ATAKA CARCASS: (EGYPT)

This gargantuan, twin tusked carcass created a tremendous stir when it washed up an Egyptian beach in 1950, and it remains one of the most controversial oceanic mysteries to this day.

The Ataka animal has provided us with one of the most fascinating images in the annals of cryptozoology. The now famous photograph showing a colossal beached animal with two gigantic tusks — set against a backdrop of curious spectators — has intrigued both scientists and crypto-investigators  alike for over half a century.

The story of this mysterious carcass begins in January of 1950, following a horrific 72 hour gale, which ravaged the banks of the Gulf of Suez. On the day following the epic storm, Egyptian authorities discovered a humongous carcass decomposing on the beach. Almost immediately a team of scientists were dispatched to reveal the creature’s identity.

Described as being “whale-like” in size, probably the most intriguing aspect of this beast – from a zoological standpoint — were its two, huge, walrus-like tusks, which protruded from either side of its large mouth. The animal also seemed to have blow hole atop its head, similar in structure to that of more traditional cetaceans.

This has led some researchers to speculate that the animal may have been an unknown species of marine mammal. Some accounts even include eyewitness reports of a large, whale-like creature swimming in the gulf just ten days before the remains washed ashore.

Although experts of the era could not positively identify this animal, it is common practice among modern skeptics to dismiss the creature as nothing more than a deteriorating whale corpse with its lower jaw bones splayed, creating the illusion of tusks. However, there are those who believe that this beast is truly unknown creature and state that when one looks at the additional evidence found in the photo, one might be forced to reevaluate the assumptions of the academic mainstream.

The supporters of this “unknown creature” theory have stated that it seems both foolish and arrogant to assume that amateur (or professional) marine biologists can ascertain from a single, grainy, black and white photo what top Egyptian scientists were not able to while studying samples of the carcass in question; namely that the Ataka specimen is nothing more than a slightly decayed example of a common whale with its baleen exposed.

They further  state that when researching this case one must take into consideration the other identifying factors detailed in the photograph, such as the animal’s apparent lack of eyes and the row of cilia like appendages circling its maw.

These and other unseen attributes are what likely led those initial scientists away from the more socially acceptable verdict that this creature was just an ordinary whale and forced them to the conclusion that — at least by current zoological standards — the animal in question was simply unidentifiable.

In the decades which have followed in the wake of the controversy stirred by the Ataka Carcass, numerous other remains have been discovered bearing uncannily similar traits. Finds such as Mexico’s TECOLUTA SEA MONSTER, the SUWARROW ISLAND DEVILFISH and the recent discovery known as the MENTIGI MONSTER have all fueled the flames of this ongoing debate.

Tags: , ,

  • http://www.kryptozoologie-online.de Marozi

    The “tusks” can easily be identified as lower arches of a baleen whale. The lower jaw of baleen whales (Mysticeti) consists of two long, rounded arches and where the toothless bones come together (in the symphysical-region) they are not linked. Injured through a collision with a ship these lower arches “break” and create the impression of protruding tusks.

    On a photo with good resolution can be detected that there are two blowholes instead of one as mentioned above.

    A specific feature of the upper side of the carcass enables to identify the species. On the head you will see three elongated ridges leading from the mouth up to the blowholes. The median ridge is wide and even at lower resolutions relatively clear viewable, while the two side ridges are only visible at close range or at higher resolution. Through these specific feature one can safely identify the carcass as a Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei).

    Although the identification therefore is safe for everyone to understand some of the unfortunate first expert assessment seem to count for some more than the listed characteristics. But this assumption is based on an inadequate level of knowledge since in fact the identity remained for the Egyptian scientists not long a mystery. Beginning with 14 January 1950 one can find in the press-archives that the Egyptian experts were in agreement and the corpse could be identified: it was nothing more than a young whale with a prominent “broken” jawbone from a fatal wound he suffered!

    What to make of the cilia like appendages you ask? Since it is a baleen whale this can be explained as nothing more than the flesh of the head or throat.

    And contrary to the view of the carcass to have no eyes there are “very small eyes on the remains of what were apparently fins” mentioned in a press release. Please see for yourself who you can find the eyes in Bryde’s whale (and other cetacean species) and you find that in the picture the eyes are simply obscured by the “cilia like appendages”.

    Case closed.

  • http://www.kryptozoologie-online.de Marozi

    The second picture in this article showing an skull “trawled up at sea” is misleading as it has nothing to do with the carcass of 1950 (except that it shows also a part of an dead whale). According to D. Naish (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBYQhgIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Ftetrapodzoology%2F2009%2F03%2Frorquals_part_ii.php&ei=8nBMTKaLNI3uOenBnQs&usg=AFQjCNEnbVyfPTEfgPxfvjmzYCTDkEEq1A) the story with this picture was published by the Telegraph on 29th June 1908. The skull was “trawled up by the Aberdeen vessel Balmedie (sailing out of Grimsby) and thoughth by the article’s writer to be that of ‘some prehistoric monster’, apparently with tongue preserved. It’s clearly a rorqual skull [...]” The only picture of the carcass of Ataka is the first one in this article.