Dead plesiosaur carcass

[Canadian Rottweiler]

Found the full set of the plesiosaur carcass that was on the japanese vessel a while back.I'm sure many of you have seen the first or second pic,but the third is more rare,and the fourth i have NEVER seen before.

[RaginCajun]

it is a really nice pic but was later proven to be a corpse of a basking shark...i think

Edited December 26, 2004 by RaginCajun

[Canadian Rottweiler]

it is a really nice pic but was later proven to be a corpse of a whaleshark...i think

422946[/snapback]

I believe you're talking about a Basking shark.No,those pics were not proven to be that.THIS following pic is of a decomposed basking shark...

Edited December 26, 2004 by Canadian Rottweiler

[DarkSide]

I thought it was a basking shark?

[Canadian Rottweiler]

I thought it was a basking shark?

422955[/snapback]

Read post #3

[DarkSide]

Yeah I know me and you posted at the same time and your came up before mine

[RaginCajun]

I WANT TO BELIEVE

check out this link it proves what others and i have said was right.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html

[Canadian Rottweiler]

I WANT TO BELIEVE

check out this link it proves what others and i have said was right.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html

422974[/snapback]

That is a theory link.Just what some people think,that link won't convince me,nor many other people.The only way i will believe if something is proved right or wrong,is if it is on a big,trusted company like Discovery,or World wildlife foundation

[Lochness_hunter]

I really don't know if that is a fake or not. It looks pretty real. I mean if it was a shark why would it have such a triangled head?

[TooFarGone]

Yeah, i have seen this lots of times before, and I agree with Canadian. I think it is a real sea monster.

[Shai_Hulud]

It has already been proven to be a basking shark. If i remember correctly there was a biologist aboard the ship who took some fibers from the animal. Later shown to be collagen from a shark. Follow the link as listed below n you will find out why it looks like a plesiosaurus. Anyway the configuration of the carcass doesn't really follow that of a real plesiosaurus fossil.

[RaginCajun]

Shai_Hulud:

thank you acutally reading my link....THANK YOU.

[jacob]

Cryptid picts

There are some pretty stange things in there including some unidentified sea critters.

[Canadian Rottweiler]

It has already been proven to be a basking shark. If i remember correctly there was a biologist aboard the ship who took some fibers from the animal. Later shown to be collagen from a shark. Follow the link as listed below n you will find out why it looks like a plesiosaurus. Anyway the configuration of the carcass doesn't really follow that of a real plesiosaurus fossil.

423028[/snapback]

Another person already said that,and i replied to it.There was no biologists on board,just a bunch of people that had no idea what they were doing,so they dumped the carcass.It WAS NOT proven to be a basking shark.And Rajincajun's link is just of someone's theory.

[RaginCajun]

i have a link supporting OUR say...where's yours?????

[Canadian Rottweiler]

i have a link supporting OUR say...where's yours?????

423092[/snapback]

Give me a while to look for it...

Edited December 26, 2004 by Canadian Rottweiler

[RaginCajun]

Canadian Rottweiler:

you said:

"It WAS NOT proven to be a basking shark.And Rajincajun's link is just of someone's theory. "

i write:

Look at all the references the site had and sources. it's not just someone's theory. it's many credible people's "theory".

[Canadian Rottweiler]

Canadian Rottweiler:

you said:

"It WAS NOT proven to be a basking shark.And Rajincajun's link is just of someone's theory. "

i write:

Look at all the references the site had and sources.  it's not just someone's theory.  it's many credible people's "theory".

423098[/snapback]

Alright then.But if you wanna prove something to me,i suggest using a trustable source that proves things like the discovery channel.Do you see what I am getting at???

[Elfstone810]

The author in your link, Rajincajin, provides a compelling argument, but I don't think you can claim it as unquestionable proof. According to that author even the scientists who studied it did not say "it IS a basking shark" only that they believed it was "probably a basking shark". Also, if you look at his responses to the objections people have to the basking shark theory, there are an awful lot of "mights" and "could bes" there. He even questions the accuracies of the measurements and observations that he uses to back up the basking shark theory earlier in the paper.

Also, I think you have to take into account that this author apparently has issues with the New Earth Creationists who apparently are trying to use this find to support their religious convictions. He's not taking an unbiased look at the matter, but rather is trying to prove something.

As I said, a compelling argument (and in my opinion quite likely) but not conclusive proof.

[Canadian Rottweiler]

The author in your link, Rajincajin, provides a compelling argument, but I don't think you can claim it as unquestionable proof.  According to that author even the scientists who studied it did not say "it IS  a basking shark" only that they believed it was "probably a basking shark".  Also, if you look at his responses to the objections people have to the basking shark theory, there are an awful lot of "mights" and "could bes" there.  He even questions the accuracies of the measurements and observations that he uses to back up the basking shark theory earlier in the paper.

Also, I think you have to take into account that this author apparently has issues with the New Earth Creationists  who apparently are trying to use this find to support their religious convictions.  He's not taking an unbiased look at the matter, but rather is trying to prove something.

As I said, a compelling argument (and in my opinion quite likely) but not conclusive proof.

423106[/snapback]

I agree elfstone.My whole point i have been trying to get into the thick head of rajincajun...is that there is no hard evidence.Therefor,that link is a theory.Even those scientists aren't positive what it is,and they may never know for sure.So,rajincajun,stop trying to "prove" things that you THINK is right.I don't play the guessing game.I will believe what i want,you believe what you want.Do you finally understand that?

[Mad Manfred]

I've seen the first three before...I believe they were revealed to be a rotten Sealion corpse.

The last one is too faint...could be anything. Probably a large seaserpent of some kind...

[Canadian Rottweiler]

I've seen the first three before...I believe they were revealed to be a rotten Sealion corpse.

The last one is too faint...could be anything. Probably a large seaserpent of some kind...

423126[/snapback]

Yeah.most people have seen the first 2-3,but the 4th is different,and as you said,looks like a sea serpent...

[Shai_Hulud]

Shai_Hulud:

thank you acutally reading my link....THANK YOU. 

My pleasure.

Another person already said that,and i replied to it.There was no biologists on board,just a bunch of people that had no idea what they were doing,so they dumped the carcass.It WAS NOT proven to be a basking shark.And Rajincajun's link is just of someone's theory.

The 39yrs old Michihiko Yano who retrieved the sample was a graduate of the Yamaguchi Oceanological school. Of course he at first thought that the carcass was a plesiosaurus.

Alright then.But if you wanna prove something to me,i suggest using a trustable source that proves things like the discovery channel.Do you see what I am getting at???

The professors credited and referenced are hardly incredible as a source of information. In the nine papers published in the Societe Franco-Japonaise d'Oceanographie by different Scientists they all agree that the samples come from a shark most likely a basking shark. The 20 amino acid within the sample agrees exactly with that of a basking shark's elastodin. Physical analysis of the sample agrees that it resembles a basking sharks elastodin as well .

Another point in the argument is that the morphology of the carcass from the picture does not agrees with a plesiosaurus but exactly with a basking shark carcass. Ion-exchange chromatography of the sample reveals the sample belongs to a species relateing to sharks, not mammals or reptiles. Btw all this evidence are referenced and can be acessed in journals from your local university.

This are about as hard an evidence as you will ever get.

[DarkSide]

To add to the above post. The carcass was hauled up in the nets of a japanese fishing trawl.

'Supposedly' (Not taking a side on this one) A tissue sample was taken and they took some photos they then dumped the rotting body back into the water because of its unberable smell. I'll try and find where I originally read it, i'm pretty sure it was some site like shadowlands or something like that.

EDIT: I found the real story or the supposed story.

This carcass was picked up by the Japanese fishing boat MS Zuiyomaru off the coast of Japan.  The carcass was covered with a fatty tissue which had badly decayed.  The creature weighed about 1 ton.  The Captain ordered it thrown back  because of it's smell so it was never closely examined.  Scientists studying the picture were unable to tell what kind of animal it was.  It does not resemble any known sea dwelling creature.  Skeptical scientists assumed it was a decayed  body of a basking shark.  Upon further examination, other biologists claim the size, fin placement, and overall appearance does not support the basking shark theory.  The sketch shown above is a drawing of what the creature would look like laid out flat.

The sketch of the plesiosarid skeleton:

[attachmentid=9947]

Unknown creature!

Note that you'll have to browse around that page to find the story.

So not a basking shark, then what could it be? It also doesn't state there was a marine biologist or even a zoologist abord the ship, and that the scientists had to determine what it was from the pictures alone.

So somebody has there facts wrong.

Edited December 26, 2004 by DaRkSiDe

[Shai_Hulud]

So not a basking shark, then what could it be? It also doesn't state there was a marine biologist or even a zoologist abord the ship, and that the scientists had to determine what it was from the pictures alone.

So somebody has there facts wrong.

Do you mean the Shadowland.net? Yes they are wrong. People initially thought the creature was a plesiosaurus and the Japanese even made a stamp commemorating the event. The sketch that you showed was by Michihiko Yano the Ocean biologist who took a sample. He promoted the idea that it was a plesiosaurus. However actual photographic evidence showed some discrepancies with his sketch. For one thing the number of vertebrae in the "neck"does not agree with those of a plesiosurus but entirely with a basking shark that has its gill flaps that have rotted off. There were also a couple of tests done on the sample taken from the carcass and all agreed that it propablly came from a basking shark.