Comments on: More on the Russian Plesiosaur

By: Ransom

Ransom — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:16:45 +0000

I agree with many that the Beluga is close but the last few vertebrae seem different as well as the spread of the head. There are of course subtle differences in on specimen to another but the vertebrae are too different in my opinion to not warrant further investigation, that is if I could.

Love the site, keep up the good work!

By: snake

snake — Sun, 06 May 2007 20:21:54 +0000

I think Lagomort is correct. I saw a living fossil shark on TV before. It looks eel like. It had many sharp long teeth. It was found slowly drifting in the shallow waters off Japan. That’s near to the Russian site. This shark is usually found in deep sea waters. I’m just a layman.

By: Lagomort

Lagomort — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:13:24 +0000

I forgot to mention I have dissected whales as well (a Blue whale actually) so I am familiar with whale anatomy too…

By: Lagomort

Lagomort — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:18:37 +0000

I am not against animals that were once thought to be extinct, being found alive. It has actually happened several times as I am sure many in here are well aware. Despite this, the fact that so many could mistake a obvious toothed whale for a plesiosaur amazes me.

If you have an interest in such things, it may help to educate yourself on the anatomy of the animals you are looking at. It is like the other supposed plesiosaur found by the Japanese where they took numerous pics and then threw the carcass overboard. This was an obvious shark, and I know this because I have dissected enough of them to recognize them rather quickly, even in such a decayed state.

By studying anatomy, we see things that can bring about quite a surprise. Anatomy showed us, not only things like the coelacanth, where a group of supposed extinct sarcopterygians were found still alive and well in deep waters, but facts like birds are left overs of the theropod dinosaurs, and in fact are living dinosaurs. Comparative anatomy is also showing us that there is a high probability that the monotremes, as in the echidna and duck-billed platypus, are actually surviving members of a group of mammals known as the Multituberculates that were once said to be extinct for millions and millions of years.

Basically put, it is fun to wonder, but knowing the anatomy helps one check the facts against a known, and helps reduce idle speculations that should not even taken place when such an obvious whale is found.

By: tom k

tom k — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:56:41 +0000

This is the first time I’ve commented on Cryptomundo. These pictures are thought provoking and indeed mysterious. But I must point out that the skull is a beluga skull, and either way the supposed fur seems darker in some places. I also believe that these photos portray a mix of several skeletons, with some whale blubber on top. The one way to sort this out for good is to dissect the carcass, and if the soldiers or fishermen, or whoever they may be, deny scientists their permission to do so, they obviously are hiding something.

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:53:12 +0000

crypto_randz:

I agree that most likely there are surviving mosasaurs, but this just isn’t it. Take away the skull damage and sea weed and you’ve got a beluga skull. If you want a mosasaur, look at the Mystery Fish. A clear cut case of a shell crunching mosasaur.

P.S. Plesiosaur skulls, to the untrained eye, are similar. You can’t just Google something and claim authority. I’m glad new readers are joining, but try intensive research next time, nacho.

By: Lee Pierce

Lee Pierce — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:39:51 +0000

You can fool most of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time. But nothin’ gets by Loren, Craig, John, Rick and the Crypto Kids.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:24:50 +0000

One thing that could support this as being a cryptid is the idea of “convergent evolution”, the idea that two totally different species will evolve in similar ways to fill similar ecological niches or habitats. For example, a shark and dolphin have similar body shapes and contours for living in the water. If this creature is some hitherto unexplained animal, the fact that it looks so much like a beluga, yet a bit off as some people have been saying, could be because it has evolved to fill a very similar biological niche as the beluga and thus would have evolved along similar lines. Just a thought.

By: nacho

nacho — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:30:10 +0000

All this has forced me to register.

With all this very expert sounding input it’s hard to think it’s a plesiosaur.

But why don’t we look at plesiosaur fossils.

I just googled that, and they look pretty close.

I’ll give you whale guys 79%, but I’m holding out for the other 21%, call me a dreamer.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:39:50 +0000

I’m wondering about that DNA test myself. I think they probably would do one, unless some one looked it over and were so sure of what it was that they decided a DNA test wasn’t needed. Or if the stink was so great they just discarded it. That wouldn’t be the first time a potential exciting discovery had been thrown away cause of the stink. As the fisheries biologist above mentioned, normally there would have been people all over this, so I’m wondering what kind of scientific integrity is being exercised when dealing with this thing. If a DNA test is performed, I for one would sure like to see the results, just to be sure.