Comments on: Cadborosaurus Carcass Recovered?

By: Markus

Markus — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:31:35 +0000

The skull of basking shark is very interesting not only decayed but also in good condition. As I'am no Ichthyologist I find it very hard to say this or this skull looks similiar to this one (especially while most of the pictures unfortunately not very good and the original skull is almost not available to take a new picture). That also because weeks of scrubing on stones and decomposing changes the skull very much in my opinion. But there are pictures of such basking sharks for example of the carcasses of Querqueville, Girvan, Parker's Cove or Deepdale Holm. You see that the shape and condition of the skull is very different in every carcass.

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:28:27 +0000

I kept picturing the huge basking sharks you see on telly and after trawling through images of basking sharks i found one picture of a small freshly dead Basking Shark laid out on a plank in the same way and can see that if it was decayed it would look similar to this in body and size, not sure of the head never found a picture of a confirmed Basking Sharks decayed head. So in good science style i’d like to revaluate my possession to “yeah Basking Shark, maybe”. Still finding the earlier description odd though.

By: Markus

Markus — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:21:06 +0000

No if you ask me.

Let me add some more general thoughts and informations. Following the articles in press the carcass was titled as „Dragon of Sea“, „Sea Monster“, „Sea Serpent“, „Horse-Headed Fish“, „Sea Beast“ (21. – 23./24. November) and beginning with the speculations as „Cadborosaurus“, “Zaweaksh“, „Sea Cow“ and finally „Basking Shark“ (24.November – 05. December). There are a few other mostly summarizing articles talking about the former speculations of a Sea Cow and a Ribbon Fish after the identification as C. maximus but not many and because of their summarizing of the past speculations worthless. If you study other cases like this one (not only in the past also today) you will find a similiar development in press-articles respectively the statements of people (not only amateurs also expert opinions of that time) dealing with the carcass and that’s what I meant writing that there’s a lesson you have to learn. The last important word to this case in press was that from Dr. Clemens.

I don’t want to say many to the points Dr. Carter has given. „Red flesh“, „hair“ and the other factors excluding a fish according to him can be explained as parts of the deceased body of a basking shark what literature to all the other pseudo-plesiosaurs has shown. One article of the NYT of 25. November is interesting regarding this. Here we find that Dr. Carter was by no means sure what animal this could be (he only „knows“ that it was no fish) as he wanted further opinion for example of Prof. Trevor Kincaid of the University of Washington and naturally of „our own biological expert“ Dr. Clemens. Two points are essential as I think in this discussion which I found mentioned in „Cadborosaurus: Survivor of the Deep“ (LeBlond, P. H., & Bousfield, E. L. (1995). Cadborosaurus – Survivor from the Deep. Victoria, B.C., Canada: Horsdal & Schubart): „From characteristic features of its skin and bones Clemens recognized the carcass as belonging to a basking shark.“ Thats important and interesting to know I think without any original explanations of Dr. Clemens how he identified the carcass because with the help of the dermal tenticles and the backbones someone can safely identify a shark.

By: Roy3rd

Roy3rd — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:18:36 +0000

Any chance of this being another misidentified oarfish?

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:53:03 +0000

I completely get what people say about decomposition but i just don’t know how some can say horse-like head for a Basking Shark skull. Yeah fair enough the skull is smaller when the cartlidge jaw in front is gone but i just find it hard sometimes to see it.

By: Paul78

Paul78 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:46:27 +0000

A reason for the photographers not taking a clear picture of the creature is that it was common to have these types of group images back then, it is easymistake to put modern thinking on another time period. Also the group shot of people is also to take in the size of the creature for the public.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:14:39 +0000

with a two month old carcass, I’d be skeptical of any hip shooting explanation. At first, as I was reading and before I had finished I was going to ask when the first oar fish was discovered, but now that’s a moot point.

I still think the 1937 photo is a much better piece of evidence for the cadborosaurus question.

By: tropicalwolf

tropicalwolf — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:12:20 +0000

MDI is dead on. These photogs knew all about perspective, just like modern day fish photographers. One close up of the head would solve the mystery…..however, it doesn’t serve the “greater story” to solve the mystery.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:00:46 +0000

The basking shark seems to have been designed by the Creator as a joke on cryptozoologists. The lower jaw quickly falls away, then most of the body, and what is left by the time it washes ashore looks like a serpentine animal with a small head on a definite neck. The “sandpaper” skin is one clue. Many learned people have made the same mistakes.

By: Markus

Markus — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:24:53 +0000

Markus' comments have been used to update the posting above. Please read the main body of the text, above. Danke

~ Loren.