppose? That's a giantic leap to take. In addition, what fossil records show a plesiosaur to be toothless?
This is much like the countless discoveries of decayed basking sharks being misidentified as plesiosaurs throughout history. They sure look like one when rotted away, but clearly are not. Sightings from past centuries can't be relied upon anyway. Science has come a long way since then. Anybody seen the 100-foot long Gloucester Sea Serpent lately? Mistaken identity and hoaxes account for these sightings. Science tells us giant marine reptiles have been extinct for approximately 65 million years. Those are the facts. If they still existed, they would be seen daily and would certainly enjoy the constant food source public beaches provide. Air-breathing must surface for air, and there must be a breeding population, of which there is zero evidence. Common sense must prevail, and that photo(not somebody's questionable eyewitness account) matches the Baird's whale undeniably. See? That's the problem. We ask for irrefutable proof, and when we get it and it points to the mundane rather than fantastic, we ignore that evidence and still argue to the fantastical explanation. Applying Occum's Razor theory to the photos says the Monterey Monster was a whale. I want to believe as much as anybody, but the proof must be concrete and irrefutable, 100%. This legend doesn't bear out that burden of proof, unfortunately.

Well, I must say that you put up a good fight stranger. And your reasons are extremely understandable. My name is Drake and I am a believer of the crypto-creatures. That part about the fossil records is true, but did you consider the evolution theory? Perhaps this creature is a descendant of the Plesiosaur and has developed a taste for, say, plants? You say that 'clearly, the scientist is mistaking the spine for the neck.' Did it cross your mind that he may not be confusing the two parts for the other? I'm not trying to make you out as stupid. No, no, it's nothing like that. It's just that, to me, you are not opening your mind to the many possibilities. Please don't think that I'm trying to 'dumb you down' but there are many possibilities as to of what was washed up on the shore. It is true that in order for a population to remain in this world, there needs to be a breeding population. Perhaps this creature is one of those creatures that is both male and female and is able to reproduce with itself. That's just my theory. OK, next topic. You said that the creature would be seen daily and that they would enjoy the constant food source public beaches provide. Perhaps our food does not appeal to the creature's diet. The air-breathing is something that I turn to the evolution theory. The creature's breathing may have changed from noses for air-breathing to gills for water-breathing. Science does not always hold the answer, stranger. Science is not a complete document of the natural physics of this world. My friend, I only want to give you this advice: don't rely on facts alone. Open your eyes and mind to all the endless possibilities that this life has to offer.

To Anonymous, (and partly Drake)
I agree with Drake, that is a very well stated argument. And I admit that you are right when you talk about the drastic changes that occur to a decomposing animal but still, you must consider that this man was a former president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia who must have had some experience with whales before. He clearly stated that the animal he studied had bones that were much smaller than those of a whale. (I admit that the animal could've been an adolescent and that would discount the size of bones)
Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that plesiosaurs don't have teeth although I looked back at what I wrote and it appeared that way, I was just stating that the animal E.L Wallace examined didn't have teeth and Baird's beaked whales do. (I want to state that I understand that the animal could've lost its teeth due to old age and this may have been one of the causes of death) You are right, there are lots of stories of mistaken identity because people are fallible. But, you know, when you have all these sightings that point to there being something out there... and you have all these people telling you that there REALLY is something, is it logical to assume that EVERYONE is wrong, mislead, and/or lying??
Sir or madam, this next statement may sound quite rude (I am sorry if anything I say or have said offends you, I am just not very good in the area of putting things delicately) in your comment you say that sightings and science from past centuries can't be trusted, then, you tell me that modern science says these animals have been extinct for 65 million years. Am I to discredit a 200 year old account and see it as unreliable and then look to a 65 million year old fossil record as a more reliable source? I hope I'm not seeming like I'm trying to make you out as dumb, I understand that the fossil record would've been studied recently, but, still...
I happen to be a creationist, so, I can't agree with you on the point of science telling you that these things are 65 million years old. Your and Drakes responses have encouraged me to write a post about my beliefs what I have found evolutionism to be and hopefully have other people share their beliefs too. I don't pretend to be an unbiased person and other people are fully entitled to their own beliefs and I'd love to hear them. Just as I am fully enjoying your and Drakes response, I may not agree with you, but I am happy that you brought forth your ideas!
Back to the topic, Drake I believe gave a sufficient answer to your statement about air breathing, food sources, and breeding.
As to any of this being fantastical, the giant squid was once a cryptid and with the old reports there was a lot of mythical stuff that went along with it, but, there really was a giant squid, it's not fantastical at all, amazing, but very real. It was the same with the gorilla I believe (correct me if I'm wrong on that, it's been a while since I looked into that) but, I believe that there were tons of crazy stories about them, but, they were just animals that science didn't believe in yet. I think that the world is still big enough, and the ocean still wild enough for us to keep on finding things we didn't know existed for years and years to come.

You can believe whatever you like, that's fine. The facts don't prove out the theories of creatures from the dinosaur age surviving into modern times.
I don't find your comment rude at all. Science proves its theories out in spades. Seen a dinosaur walking through your back yard lately? Plesiosaurs while on a cruise to the islands? Neither have I.
The times of 100-200 years ago and beyond were rife with superstition and a lack of scientific knowledge, especially compared to today. Nobody is being hanged as a witch these days, but it was certainly bought into at certain points in history(plenty of blame goes to the church there, by the way) and people were killed over it. So, was that correct and reliable thinking? Based on scientific data? Why have sea serpent sightings waned drastically as time moves on? Have they just died out, or could it be that science has surpassed the superstition, ignornace, and lack of knowledge that existed in the past? Logically, the latter makes sense. As for the debate of an account vs. a fossil, the fact is a fossil is a concrete piece of evidence. An eyewitness account is the antithesis of concrete; even modern-day law enfrocement views the eyewitness account as less-than-reliable. Is the inference that someone is sitting in a lab somewhere creating fake fossils?
Yes, unknown creatures have certainly been discovered, but there is a huge difference between unknown species and legendary mosters. The giant squid is a perfect example, and is clearly the basis for the mythical kraken. The kraken was said to be massive, the size of a floating island capable of creating a giant whirlpool and dragging ships to their doom. Turns out that, while certainly being huge, the largest giant squid on record is a female that measured 43 feet from tip-to-tip. Mountain gorillas? Again, hardly worthy of comparisons to finding living dinosaurs as relatives of the gorilla were already known to exist. Sharks and crocodiles have survived for 420 million and 200 million years, respectively, and are readily visible. If dinosaurs survived, why would they suddenly be so elusive? Those two examples are of creatures that have changed very little over those long expanses of time. Both are still carnivores as they always were. Sharks attack and eat humans, as do crocodiles. If you appreciate ideas and open minds, is it that far of a stretch to think dinosaurs would attack and eat humans as well? Why would a carnivorous plesiosaur suddenly EVOLVE into a plant-eater? If they were created as carnivores, wouldn't that put a huge hole in the theory of creationism? Again, it's a very convenient thing.
I fully understand the discovery of living dinosaurs would undermine the theory of evolution and go to your agenda, and that's fine. Believe what makes you happy, that's the point of life. I will point out that, coming from the viewpoint of a non-religious believer in evolution, believing in creationism requires a grand suspension of disbelief in what's accepted as scientific reality, and the belief in many things that can't be proven. To me, there's no concrete evidence that any kind of God exists anywhere, and when that's put to the test, we've been told to "have faith". Hope you don't find that rude, as it's not my intention, just my stated belief. If I saw irrefutable proof of God, then good, much like proof of dinosaurs existing today, of which there's none. I like concrete proof to back up what I believe in, with no ulterior motives other than wanting to see fantastic creatures exist.
Finally, if you wouldn't mind, go check this article out and any related links within. It's at Just search "moore's beach" and you find what I'm talking about. I'm all for finding things we didn't know existed in the depths of the oceans and heart of the deepest jungles, but I want proof rather than speculation based on inconclusive(and sometimes obviously contrary) evidence.

I understand where you are coming from my unknown friend. I always had to have proof for something to be true to me as well. Then I started learning about cryptozoology. I can't change your views about needing proof. That is your way of knowing if something exists or not. You also make many good points that can easily be defeated by other means. But I have no interest in trying to change your views or your points. I mean no offense. Its just the way I am. I'm just a lazy guy that does things once.

I would like to personally apologize to everyone who happened to read the comment which used to be before the one I am now posting. I am extremely disappointed at the fact that our society has regressed so far as is evident in what was in the now deleted comment. Please have discretion in your postings people! This is a FAMILY FRIENDLY blog!

P.S. I will hopefully someday soon (when I find that I have the time) respond to the above comments.

Ok, I was a little awestruck about that comment. I was about to go on a search and destroy mission for whoever posted that. It is disgusting to say something like that on this blog about cryptozoology.

I agree with what everyone one has said about creation and evolution types of veiws. But to my knowledge creation has started to get back up with major facts. In the fossil record certain types of animals have been found to be bigger than what we see today. Also there has been sub-species in the major animals and plant species but never the less they are the same species. As for what has happened in the slow disaperances of certain types of all animals. They are endangered just like the dodo bird was popular and thousands were alive. But were killed and went extinct just as many animals today are facing. So don't be all critcal of standpoints that point out that some animals are being rare to see. Before science went to work many myths have been debunked because there wasnt enough evidence to support what they wanted to see. But more cryptos are becoming more seen with just passing everyday observers. So just be careful for what you ask for, God may be just willing to let you have more than you bargained for. Oh and by the way my name is J.T.

Well, JT, I am prepared to take in my fill of what God has in store for those who are asking to see the cryptos. You have no idea. I have always believed in creatures that humankind has deemed to strange or rare to be real. Believe you me, I can't wait for God to give me what I want. No matter the cost.

Good for u I can't wait to see them either right now I am studying the facts and the myths. Maybe we can meet up sometime in the future to discuss this further. J.T.

I look forward to a meeting between us sometime.

Just as many people did not believe that the platypus was real when it was first discovered, there are many of course, who are skeptical about the calmed discovery of the Monster of Monterey. Since there is no proof that this creature does exist, there is also no proof that it doesn't exist. I myself have watched that episode of Lost Tapes with my older sister. We both found fault with the footage. It was clearly staged and had computer graphics for the monster. And wouldn't something like that be heard about in the news? I believe that there are lots of unknown creatures in the world, large and small. If someone were to tell me that this creature did or did not exist, I would say "Where is the proof?" If someone were to ask me if it did exist, I would say "There is no proof it doesn't, and there is no proof it does."

is it true?? what i see is a y empty boat and a creature chasing over sharon novak.. i see the creature under the sea... super huge,, i think sharon was ate by that creature aka monster of monterey,,

Farah,, Malaysia..

But wouldn't that story be in the news, Farah? if they have a video of it, don't u think that it would be in the news about the death of Sharon. On top of that, like Suzanne said up above, how would her boyfriend be able to hear her and how would she hear him if they were so far apart? Can you answer me that? I would love to hear your answer.

The Sea is still unknown to us. There's probably more creatures than we think that lurks in the deep dark water.

The lost tapes is staged but the numerous eyewitness accounts and the moores beach remains examined by a naturalist do provide a strong but not 100 percent conclusive case certainly this creature could have evolved over. the years and may have learned to avoid humans. The deep sea is largely unexplored and unknown scientific knowledge is itself constantly evolving so it is rather arrogant to discount the possibility of the eyewitnesses being right about what they saw. Plus a small breeding population is entirely possible - one doesn't need hermaphrodism to explain it continuance. Bringing creationism to the argument is silly. The existence of these creatures does not in any way bolster creationism - evolution is observable in present time as darwin saw with the finches on the galapagos and can be seen in the changing breeds of modern cats and so forth on the other hand evolution does not preclude the existence of god or a mysterious spiritual process in the world to believe this is all random chance is itself a religious type of belief. As shakespeare said: there are more things in this world than are dreamt o in your phiosophy horatio

I can't believe that some of you are debating if Lost Tapes is real or not.

I think that based on those other accounts of those missing fisherman never being found and gone virtually with out a trace tends to lean on the fantastic. If you really sit down to think about it and consider the possibilities one is left to truly wonder. One account that really peaked my interest was that story about that boat being found still running but with no one on board. Obviously someone had to of started the boat and taken it out to sea. People don't just disappear off of a boat, it couldn't have been a shark because sharks don't yank people off of boats, and it couldn't have been a Humboldt squid either because the boat was moving and at a high rate of speed. Something had to of literally plucked the captain out of the boat while it was moving at clip. Seeing as its a high boat it had to of been something of considerable size and something that could move at an incredible rate. That's all I'm saying just look at all the variables and come to your own conclusions.

- Joe Jones

It's probably a shark and not the lochnos monster... I thought the lochnos monster was only in Lake Lochnos...

What makes a crypto a crypto is it is unknown! If the monster is real, then it is real. If it is not real it is not real. If it is real, then it is real. The only problem with the monster, is that if there were more than one it would be sighted by more than one person. And if it swam in,it would be confused, and be sighted because it would constantly surface to find its way outside making it very easy to sight

I have never seen a Crypto, nor living where I do in the MidWest am I ever likely to. I merely with to point out as tonight was the first time I have seen the "Lost Tapes" Is that they are listed as Mocumentary - not a true documentary merely a few facts, shaken with a lot of fiction. However- There is nothing wrong with that. Thanks to Lost Tapes I have "Googled" Monster of Monterey and found this site. Without Lost Tapes I didn't even know about the "Monster of Monterey" So hey - I'm glad of it :)

I am not sure if you realized this but it has been bugging me. It always says at the beginning and end of lost tapes that the story they present is fiction. Its all acted out and digitally created. The idea behind the stories on that show are based on accounts of a creature and then they present what they have in a "scary" context. The only thing that they claim to be fact is the actual facts presented through out the show. So yes the story is fake but they do say that at the beginning and/or end.

I believe that such creatures may exist.It is true that the dinosaurs are extinct,but if I am correct,the plesiosaurs were(or are?) reptiles.

Well, I have to say I’m enjoying this debate thus far. There are most definitely creatures of distinct difference to that which we know today. Furthermore with vast depths of the oceans and the vast expanses of yet uncharted rainforests, Papua New Guinea, Congo, and Amazon there is plenty of places larger than the size of some countries to contain these creatures.
I am a Geologist, I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, and likewise one should think that I would believe in evolution. To me both are filled with certain questions and ambiguity, thus for me it is easier to stand aside and concentrate on what could be in existence, not what either science or people believing in God say.
I believe the only way to prove the existence in these creatures is to either capture alive or unfortunately kill them. For the day of technology has come and with it comes trickery and deception on a grand scale where people look to take advantage and prey on our willingness to be open to such creatures, moreover building a wall that becomes so high that no one will eventually be able to see past and all hope will be lost.
The Ceoleocanthe was found and many other creatures, as “anonymous” explained that there is nothing of dinosaur signifance, megamouth and many others have been, Just not dinosaurs as we expect engrained from the movies.
We will find more amazing creatures both new to science and lost to such, however over the coming years, as our planet gets yet smaller, due to rapid expanse of humanity and the resources required to fuel such, we will most likely destroy all chances to see such wonderful creatures.
Well done to Suzanne Markoya, and anonymous for holding a well difference of view debate, no one is ever wrong, only in that ones ideas are different, and we should always be mindful of such.

As for the identification of the carcass: the skull today is saved at California Academy of Sciences. Darren Naish had done an article in 2008(!) about this but unfortunately due to the provider it's not longer available. However the skull is shown also at Cryptomundo:

Yesterday, June 26, 2012, I was sitting on the point just 1/2 mile west of Lover's Point in Pacific Grove near Monterey, CA. I was watching the ocean for sea otters. Just beyond the kelp line there was a large object moving moving from my right toward my left. I thought at first it was the head of a large male Stellar sea lion or an elephant seal, as it was really big, but it didn't go beneath the waves. As it grew closer, I noticed it had a distinct forehead and a longer muzzle, like the front of the head of a bottle nosed porpoise, but could not be this as it's neck was bent back and under the waves in a way no dolphin could do. The length of head was around four feet estimated by the size of the floating sea otters rafting half way out in the kelp. I could see a distinct eye. I had never seen anything like this before and am familiar with marine life as I am a wildlife biologist. The organism moved at around 1mph and continued for around 400-500 meters and then went under the water. It was dark in color but not black, and had a slick, smooth look to the dolphin-like skin. I searched online for anything like it, and found the photo of the strange organism seen in Santa Cruz. I can state that, without a doubt, the head I saw cruising along the coast and the photo of the body on the beach are the same thing. I remain anonymous as I am in an occupation where admission to cryptozoids may hurt my employment.

Thank you so much for your account!! I greatly appreciate it when someone is willing to share their story... And the fact that it happened only two days ago makes it even better. :) I'm going to put your comment along with the other account above in a post. I think everyone would want to know that the Monterey Bay "monster" is alive and well! Thanks again for sharing!

Hello. My name is DEAN W. I am the guy who first posted on this site on October 20, 2009 (nearly three years ago). First of all, I want to apologize to Suzanne Markoya, as well as to "Drake" (Hope you'll see this) for not responding to your questions. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT I FAILED TO COME BACK TO THIS SITE! ): I do recall checking back a couple of times shortly after posting my comments, but thereafter I failed to return. My sincere apologies!

My brother informed me today that he had accidently stumbled onto this site, after once again pondering our Monterey Bay mystery and searching the Internet for new clues. He was surprised to see my post here and informed me that I had left too soon and that there were questions being posed.

Also, it's interesting that the most recent person to post here (Anonymous ... June 27, 2012) had his experience in Pacific Grove. This is EXACTLY where we had our experience. In my original report I said that the experience took place in Monterey Bay because I assumed that Pacific Grove was part of Monterey Bay. The several times that we fished in Monterey Bay, it was always in Pacific Grove where we would rent the boat and "set sail" from.
Also, Suzanne, if you are still interested in using my name in an official blog or whatever, feel free to do so. The creature that we saw looked nothing at all like what is pictured in the above story. We just saw the upper portion of it as it rose up out of the water a bit. My brother remembers it as being covered with scales. I remember more of what the very top of its arched body looked like. This has always stood out in my mind because I still remember thinking, at the time, that this looks like the back of a dragon or a dinoscore (I forget the exact term). We were only 24 yrs old at the time, but nobody has ever been able to convince us that what we saw was nothing out of the ordinary.

Suzanne, my e-mail address is: if you'd also like to contact me via e-mail. Thanks ... Dean

No problem, Drake, just glad you made it back here. :) After receiving the second sighting I did write a post ( Because it was so recent I wanted to make sure that it got up as soon as possible, and having them together makes it that much more exciting. It's great to hear that both of the sightings happened in exactly the same area and so far apart in time. Thanks again for sharing! :-)

If there was only one monster found during all these years, there could be no more or even thousands of more.

It would really be a big help if you guys could add citations / references / works cited to your article.

Post a Comment