Nowadays Margate beach is a popular tourist attraction known as a great venue for diving and whale watching, but in 1922 its desolate shores became the equivalent to box seats for one of the most amazing sea battles ever recorded.

On November 1, 1922, something incredible was observered by land owner Hugh Ballance - and at least a handful of additional witnesses - while standing on the shores South Africa's Margate beach, in the area known as KwaZulu-Natal.

What these individuals reported seeing that sunny afternoon was a spectacle which, to the modern eye, would seem to have been culled straight out of a Godzilla movie - although in it would be another three and a half decades before that particular atomic fire-breather and its friends would wage their mighty cinematic battles on the silver screen - yet just off the shores of Margate, in the churning depths of the Indian ocean, those onlookers swore they bore witness to what has been described as an epic battle between three gigantic beasts.

Two of the animals were easily recognized by the spectators as whales (probably orca), but the third member of this fracas was deemed utterly unclassifiable. A creature who's equal has been seen by only a handful of men worldwide. A beast who's very existence seemed to defy all of the rules of biology and Darwinian logic.

The witnesses stared transfixed at the sight before them as this battle of the titans raged for over three hours, resulting in the deaths of all involved. But as fascinating as the accounts of the battle are, the mystery doesn't truly begin until later that same evening, when an unfathomably bizarre, 47-foot long corpse washed up on shore.

The creature had no apparent head, yet it bore a 5-foot long trunk, which seemed to just appear from its torso. As if that weren't strange enough, the animal was said to have a 10-foot long, lobster or prawn-like tail, all of which was covered with what appeared to be a coat of 8 inch long, snow-white hair.

Amazingly, even after the eyewitnesses confirmed that the beached carcass was that of the creature which they had seen fighting in the sea, no official scientific expedition was launched to investigate the corpse. In fact, no real mention of the occurance filtered out of the KwaZulu-Natal region until the London Daily Mail ran a story on December 27, 1924 - over two years after the event!

Even years later, witnesses remembered the clash with incredible detail. They claimed that the creature - which came to be known as Trunko, due to its incredible elephantine appendage - fought a valient battle against the lethal whales. Many witnesses even swore that they saw Trunko rise over twenty feet from the frothing ocean and use its lobster-like tail as an offensive weapon against its assailents.

A vocal minority of crypto-afficianados have posed the theory that Trunko may have been a living, breathing example of an aquatic-elephant. They claim that these creatures may have evolved back into marine animals - much in the same fashion as modern cetaceans - millions of years ago.

This theory postulates that after a multitude of generations this ancient precursor of the MASTODON would have lost its legs in favor of more useful flippers, and that over the centuries its body would have become more streamlined. This is yet another trait which would parallel this hypothetical animal with the genuine remains of Trunk, which is sometimes refered to as the Natal carcass.

On an even more bizarre note, there are some fringe researchers who have speculated that Trunko may even be extra terrestrial in orgin. This speculation is not entirely unlike the claims made by IVAN T. SANDERSON regarding the TASMANIAN GLOBSTER. 

Unfortunately this account ends (as is too often the case) with the footnote which claims that after 10 day of rotting right beneath the noses of the South African scientific community, the carcass was washed back out to sea - and forever out of the hands of zoologists, marine biologists and historians - never to be seen again.

Cryptozoologists have noted that the obvious similarities between Trunko and the QUEENSLAND CARCASS, HOADE'S MONSTER, and the GLACIAR ISLAND CARCASSare simply too striking to be ignored. Some investigators have also speculated that these creatures may well be associated with the ancient Indian legends regarding the revered elephant-fish known as the MAKARA.

I'm the Chupa King, yea, but did I say I believe in them?
Because I do, I also believe in Bigfoot and that the Bigfoot hair results are a cover-up of the truth.
[right][snapback]760867[/snapback][/right]

I'm the Chupa King, yea, but did I say I believe in them?
Because I do, I also believe in Bigfoot and that the Bigfoot hair results are a cover-up of the truth.
[right][snapback]760867[/snapback][/right]

HOADE'S MONSTER


This fascinating beast is one for the record books. In September of 1883, a native to Adelaide, Australia known only as Mr. Hoade reported that he had found the carcass of a strange animal lying on the banks of Brungle Creek.

Unlike most of the cases chronicled here, this animal was neither serpentine, nor an amorphous, GLOBSTER-like blob - In fact, the appearance of this beast was so bizarre that Charles Fort, in his book "Lo!," which was published in 1931, claimed that the creature must have been extra-terrestrial in origin:

"Remains of a strange animal, teleported to this earth from Mars or the moon - very likely or not so likely - (were) found on a bank of a stream in Australia."

Hoade Described what he had discovered on Brungle Creek for an article which was printed in the Adelaide Observer, on September 15, 1883. According to Hoade, the animal was approximately 30-feet long, with no apparent head, an elephantine trunk and a curved appendage which resembled the tail of a lobster. There have also been reports of this creature being covered with a coat of dark fur, but these have not been confirmed.

As outlandish as this combination of traits may seem, those who have delved into cryptozoological archives know that Hoade's Monster is just one of many creatures which share these unique attributes. Far and away the most famous cousin to this seemingly headless, fur bearing, Crustacean-like, aquatic mastodon, was washed up on a South African beach in 1922, where it was affectionately dubbed TRUNKO. Other animals of this ilk include the QUEENSLAND CARCASS, as well as the quasi-legendary GLACIER ISLAND CARCASS of Alaska.

QUEENSLAND CARCASS


Australia - much like its South Pacific cousins New Zealand and Tasmania - have been the unheralded recipients of more than its fair share Curious Carcasses. Renowned for its mysterious GLOBSTER corpses, Australia has also been the temporary home of more than one set of strange, hybrid-like remains, which have washed up on its desolate, rocky shores. One of these numerous oddities seems to be inextricably intertwined with the case of South Africa's notorious, 1922 Natal carcass, known to most researchers as TRUNKO.

On March 19, 1883, the New Zealand Times reported that primarily skeletal remains of an unknown monster had been discovered on the coast of Queensland, Australia. The carcass was measured to be roughly 40-feet in length and was notable for numerous physical traits, not the least of which was a pair of gigantic hip bones.

This account further stated that the mysterious remains had been removed to Rockhampton, Queensland for further study. The article described what must have been the creature's most distinguishing characteristic, as such:

"There are the remains of what must have been an enormous snout, 8-feet long, in which the respiratory passages are yet traceable."

Modern fortean researchers have noted that the remains could not have been those of a beached whale, because the hip bones of modern cetaceans are only vestigial structures. Even in a 50-foot long sperm whale, these bones are nothing more than detached, atrophied, 12-inch relics, which have long since betrayed their former usefulness.

This fact stands in stark contrast with the comparatively colossal hip bones discovered within the Queensland carcass. This notable fact, combined with the appearance of a trunk-like appendage, have encouraged some researchers to theorize that there may be active colonies of Trunko-type creatures, or Gambian SEA-ELEPHANTS, roaming in the vast seas of the southern hemisphere.

Another interesting note is the fact that this discovery occurred only months before the HOADE'S MONSTER catapulted a creature of uncannily similar description into the limelight.

GLACIER ISLAND CARCASS


On November 26, 1930, the world was stunned by a report that found its way into the New York Times with a headline which read: "ICE BARES STRANGE ANIMAL." Below the headline a sub-heading continued: "ALASKANS SUGGEST PREHISTORIC ORIGIN."

According to the accounts - which were printed not only in this prestigious New York Times, but also the New York Sun - the carcass of a huge, fur bearing, reptilian-featured animal had been discovered on Alaska's barren Glacier Island. The creature was described as being as being 42-feet in length, with a 6-foot head, a 20-foot body, and a 16-foot tail.

It was also reported that the carcass was in excellent condition. This was credited to its preservation in this arctic environment. For those who first encountered the cadaver, the consensus was almost unanimous; lying before them, embedded in a block of ice, lay a monster from another age. As quoted from the November 26, New York Times article:

"The theory has been advanced, that the carcass is that of a prehistoric animal or reptile that has been preserved in the upper reaches of the Columbia glacier."

Most Alaskans - as well as many other individuals worldwide - were understandably skeptical regarding these reports. Their skepticism soon dissipated though, when the supervisor of the Chugach National Forest - one W. J. McDonald - assembled a six man team to mount an expedition for the purpose of finding and identifying the carcass.

Upon their arrival at Glacier Island, McDonald was as shocked as anyone to find a corpse, which he described as a being shaped unlike any other creature known to have existed anywhere in the region, said McDonald:

"The (creature) had a long tail and tapering head, much like a dinosaur."

Measurements taken by the McDonald expedition were much more thorough then those previously reported. According to McDonald the head - which he described as being, much like that of an elephant - was just over 59-inches long. The snout, from the center of the forehead to the tip, was 39-inches in length and the width of the trunk-like appendage was 11-inches at midsection, with a 29-inch circumference.

The widest part of the beast's carcass was 38-inches and the bizarre animal's length was 24 feet, with a 14-foot tail that started at the rib section. McDonald estimated the corpse's weight to be approximately 1,000 pounds and described its flesh has being horse-like.

The description of the creature's "trunk", fur covered flesh and elephant-like skull, have led many scholars to believe that the animal which McDonald?s team so thoroughly examined was probably the badly decomposed carcass of a WOOLY MAMMOTH.

There are other accounts, however, which emphatically state that the cadaver found on Glacier Island had no discernable head, just a trunk-like appendage jutting out where the head should have been. This account, along with the reports of the beast?s hair covered torso, seem amazingly similar to the descriptions of the so-called Natal carcass, more commonly referred to as TRUNKO, as well as the mysterious cases of HOADE'S MONSTER and the QUEENSLAND CARCASS.

These observations, along with the creature's purportedly "dinosaur-like" tail would seem to rule out the theory espoused by so many modern scholars that the animal was nothing more than a preserved mastodon. It was McDonald's belief that the creature was not indigenous to Glacier Island, but that the animal had become encased in the Columbia glacier and carried off to sea, at which point it was deposited on the Alaskan Island.

Whatever this creature was, it washed back out to sea soon after its discovery, and all scientific interest - much to the shame of zoologists worldwide - vanished along with the carcass.

I think on Animal X, they said there was conclusive evidence that a thylacine might still be stalking Australia, but the government was trying to keep it under wraps. To stop a panic, or something.
[right][snapback]760872[/snapback][/right]

It was a rotten whale carcass being tousled/eaten by the two other whales involved.

Simple
[right][snapback]760892[/snapback][/right]

It should be noted that some of the information present in this stereotypical dialog contradicts information from other sources. One such piece of information is the date. Many websites claim that the event took place on November 1, 1922. However, according to an article published in London’s Daily Mail, entitled “Fish Like A Polar Bear”, the date is stated as being October 25, 1924. Generally, I believe that a newspaper article can be taken to be more accurate than an Internet rumor, which means the event was more likely to have occurred on the later date than the former.


Another set of contradictions is presented in another news article published in the Charleroi Mail, in Charleroi, Pennsylvania. This article, entitled “Whales Slain By Hairy Monster” claims that instead of being killed by the whales, Trunko ended up being the victor in the battle, slaughtering its two opponents. Although it also mentions the strange animal as washing ashore, it portrays it as still being alive, yet unconscious, upon its beaching. After a period of 10 days, the creature supposedly awakened, made its way back out to sea, and swam away, as opposed to the widely held notion that its dead body was pulled out to sea by the tides.


~~~~~~~~~~

The size of the Trunko carcass is also compatible with that of a whale. The humpback whale and the Bryde’s whale can reach lengths of 50 feet, and the sei whale and right whale can grow to 55 feet. All four of these species can be found off the coast of South Africa. It is reasonable then, that Trunko may have been nothing more than a whale carcass, in which decomposition produced both a loss of coloration and a fur-like covering over the body.

The trunk of the animal may also be explained by decomposition. As noted beforehand, some of these globsters seem to possess tentacle-like or arm-like projections. It may be that the “trunk” is similar to these appendages, in which tissue near the head of the whale rotted; leaving behind a tube of flesh that looked superficially like an elephant’s trunk.

The tail of the carcass was purported to have been similar to that of a lobster or prawn. This may also be the result of decomposition. As with all mammals, whales possess a segmented backbone composed of separate vertebrae. It is possible that the flesh surrounding the backbone near the tail of the whale had rotted away, revealing a long, white column of hard segments reminiscent of a lobster’s abdomen. There may have been masses of tissue surrounding each vertebrae, making it difficult to tell that it was indeed made of bone. If part of the flukes had rotted away to give a rounded appearance, then this may have resembled the uropods of a lobster as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is possible that the two whales which attacked Trunko were Killer Whales, mainly because of their carnivorous habits (the distribution range of the Killer Whale includes the coast of South Africa). If we assume that Trunko was decomposing whale carcass that was floating off the coast, then a meat-eating denizen of the sea like the Killer Whale may well find it to be an intriguing meal. Killer Whales have also been known to play with their food, such as throwing seals out of the water.

With this in mind, it seems that the “battle” scenario between Trunko and the whales may have merely been a misinterpretation of play. These acts of thrashing, jumping and slapping their tails may have appeared to be fighting of some kind. Although the part about Trunko using its tail as a weapon is difficult to reconcile at this point, it may be yet another visual misinterpretation or exaggeration on the behalf of awe-inspired viewers.

theSOURCE-

Sorry, but that wasn't convincing in the least.
[right][snapback]764580[/snapback][/right]

If trunko was a dead carcass, how could the whales die trying to kill it? 
[right][snapback]764610[/snapback][/right]

they mortally wounded each other, i suppose.  unless you mean if it was a dead carcass they were playing with how could they die...in which case, i dont know.
[right][snapback]764739[/snapback][/right]

theSOURCE, you need to back up the other story in which Trunko lived by giving a source(no pun intended, I think? ).
[right][snapback]765048[/snapback][/right]