Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
The Gazeka, 1910

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Cryptozoology - mystery quadrupeds
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
teri107Offline
Grey
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Total posts: 11
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-10-2012 04:43    Post subject: The Gazeka, 1910 Reply with quote

My Own Special Encounter with Mr. Coleman, World Famous Cryptozoologist

This entire post is actually not about pterosaurs at all but about my Sherlock Holmes like identification of Monckton’s Gazeka.


Back in 2009 I wrote a “brilliant” post about the s8int.com identification of Monckton’s Gazeka, a problem/musytery that had mystified/intrigued zoologists, paleontologist and cryptozoologists since 1910 (Even Christian cryptozoologists).

See back in 1910 the Stephens Point, Wisconsin Gazette published a syndicated story about a giant, prehistoric appearing creature in the “wilds of New Guinea”.

According to the article, a prehistoric monster much larger than an elephant had been discovered and encountered not by common folks like me and you, but by scientists.

In addition, to the giant monster,the scientists had come across a “marvelous race of pigmies” who averaged just over four feet in height.

According to the article; 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.”


“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.

http://s8int.com/WordPress/2012/10/14/hey-loren-coleman-world-famous-cryptozoologist-can-you-hear-me-now/http://s8int.com/images5/gazeka2.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 10504
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 22-10-2012 05:42    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm trying to see what you're driving at here. You've repeated, with no apparent comment of your own - unless you yourself are the author of the piece? - about half of the article, referring to a giant cryptid in New Guinea, but given that the thread title is apparently having a go at Loren Coleman for "missing" something you could have included that salient bit.

FWIW, Loren's own comment which seems to draw such derision:
Loren Coleman wrote:
I may move this to a new posting, but I don’t understand how this is anything more than a circular argument? Doesn’t this merely increase the level of speculation but ends up back where this material lead before, to theorized dino alive in PNG?

I don’t see how anything is “positively identified.” Are you one of the authors of this examination?

Am I missing something here?

Thank you
Loren Coleman

...seems entirely reasonable and fair, given the article as presented. Yes, the footprint is consistent with the fossil record, but that photo, presented as is, would be much better uncut or otherwise fiddled about with - ie, give the background, not just print+pygmy. Even so, Loren is right - all it does is loop back to the postulation that there was a giant cryptid living in Papua New Guinea a hundred years ago.

Point is, if pics of prints and anecdotal sightings were proof of existence then crytpozoology would be a redundant field. There are a gazillion sightings, blurry pics and print casts of man-beasts from around the world, but their existence is still unproven - so what Loren was saying is entirely correct. He hasn't been outsmarted at all, and the self-congratulatory blog-post you quote just highlights the author's own beliefs and prejudices trumping the bare evidence available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2327
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 22-10-2012 19:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm struggling to imagine a position from where it appears that Loren Coleman is a sceptic.
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 20641
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 22-10-2012 19:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

oldrover wrote:
I'm struggling to imagine a position from where it appears that Loren Coleman is a sceptic.


He doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-10-2012 19:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

The original article about diprotodontid footprints compares footprints left in fossilised mud, with what appears to be a photo of a plaster cast of the fossil bones of a diprotodontid foot. The fossil bones. The alleged photo comparison from 1910 also shows what appear to be the bones of a diprotodontid foot, not the imprint of the foot itself. Most curious.

Diprotodontid footprints from the Pliocene of Central Australia
http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9l5h4dnqrk12qbum/images/5-dc8bf90bb8.jpg

Alleged 1910 photo comparison:
http://s8int.com/WordPress/wp-images/diprotodon%20compare.jpg

hmm
Back to top
View user's profile 
EnolaGaiaOffline
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Total posts: 1600
Location: USA
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 22-10-2012 23:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monckton himself doesn't appear to have ever mentioned the sort of lurid encounter allegedly reported in the Stevens Point _Gazette_ article.

Monckton's ascent of Mount Albert Edward occurred in 1906. His account of the expedition appears in his book:

_Last Days in New Guinea: Being further experiences of a New Guinea resident magistrate_, Charles Arthur Whitmore Monckton, 1922.

This volume is available as a free e-book at Google Books - I invite anyone to review it.

Monckton describes having found evidence of a heavy cloven-footed herbivorous animal, which left spoor averaging circa 4 by 4.5 inches across. One of his carriers (who'd actually witnessed the beast while lost) referred to it as a 'devil pig'.

Monckton did not personally witness the beast, much less shoot at it. He reported:

Quote:
"The description of the beast (which I beg to remark is that of the police, not mine), culled from a mass of statements, is that it is about 5 feet long, 3 feet 6 inches hight, has a tail like a horse and cloven feet, black or dark skin with pattern-like markings, a long snout, grazes on grass and turns over moss with its snout, and calls with a long shrill note. The description faintly resembles that of the hog-deer, "Sus Barbirusa," indigenous to the Indian Islands." (p. 54)


This, according to Monckton himself, is the beast of record. He reports having corresponded with Sir William MacGregor, who'd reported others' sightings of a similar large animal at about 9000 feet elevation on Mount Knutsford.

Monckton confirms this the 'Monckton's Gazeka', then goes on to allude to ludicrous amplifications of its description in the press ...

Quote:
"At the time of the publication of the Report by me of the animal's existence, various witty scribes referred to the beast as "Monckton's Gazeka," the name I believe it still bears! The evidence of the existence of the beast is however incontestable, even though neither Sir William MacGregor nor myself personally saw the animal.

At the time I should have reported more of my observations as to the evidence of its existence, only for fear of the infernal liars who seized upon a small fact, magnified it inot an absurdity, and then fathered the yarn on to me! For instance ... [the beast] ... was eventually turned into a rhinoceros! The public at large did not see the official Reports upon which the lies were based, so I got the credit of tales told by men who had never been away from a town or Government Station." (p. 56)


Bottom Line: The lurid account of Monckton engaging a house-sized beast is no more than pulp fiction.
Back to top
View user's profile 
DrRic55Offline
Grey
Joined: 25 Jun 2012
Total posts: 13
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 23-10-2012 15:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

This looks like the OP is/has had his account taken over by a bot.

This happens on other forums I frequent. Sometimes they even put together quite sensible posts.
Back to top
View user's profile 
oldroverOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Total posts: 2327
Location: Wales
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 23-10-2012 20:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Monckton describes having found evidence of a heavy cloven-footed herbivorous animal, which left spoor averaging circa 4 by 4.5 inches across. One of his carriers (who'd actually witnessed the beast while lost) referred to it as a 'devil pig'.


I remember this story from Shuker, I thought it might be at the bottom of this.

Quote:
This looks like the OP is/has had his account taken over by a bot.


No I don't think so.
Back to top
View user's profile 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 10504
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 23-10-2012 20:20    Post subject: Reply with quote

oldrover wrote:
Quote:
This looks like the OP is/has had his account taken over by a bot.


No I don't think so.

Agreed. It's entirely consistent with all of the OPs previous posts, most of which also link over to the same blog site, with much the same quality of research and revelation as this latest offering.

Also, never replies to following posts.

There are those.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
teri107Offline
Grey
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Total posts: 11
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 16-11-2012 19:51    Post subject: updated reply to Diprotodon Post Reply with quote

Ok this reply is from the author of the post at s8int.com in reply to me...

Response





Chris Parker says:

November 16, 2012 at 10:52 am (Edit)


Good morning, Thanks for your email. I’m responding here in case there are others with the same question. First, I’d be happy to comment if the comments were in the space. I’m not running over to Crypto.com or whatever. Those guys are certain that their own baby pictures were photoshopped!

That said, I do think scepticism is a good natural position but really diprotodon is thot by science to have lived down to “25,000? years ago so what’t the big deal if it was really only 100 years ago. If one can post photos in a comment here are two: the full page and a side article from “The World’s Most Incredible S tories: The Best of Fortean Times, edited by Adam Sisman”.

Look, at the time of the article they had diproton’s skull etc. but did they have a print or a trackway confirmed to be diprotodon in 1901? I’m not sure. Here’s the point; there was speculation that the animal in question was diprotodon. They reproduced a pic of his skull in the article. The picture of pygmy and the print however was not of diprotodon per se –it was to quote the caption; ‘Enormous footprint of “Gazeka”, reconstructed from recent tracks”.

Now, as I say I’m not sure if in 1901 they had prints identified as diprotodon of the quality produced in the article. Certainly, taking the article on its own terms if they did they would simply have confirmed that the recent tracks match those scientists have already declared belong to diprotodon. So to continue to be very specific, the prints in the article are recent and fresh at the time and left by an unknown creature which is being called “gazeka”. From its description some speculate that it is a diprotodon and thus a picture of the skull of that animal is produced for the article. They apparently don’t have conformed prints of diprotodon at that time.


I’ve simply come along later and compared, later casts of an animal confirmed by science to be thise of diprotodon and gone back to compare them with the 1901 “recent tracks”.

Regarding the other photo from Fortean Times, Percy Trezize, an acknowledged expert on “cave art” thot that this was a 10,000 year old cave drawing of diprotodon found on the ceiling of a cave in the Quinkin reserve, Brisbane. Naturally I think that while it cud be “ancient” its not 10,000 years old.

[img]http://s8int.com/WordPress/wp-images/gazeka page.jpg[/img]

[img]http://s8int.com/WordPress/wp-images/ancient diprotodon.jpg[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile 
chumpanzieOffline
Yeti
Joined: 25 May 2010
Total posts: 44
Location: Newcastle upon tyne, uk
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 02-04-2013 18:12    Post subject: The gezeka, 1910 Reply with quote

The tale of the gazeka from the willmar tribune sep 7th 1910.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn89081022/1910-09-07/ed-1/seq-7/;words=Monster+monster
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Cryptozoology - mystery quadrupeds All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group