mysterious australia newsletter - november 2010

7/31/2019 Mysterious Australia Newsletter - November 2010

1/17

MYSTERIOUS AUSTRALIAMYSTERIOUS AUSTRALIAMYSTERIOUS AUSTRALIAMYSTERIOUS AUSTRALIA

Vol. 1, Issue No 1

November, 2010.

INSIDE:

Welcome to the Mysterious Australia Newsletter. New Light on the Yowie Mystery. A Menagerie of Monsters. Spanish Explorers at Wattamolla Beach 245 Years Before Cook!


2/17

Mysterious Australia Newsletter November, 2010.

22

Blue Mountains UFO Research Club. The Club meetings are held on the third Saturday of the month, at

the Gilroy residence, 12 Kamillaroi Road, South Katoomba, from 1pm onwards.

We are situated on the corner of Kamillaroi Road and Ficus Street, and as we always say, park in Ficus Streetwhere there is safer parking.

WELCOME TO THE MYSTERIOUSAUSTRALIANEWSLETTER..

Formerly known as the Temple of Nim it has been decided to make a name change that everyonecan understand. I originally chose Temple of Nim after Nim, the Sun-God of the lost megalithiccivilisation that arose in Australia tens of thousands of years ago, and although I have written extensively onthis subject and published the first of a number of [forthcoming] books bout this mysterious people and theiradvanced Stone-Age civilisation I feel that, as there remain many people as yet unaware of old Uru, that aname change for our monthly newsletter dealing with archaeological, historical and cryptozoological matters,

was necessary. Mysterious Australia was the name of the Gilroys first book, and as it contained phenomenaof all kinds so shall this newsletter under its new name continue to do so.

Heather and I therefore hope you will enjoy this first issue of our newsletter under its new name, andmany contributions from readers/members of Blue Mountains UFO Research Club are always welcome.

These contributions can be on any Unexplained subjects and any UFO material will be placed in our Clubs

UFO newsletter.Big changes in our club are under way as new members are joining in, so that changes to this

newsletter have come at an appropriate time.-0-

NEW LIGHT ON THEYOWIE MYSTERY.By Rex Gilroy

Copyright Rex Gilroy 2010.

In previous articles in this newsletter and also in my books concerning the Yowie mystery, I havedemonstrated that there is more than one race of primitive, pre-Aboriginal race of Stone-Age hominininhabiting this continent into the time of early Aboriginal arrival by 50,000 years ago.I have also shown that the term Hairy Man was applied overall to every non-Aboriginal [ie Australoid] race

with which they shared Australia. The hairy term however did not imply that they were covered in hair butwore marsupial hide garments [as did the Aborigines]. These beings were also tool-makers. The Gilroys bookThe Yowie Mystery Living fossils from the Dreamtime [URU Publications 2007] which is largelyconcerned with the anatomy and physiology of Australias relict hominins, presents overwhelming evidencethat the Yowie, or Hairy Man was largely based upon three forms of Homo erectus, our immediate ancestor,these being Homo erectus proper, a giant form of at least 3.6 metres tall and a 1 metre tall pygmy form.

These beings were not excessively hairy according to Aborigines and nothing at all like the cartoonish gorilla-like illustrations of hoaxers and sensation-seeking journalists.

An example of the Homo erectusidentity of the hairy people is preserved in Murray River Aboriginaltradition, which speaks of hairy men raiding their camps and stealing lubras, taking them back to their owncampfires and mating with them. These Yowies were obviously not the primate-looking beasties of popularjournalism. Indeed, even when provided with common-sense articles by me on the Homo erectus identity ofthese primitive hominins, backed up not only by fossil skull and ancient stone tool evidence, as well asrecently-manufactured stone tools recovered in the wild, newspaper journalists too often refused to publish

Rex and Hea the r Gi l r o y , Aus t r a l i a s t op UFOand Unexp la in ed Mys t e r i e s Re s ea r ch t e am .

Pho t o c o p y r i g h t R ex Gi l r o y 2004 .


3/17


3

this uncomfortable information, preferring to go on printing the usual sensationalist nonsense. The truthdoes not interest them when sensationalism sells newspapers and we suppose that it keeps them in their jobs!

Homo erectuswas undoubtedly the identity of the marsupial hide clad, tool-making Yowie, and I basemy findings upon the fossil skull-types and tools [past and present] gathered by me in a lifetimes fieldresearch.

However, recent findings based upon skull-types already in my possession have led me to re-identifywhat I formerly identified as proto-Homo erectus as an Australian form of the otherwise African based

Australopithecus robustus. Pending further evidence I have give this form [based upon six skulls] the nameAustralopithecus australis gilroyii. Furthermore, as each of these skull-types, all mineralised and of immense age[having been recovered from early Pleistocene deposits extending back around 1.5 to 2 million years BP],

were recovered from regions where our early Aboriginal tribespeople claimed there existed another, obviouslymore primitive race of hirsute beings who lived upon herbivorous/insectivorous food, or else threw rocks tobring down prey which they ate raw, it seems to me that we are dealing with a race of beings which fit the

Australopithecine appearance.Thus, I am now prepared to believe that groups of Australopithecines had migrated out of Africa,

and over a vast period of time had reached Asia, and thence via what was then a southeast Asian landshelflinking the Asian mainland with Australia, eventually entered this continent over 2 million years ago. Whetherthere was more than a single species involved here remains to be seen, although the mineralised skull and

skull endocasts in my possession point to a form of Australopithecus robustus, a race now thought to havebeen a maker of crude stone, even bone tools. Crudely flaked eoliths have been recovered in the vicinity offossil remains ofA. robustusin Africa.

However, to date only scraps of fossil hominin remains recovered in China, India and Java, largelyteeth and jaw fragments, which some scientists have suggested might be of Australopithecine origin havebeen forthcoming, so that without perhaps outright fossil skull-types at least for scientists to study , thepresence of Australopithecines beyond Africa remains for now officially unestablished. Yet just because suchevidence has not yet been recovered from countries between Africa and Australia does not imply that it doesnot exist, and could very well turn up eventually, thus backing up my pioneer Australian Australopithecineskull-types.

The over-hairy apish creatures of ancient Aboriginal tradition were described by a people who had no

knowledge of primates of any kind, and my fossil skulls now give credence to these ancient traditions. Thus,while we can easily dismiss the cartoonish version of the hairy ape-like Yowies of ignorant journalism, wenow possess fossil evidence that a race of often longish-haired ape-like, man-like creatures did, or perhapsstill do, exist, in remote regions of Australia.

Aboriginal claims that these over-hairy Yowies have dark hair and darkish skins, and that they inhabit[or once did] the more mountainous forested regions of Australia, chiefly those in the eastern part of thecontinent, is in keeping with what has been proven by African-based palaeoanthropologists and thosescientists concerned with climatic conditions of geological times.

For example, forests were essential to those earliest Australopithecines who subsisted on anherbivorous/insectivorous diet, such regions being rich in berries, nuts, certain edible plants, leaves etc. Our

Australian Australopithecus robustuswould have been a distant evolved variation of his African ancestor, but

having developed crude stone [ie eolithic] tools he was obviously adapted to meat-eating and would havehunted beyond the forest environment for game in groups or singularly. Because of the incidence of sunlightand radiation at high elevations A [robustus] Australis probably had dark hair and facial skin as would anyother possible Australopithecine form that reached this continent, or even evolved here from an earlier

Australopithecine species. The dark skin would protect these beings against UV rays. Because external earsize in primates in part reflects ability to dissipate head heat, given a low nutrient diet probably had a lowmetabolism.

At present these is no scientific evidence in existence demonstrating the length and density of A.robustus body hair. If the proposed Australian Australopithecus [robustus] australis groups that adapted to amore open environment once they began hunting marsupials such as kangaroos, etc then excessive body haircovering would have gradually been lost.

Body hair reduction and loss is not a feature unique to modern humans because other mammals havealso lost their hair as a response to body heat control and/or to avoid external parasites such as fleas, ticksand lice. The possibility that A. australis, like his cousins beyond Australia would probably have slept huddledup in groups to keep warm on cold nights may have required a certain amount of hair loss in order to reducethe rate of parasite transmission.


4/17


5/17


5

AMENAGERIE OF MONSTERS.by Rex Gilroy.

Copyright Rex Gilroy 2010

[taken from Out of the Dreamtime The Search for Australias Unknown Animals. URU Publications 2006.]

The Australian coastline, and our east coastal waters in particular, appears to be literally seething withmonsters of one sort or another; more than enough, it would appear, to frighten many people from

swimming at the local beach!Happily this is not the case, for these creatures are, after all in the minority compared with all the

great many other sea creatures more commonly met with.Even so, we have yet to examine reports of giant sea snakes, and the ever-mysterious longnecks, the

plesiosaur-type [what else can they be?] marine creatures that have long been believed by many to exist in the

The Katoomba, NSW Australopithecus australis skull [left] compared with an African Australopithecus robustus example. The basicfeatures of the Australian skull compared with the A. robustus specimen lead Rex Gilroy to the conclusion that Australopithecines made the

cross-continents trek into Australia well over 2 million years ago. Photo copyright Rex Gilroy 2010.

This TIME-Life publication illustration of an African male andfemale Australopithecus couple could be used to describe the AustralianAustralopithecine-type Yowies [ie hairy people] described in ancientAboriginal traditions, as well as early European settlers/present dayeyewitness claims. The physical appearance of these beings differs from

that of the living Homo erectus Yowie tool-making, fire-making

hominins reported from over a wide area of Australia.


6/17


6

depths of the Hawkesbury River and elsewhere around the coasts of Australia and our island neighbours.These beasties we shall meet in Part Five - Reptilian Nightmares.

My wife Heather and I have searched far and wide in Australia and also in New Zealand over a 30year period, gathering information on all manner of mystery marine creatures, in the course of which we haveinterviewed bushwalkers, fishermen and trawler captains in south and north coastal NSW and Queensland, as

well as in New Zealand; or else we have received countless phone calls and letters by eyewitnesses whobelieve they have seen more than one kind of mystery sea creature.

Some of these mystery creatures happen to be giant octopuses and squids. These marine monstersbelong to the class Cephalopoda, which comprises the tetrabranchs which have two pairs of gills, and thedibranchs which have only one pair. Both groups are easily distinguishable, as the only extant members of thetetrabranchs are the genus Nautilus, which are unique in having a handsome spiral shell. All the recent speciesbelong to the dibranchs, some of which have a shell, but it is small and hidden inside the body. The nautilushas about 100 tentacles which are short and smooth, unlike the sucker-covered arms of the othercephalopods.

The dibranchs fall into three groups; the octopuses, the cuttlefish and the squids. The body of theoctopus is a more or less spherical sac to which the head is closely connected. It has eight arms which are allabout the same length, each armed with a double row of suckers, except on the eledones, or Musk-octopuses.

The squids and cuttlefishes are constructed differently to the octopus. The head is situated at the

end of a narrower neck, with the body being elongated with a horizontal fin which runs all round the body inthe cuttle fish, but which consists of two lobes on the sides of the squids. These lobes are very flexible, actingsomewhat like a propeller. Like the octopus, cuttlefish and squids have eight arms. They also have two longtentacles which swell into a flattened spoon-shape at the end, these being covered with close rows of suckers.

The cuttlefish are able to retract these tentacles and shoot them out to spear their prey. The squidswave their tentacles about like antennae. These creatures have evolved their individual physical differences tosuit their different habits and ways of life. The octopus has evolved a physical structure suited for crawlingabout on shallow and deeper sea floors, whereas the more tapering body and fins of the squid has evolved fora life of swimming in the open sea. The octopus inhabits a lair where it awaits its prey, whereas the squidpursues its food at high speed through the water. They are powerful enough to propel themselves so stronglythat their streamlined body acts like an artillery shell, often allowing them to leap from the water, either onto

land, or more often onto the decks of ships.The cuttlefish is a less slender creature than the squid and not as good a swimmer. It occupies a

habitat that stands half-way between the octopus and squid. It does not inhabit a hole, but it rarely risesabove the sea floor, where it lies half buried in the sand, able to appear almost invisible due to its mimicry,harpooning any creature that passes by.

Octopuses range in size from Octopus arborescens, which is less than 50mm in span from arm tip to armtip, to O. hongkongensis, which has a span of 9.8m. They are found worldwide in temperate and tropical seas,although some can be found at the surface of the open sea and some species can live at depths of 4,500m.

They feed upon crabs, snails, fish and other marine animals.Although armed with sharp beak and poison glands [usually not harmful to humans], the octopus will

usually flee to its burrow when a predator threatens. Its chief defence is to release a cloud of ink, which not

only acts as a decoy to distract its enemy, but also paralyse the attackers sense of smell.As just pointed out, the largest [official] span of these creatures is the 9.8m of O. hongkongensis.

However, far larger specimens have been reported worldwide, particularly off the Australian coast. A hugeoctopus of about 36ft span [ie about 11m], was found on an isolated beach near Harrington, on the NSWmid north coast by fishermen after a storm in 1935, but nobody bothered to report the find to anyone inauthority until some months later, by which time the remains had long since been washed away.

Further up the cost, off Urunga, in 1953 a fishing trawler passed a dead octopus that showed signs ofhaving been savaged by a shark. The men on board estimated one arm of the creature visible in the water tobe about 39ft [about 11.9m].In 1980 I received word from a skin diver, Mr Rob Clover, who at the time was exploring the Great BarrierReef off Bowen, Far North Queensland, that he and two other divers had spotted a huge, greyish-coloured

octopus in shallows, whose arms, although moving about, had they been spread out tip to tip, would havebeen at least 40ft] 12.2m] in span!

Theodore Barnett, the fish authority quoted in the previous chapter, was deep-sea fishing in mid-April1979 off Greenwell Point NSW. At a point 30 miles offshore, he caught something heavy in his line whichoffered no resistance. When he reeled it in he discovered it to be a huge section of an octopus arm about 20


7/17


7

inches [56cm] thick! How large was the creature it had belonged to? As the section of limb [about 90cmlength] was rotting he threw it overboard.

We turn now to similar reports of giant squids.Marine biologists recognise the giant squid, Architeuthis princeps, as reaching up to 15m in length

making it officially the largest invertebrate. Loligo pealii, at 30cm length, is the common squid of the Atlanticcoast, while Loligo opalescens, is the common squid of the Pacific. There are, however, like the mysterious giantoctopuses, more than one squid of gigantic size not recognised by conservative university marine biologists,

but frequently reported seen worldwide. This author is concerned with those reports from Australasianwaters.

For example, during 1973, Richard Hicks, a sailor on H.M.A.S. Melbourne, sighted a giant squid ofabout 40ft [about 12.2m] length, during a voyage up the NSW far south coast. Other crewmen must also havespotted the huge creature as the ship passed quite close to it.

About this time Torres Strait islanders old tales of a many legged sea-monster were attracting myinterest, a monster they said, which reached something like 200ft in length!

More than one whale has been found off the Queensland coast, if not elsewhere around the continentover the years, which bore the marks of squid discs up to 44cm in diameter, which could suggest a gargantuansquid of the above length inhabits our coastline!

New Zealand has had its fair share of giant squid sightings. At Waimarama on South Island one such

creature was washed up on the shore in 1871. When measured from the end of the tail to the root of the armsit was found to be 10ft 5inches [about 3.18m] length. The bodys circumference was more than 10ft and thearms were about 5ft 6inches [1.68m] in length. The local Maoris identified the dead monster with the

Taniwha, a name applied to more than one mysterious water monster in these islands.In 1887 a Mr T.W. Kirk, who was responsible for recording many large squid sightings around New

Zealand, was brought the beak and pharynx of one such giant by a fisherman, who informed him that thetotal length of the squid to which these body parts belonged was 62ft. However, Kirk soon found that theanimal was in fact 57ft long and that 49ft of this was tentacle.

And what of giant squid encounters hereabouts in modern times? During my first visit to NewZealand with Heather in July 1980, I collected vague reports from Hawkes Bay, North Island and in CookStrait. These were accounts of fishing trawler crews that had occurred during the 1960s and 1970s, but in

1979, I was informed [during a lecture I delivered at Tauranga], that two local divers had been laughed at,following their claim to have met up with a monstrous squid easily 50ft in length [ie about 15.24m], whilediving off one of the islands in the Bay of Plenty.

*****We now return to Australia to investigate three very different types of sea monsters.One day during 1959, Mr Alf Collier was water skiing over Swan Lake at Sussex Inlet, on the NSW

south coast, in 3m of water at 35 mph, when he thought he had just skied over a submerged aeroplane. Alfdescribed what happened next to me during an interview with him in November 1979:

I asked the motor boat driver to take me back over the spot again where I had seen the strange object, but when hetook me back over the spot the aeroplane was gone.

It was about 25-30ft [7.62-9.14m] in wingspan, greeny in colour, and the wings could have suggested some giant

form of manta ray.Whatever it was, it was no ordinary creature common to these parts. Suffice it to say the beast was an unknown monster

of the deep which had strayed into unfamiliar waters,he said.*****

And then there is the Monster of Ballina Lagoon...Ballina, which lies north of Evans Head, on the far north coast of NSW, has been the scene of many

eerie encounters with this monster going back generations, so that we are obviously dealing with more thanone animal.

The following information comes from Mr Vincent Chapman, who saw the creature in theabovementioned lagoon in 1965. He describes it as a hairy dark honey-brown furred animal, somewhat like ahuge bear in appearance.

Mr Chapman related the following in an interview on Monday 8th May 2000:I saw the creature in 1965 when I was 33 years old. I was with my wife Beryl and our children, sitting on a sandy

beach on this particular day on the lagoons edge, when, some distance away, out in the lagoon, a huge creature rose up out of thewater to a height of at least 12ft [3.66m]; a huge head, with its back to us, and shoulders a good 6ft broad. The head was fur-covered [at least from behind] as was the back. It then submerged below the surface and we didnt see it again.


8/17


9/17


9

wilderness, they were forced to trudge many miles through loose sand along the beach to reach themonster [as the Hobart Press labelled it].

The press as usual was scant on details, but later reported that Mr Mollison had returned from hissecond trip to inspect the monster on March 11th.This statement was of little significance although theincredible series of subsidiary events that followed upon his return is at the same time both interesting andamazing; and amazing for the sheer incompetence demonstrated by supposed scientific experts!

First there is the description of the monstrous mass that Mr Mollison apparently presented to the

Hobart Museum, and whose, reconstruction of the creature was published in the city press, accompaniedby the categorical statement that these impressions of the sea monster were drawn by a museum expert.

Allowing for the usual incompetent reporting of the media, there remain some very important points thathave never been made clear.

For one thing, did Mollison really provide the creatures description attributed to him? As anunqualified, virtual amateur zoologist [but no disgrace in that! RG], it seems unlikely that GovernmentMuseum scientists would accept the report of an amateur and are more likely to have had one drawn up by aqualified scientist. And, would these scientists have provided the media with such a crude throw-awaysketch of the mystery marine giant? From the authors own experience, wherein his own description of the

Yowie was deliberately distorted into a virtual cartoon character, by tongue-in-cheek sensation-seekingjournalists years ago, I believe that we can place the sketches origin on the table of a newspaper artist!

The report of the creatures description appears the work of a scientist, rather than that of a moredown-to-earth amateur, and Mollison was of course not a fully-qualified scientist. He was only quoted asmaking very mild statements of a purely conjectural nature; ie One tends always to reject the fact that an animal isunknown. One is always seeking some explanation, and you try to add up everything, but this one does not add up yetor againThere are only two possibilities - that the animal is unknown, or that it is the remnant of a known animal.He also stated that, while they were at the site, Mr Boote had marked out what he considered the originaloutline and the party dug down on these marks and found decayed flesh. This suggests that the descriptionoriginally came from Jack Boote. Mollison finally concluded that the animal was not a giant ray but probably aray-like animal.

Scientists were soon speculating upon the identity of the mysterious beach blob, coming up withthe usual explanations such as, part of a beached whale, or a shark, even that it might be a giant squid, even

perhaps a giant ray.Then on March 19th Senator John Gorton, future Prime Minister, but at that time Minister of the

Commonwealth of Australia, responsible for the work of the CSIRO, stated in Parliament in a written reportthat: In laymans language, and allowing for scientific caution, this report means that your monster is a largelump of decomposing blubber, probably torn off a whale.

Gortons report, based upon the [cover-up] explanation of the scientists, did nothing to officiallybury the matter.

For one thing, Mollison had stated that the creature was not a whale. He also stated that he hadretrieved samples of tissue to prove it. Even while he was making this statement, the scientists were, asreported in a March 12th 1962 press release declaring that so far no zoologist has looked at itand denying thatany tissue samples had been brought back for study. This appears strange in view of the fact that Mollisons

samples were at that time being analysed in Sydney and were fully reported upon by CSIRO scientists.Finally, after questions had been raised in Parliament, and negotiations concluded between the

CSIRO, Royal Australian Navy and Museum officials, a scientific team departed from Hobart for the north-west coast, where they rented a helicopter and flew to the site. The group comprised of Mr A.M. Olsen,Marine Biologist and Senior Research Officer of the Fisheries Division of the CSIRO in Hobart. Mr J.H.Calaby, Senior Mammalogist of the Wildlife Division of the CSIRO in Canberra, Dr. E.R. Guiler, SeniorLecturer in Zoology at the University of Tasmania, and two technicians. They picked up Dr.W.Bryden,Director of the Tasmanian Museum, Hobart in the field.

Although they announced that they would spend two weeks at the site, they actually left after just 24hours and were back in Hobart by March 18th. Once there, in great secrecy, they prepared the report that

John Gorton, [who was at that time also in charge of Naval Affairs for the Federal Government], was to read

in Parliament.The report prepared by these experts, after their 24 hour length rush job examination stated:

The exposed portion of the material was 6ft long and 2ft wide.


10/17


10

It projected a few inches above the sand surface.

Test holes were dug into the sand around the periphery for several feetto determine the dimensions of the object.

As no solid matter was found in the test holes, we dug around the solid material,passed a rope beneath, and turned it over, thus removing it from the excavation.

When laid out flat, the material was 8 feet long, 3 ft wide, and 10 inches thick atthe thickest portion, and from half an inch to four inches through.

There were a number of irregularly shaped flaps, the juxtaposition of whichmay have given the impression of clefts, and perhaps the flaps themselves

gave an appearance of lobes.

The appearance of the material on its exposed surface was differentfrom that of the buried portions.

In fact, the material is homogeneous in that it consists throughout of tough,fibrous material loaded with fatty or oily substances.

The material has a strong, rancid smell, resembling the higher fatty acids.

The weight of the object was estimated at a few hundred pounds.

The mass was cut through transversely in several places, andparticular attention was paid to the flaps.

The material did not contain any bones, spines or other hard structures.

The hair-like material of the exposed surfaces was merely a consequence of desiccationand leaching of fat-filled fibrous material.

Within the body of the material were casual canals, circular in cross sectionand half an inch to three quarters of an inch in diameter.

After examining the solid material, further investigation was made around thesite in an attempt to determine the original dimensions of the object.

A few inches below the present sand surface was a layer of sand of variable thickness,

which has been stained by organic matter, and had the same strong, rancid smell as the solid matter.This matter extends 8 feet beyond the limit of the solid material in a northerly direction,

but to the south and landward sides was only present under the solid materialand did not extend beyond its boundaries.

On the seaward side this organic layer extended about 18 feet but we did notconsider this distance significant since it follows the natural slope of the beach.

Further investigation was made below the black sand but no solid material was found.

The difference between the size as originally reported and the present dimensions

doubtless is due to decomposition and shrinkage.

In view of the fact that this material has been stranded for a long time and is muchdecomposed, it is not possible to specifically identify it from this preliminary investigation.


11/17


11

Samples have been taken for laboratory comparison by appropriate authorities.

In conclusion, we wish to express our gratitude to the many people whose helpand cooperation made this investigation possible.

This rotting blob on the beach, or globster as some locals were calling it, was in fact not the onlyinstance of such a creature having been washed up on the Tasmanian west coast; as some residents of isolatedbeachfront areas have pointed out that mystery hairy monsters have been found by people on and offhereabouts since pioneering days in the 19th century. In fact, five such creatures had been found over the last30 years and been overlooked by the authorities and media alike.

There was also one important question not answered in the quoted scientific report. Namely, was themystery globster ever covered with hair of any kind or fur?

Only mammals possess true hair. This is distinguishable from hair-like structures such as bristles, andno known mammal, or any part of an aquatic mammal of the size of this globster is covered with hair. One

whale species is known to possess six bristles on its chin and the young of the Grey Whale has rows of sparsebristles along the back of its head and forebody, therefore the globster, whatever it was, was certainly noportion of a whale.

A reporter who reached the site after the departure of the scientists later wrote: Near a large excavationwere two bulky pieces of flesh, each a few feet in diameter, and a smaller piece. At that time the excavation would be no morethan a few feet deep.

Either this, or another journalist later unearthed some interesting information concerning thescientific manner in which two large portions of flesh had been removed. This had been accomplished bysuspending them outside the helicopter due to the stench of the rotting remains.

He spoke of the veil of secrecy cast over the scientists work on the beach, and subsequent method ofstorage of the specimen material afterwards at Zeehan. It appears that the specimens were removed from theairstrip to the yard of the Central Hotel, in the Hydro-Electric Commission utility truck under much secrecy.Once in the hotel grounds they were off-loaded in the yard and the trucks tray backed over them. Thespecimens, which had nearly filled the tray, were then left there on the ground until loaded onto another truckfor the trip to Hobart on Saturday 17th March.

Journalists must have wondered how these scientists could possibly issue a full, final report on thistissue material by the evening of the following day. After all, it took the truck all of Saturday to reach Hobart,and we have been led to believe that the entire resources of the CSIRO had been making futile attempts toidentify the tissue samples for almost a week! It appears obvious that, either they made the identification onthe beach, or else they had the blob identified all along!

So, was the mystery creature ever 20ft in diameter as first described? Or was it merely a mass ofrotting whale blubber about 10 feet in length as some people suggest? Did it ever possess hair or fur, or did itonly give the appearance of this?

And why the official cover-up?The whole affair undoubtedly stinks to high heaven. And those incompetent bumbling scientists who

examined and removed tissue samples from the blob on the beach couldnt even agree on that! A group ofcompetent amateur zoologists would have done a better job of identifying this blob on the beach. Otherblobs have been found on Tasmanias north-west coast since the 1960 incident, yet for some reason they

were not investigated by any scientists. No doubt there will be more blobs washed ashore in the future tokeep this mystery alive.

--0

This impression of theGlobster appeared inthe Hobart Mercury

newspaper in March1962.Drawn by

D.C.Mollinson.


12/17


12


A photograph of the actualGlobster carcase inspected by the

CSIRO scientific team. Noteremoved section taken for study.

Photo Hobart Mercury,Tasmania, March 1962,

The 1960 Globster discovery was notthe first of its kind on Tasmaniasnorth-west coast. There are earlier

stories among the locals of similar huge,smelly blobs having been washed up on

the coast, and there have been othersfound hereabouts since the 1960 Ben

Fenton Globster discovery. This sketchwas copied by Rex Gilroy from an

original, done by a farmer who foundone of this size [note human figure sizecomparison] on an isolated north-west

coast beach about 1989.Sketch copyright Rex Gilroy 2006.

Old seafarers tales dating from Viking times in Atlanticwaters, describe a monstrous squid they called the Kraken,which was said to be able to wreck sailing ships. In 1961near Broome, WA, people watched from the shore of an

inlet as a gigantic squid grabbed, and pulled under, a smallyacht moored offshore. [It was unoccupied at the time]. In

1954 native pearlers leapt from their pearling lugger offLong Island, Torres Strait, when a giant squid the size ofa house suddenly emerged from the water and with its longtentacles began attacking the wooden vessel, smashing the

mast and sail, leaving the vessel badly damaged beforevanishing back into the water! Natives of Fergusson

Island, DEntrecasteaux Group, speak of tribesmen and

women having been taken by gigantic squids in the past,when the monsters attacked large canoes filled with people.Sketch from Monsters of the Sea -Legendary and

Authentic, by John Gibson. T. Nelson and Sons,London 1890 .


13/17


13


In 1920 a diver is believed to have been taken by agigantic squid while working from a pearling

lugger off the coast off Thursday Island in TorresStrait. There had been claims of sightings of such acreature by islanders for some months before this

incident, and stories of squids of monstrous sizes arestill told by Torres Strait Islanders.

Sketch copyright Rex Gilroy 2006.

Octopi range in size from species lessthan 50mm in span from arm tip toarm tip to others up to 9.8m. Evenlarger species are suspected to awaitscientific recognition. A monstrousoctopus of up to 50ft span [15m]

was claimed seen by two skindiverswhile exploring the Great Barrier

Reef off Mackay in September 1978.Picture from Monsters of the Sea Legendary and Authentic by John

Gibson, T. Nelson and Sons,London 1890.

Octopus honkongensis, which is foundworldwide in temperate and tropicalwaters, such as along the Australiancoast, reaches 9.8 metres in length.

Larger species unknown to science aresuspected to exist in Australian coastal

waters.Photo Strange Phenomena Magazine.


14/17


14

SPANISH EXPLORERS ATWATTAMOLLABEACH245YEARS BEFORE COOK!

by Rex Gilroy.Copyright Rex Gilroy 2010.

In past newsletters I have written of evidence recovered along Australias east coast, proving that marinersfrom Holy Spain made many landfalls here, and came close to establishing permanent colonies. Ancient Latinshorthand inscriptions reveal more than one declaration of claim for this land, by captains unaware thatother Spanish captains had beaten them sometimes many years before!

Communications being what they were in those times, it is no surprise that even Spanish historianstoday cannot say with any certainty which of their 16th century explorers might have been the first to lay claimto the mysterious Great South Land.

As previous articles by me reveal, Greg Foster and I have uncovered a number of inscriptionsrevealing an unknown sizeable Spanish colony had been established in Sydney Harbour and its backwaters,

with about a kilometre of Parramatta River shoreline containing Spanish Latin inscriptions dating to the1520s and 1530s, with others in the Gladesville district. Why this colony failed remains a mystery.

Now a new discovery has come to light upon shoreline rocks in the Wattamolla Beach area of theRoyal National Park in Sydneys south.

The largest known species of Manta, Manta biroatris,reaches a span of 7m. It is found in tropical and sub-tropical waters. These creatures weigh up to 2 tonnes.

They have been seen off Australias east coast.However, there have been claims from New Guineawaters as well as the Gulf of Carpentaria and thecoastal waters of Far North Queensland for many

years, of rays exceeding the above span. These includeskin divers encounters off Bowen and Fraser Island[Qld] and trawler fishermen and skin divers reports

from off Wollongong, Shoalhaven Bight off Nowra, andSussex Inlet Wreck Bay, with rays of between 40 and

50ft [12.19-15.24m]!Photo Strange Phenomena Magazine.

Australian Fur Seal, Archocephalusforsteri, found along the south coast in

eastern Australia to the Bass StraitIslands and Tasmania. It is also foundalong New Zealands South Island. Atapproximately 200-500cm length and

around 300-350kg weight, it is nowherenear the 30ft length [9.14m], seal-like

monster claimed seen on more than oneoccasion in Ballina Lagoon, on the farnorthern New South Wales coast. Couldsuch a monstrous species have eluded the

attention of marine scientists?Illustration from Strange Phenomena

Magazine.


15/17


15

I had not returned to this beach since being taken there as a child in 1955 with my parents byneighbours. I was friendly with their son and he showed me the beach. Here on a sandbar I recall us playing

with toy boats at the waters edge. Little could I have known that many years down the tack, on a nostalgicvisit I would stumble upon an ancient set of engravings made by Spanish seafarers who landed in this verybay long before the arrival of Captain James Cook in 1770.

It was on Thursday 28th October 2010 that Heather and I, together with our friend Geoff Holland ofBrisbane, drove to this reserve for a picnic. After showing Geoff the beach, we went exploring the cliffs.Straying off the beaten track as usual, I came across a large sandstone rock surrounded by scrub bearing fadedcarvings. Chalking them in I was surprised to see the outline of an ancient vessel, a galleas [a ship steered by asweep like an ancient Greek trireme], four strokes in a line within its outline, other letterings engraved in oldEuropean style, and archaic numbers forming the years 1525.

Having drawn and measured the carvings I photographed the inscription then washed the chalk fromit to prevent anyone else finding this inscription and perhaps vandalising it, then we hurried back to Heatherat the picnic ground to show her the drawings.

After lunch Geoff decided to remain with Heather while I went off to explore the clifftopsoverlooking the ocean. I bush-bashed and rock-hopped for about a couple of kilometres in the space ofabout an hour, before I had the urge to climb onto a very large sandstone rock formation overlooking theocean. Here to my surprise I found myself looking down at my feet at another ancient, obvious Spanish Latinshorthand inscription. Like the other find, the sea air and elements had taken their toll, and it was necessaryonce more to chalk in the letterings, which besides the outline of a galleon, included a name Ontega. Theletters GPT on one line to the right of the ship, and beneath these the image of a Cross within a circle, asymbol of intended conquest by Spain, to the right of which were the letterings NT. Above the ship werethe letters MI, to the left of which were the numbers 1525, beneath which was another Cross.

I quickly drew, measured and photographed the inscription which, like the other find also had to bechalked in, then the chalk washed off and I left, as the afternoon was drawing on and I had to return toHeather and Geoff before the sun set, which was getting low, I got back to base within 40 minutes havingfound an easier route to return by. As we drove out of the Park I played around with the translation problem.

*****The first inscription found by myself and Geoff revealed a date 11th April 1525. The galleas

featured with the letterings was s small craft used mainly for coastal exploration and mapping. After a day orso I finally completed the translation:

Here on the 11th April 1525 with a galleasand four ships in this bay [Captain] Basil by

the Sign of the Cross claims this land [for Holy Spain].

The second inscription was obviously engraved on the orders of one Captain Ontega. The finaltranslation reading:

Ontega, Captain of the St. Marie by theSign of the Cross, arrived here in 1525.

Both inscriptions were from a single landfall at Wattamolla Bay and the vessels must have carried asizeable number of men. They had to have visited Botany Bay not far up the coast to their north, and surelyalso Sydney harbour.

I am certain that the rocks of the Wattamolla area still hide more inscriptions and could there beremains of at least temporary settlement still hidden somewhere in the scrubland hereabouts? Only furtherfieldwork will hopefully uncover such evidence, but what has just been described is certain evidence thatConquistadores,, who probably reached our east coast from a base in South America, left their markers onrocks facing the ocean, rocks which stood with their tell-tale inscriptions as an unwitting Captain James Cooksailed past that very bay en-route to his landfall in Botany Bay, where other Spanish Latin inscriptions werefound, near the Georges River mouth in 1936.

It seems ironic that while he here laid claim to Australia, Spanish explorers had already held a similarceremony generations before him!

The unknown Spanish discovery of Australia is a fascinating subject and it is one that I shall returnto in this newsletter as we uncover further ancient rock inscriptions that speak of the lost deeds of brave


16/17


16

mariners dispatched to these shores by Kings of Spain in those early times of European cross-oceanexploration.

-0-

Wattamolla Bay, where Spanish ships and their crews madea landfall on April 11th, 1525.

Photo copyright Rex Gilroy 2010.

Rex Gilroy stands on a beach he had not seensince 1955. Behind him lies dense coastal scrub

hiding the second of the two ancient SpanishLatin shorthand inscriptions.


The first inscription which wasdiscovered by Rex and Geoff Holland.Photo copyright Rex Gilroy 2010.


17/17


Please Note

Our previous meeting was a huge success and we look forward to seeing you at our next one.

Our next meeting will be ourCLUBS CHRISTMAS PARTYand will beheld on Saturday18th December,2010 same time, same place 12 Kamillaroi Road, Katoomba.

So until our next meeting

Watch the Skies!

Rex and HeatherRex and HeatherRex and HeatherRex and Heather

On this huge sandstone clifftop rock Rex found the secondinscription. Carved on the edge, it made photography anawkward exercise! Photo copyright Rex Gilroy 2010.

The second inscription, carved upon an oval section ofthe rocks edge. To obtain good photos of the carvings

Rex had to take them from the opposite direction.


mysterious australia newsletter - november 2010

Documents