Posts Tagged ‘sea monster’

Human and Dinosaur Inner-Action; Unfortunate Humans Provide Evidence of Interaction with Dinosaurs from Inside Their Stomachs

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, Giants in Those Days, s8int.com, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 13 2011

Photo: One of thousands of Acambaro Figurines from Pre-Hispanic Peru

Why are there no fossils showing that man interacted with dinosaurs; dinosaur bones which have been gnawed or perhaps dinosaur fossils in association with human fossils or even dinosaur tracks along with human tracks? If you believe that that kind of evidence has not been found, you are assuming facts that are not in evidence.

They’re not in evidence largely because facts that don’t fit the dinosaurs and man never intereracted paradigm are systematically; ignored, suppressed, explained away or relegated to the fringe.

Here are three historical articles that seem to tell another story. By the way, sea monsters (aquatic reptiles) aren’t dinosaurs but they are said to have gone extinct more than 65 million years ago along with the dinosaurs…..s8int.com

FOSSIL PUZZLES IN LOS ANGELES
The Los Angeles Times
December 2, 1900

“Lately there have been unearthed at the north end of Eastlake Avenue, in the foothills surrounding East Los Angeles, some of the most curious fossils ever seen. Nothing just like them has ever been found, and the puzzle is, how they came to be there.

Nature, in her mysterious way, has hidden the explanation, but she has not concealed the fact of their existence; for there they lie, in two great strips, probably forty feet long and ten feet wide. Whoever chooses may go see for himself.

By far the greater number of these unique specimens resemble in and general outline the vertebrae of some enormous animal”.

The article goes on to puzzle over related fossils that appear to bear a very close resemblance to leg bones, noting a rough surface and that they are “somewhat hollow.”

By leg bones, the author soon lets it be known-he means human leg bones in association with a huge animal that could only be a dinosaur.

According to the writer, behind the leg bones was a great very heavy piece which to all the world appears to be a “gigantic human skull”. In proximity to the skull are what appear to be a gigantic pelvis and a correspondingly large thigh.

These items may be noted in a photograph that appears with the article. (If anyone lives in Los Angeles and has access to an archive of the paper they might want to take a look at that photo; Dec 2, 1900).

The author explains that the soil in which these fossils were found has the chalky, carbonous character of soil in which oil is often found.

“The Geologists Have Their Theories

The geologists had been out to see the fossils and so immediately their creative abilities were put to use in order to “normalize” the discovery. One popular theory is that a highly impregnated, mineral rich stream of water had flowed over tree roots or other vegetation to form the large, regular shaped spine like fossils and leg bones.”

Among those clinging tightly to this theory were Prof. John Merriam of Berkeley and E.W. Claypole of Pasadena.

Claypole believed in a variation of the theory that just barely excluded fairies. The author of the 1900 article thinks that these theories fall a bit short on account of the various sizes and shapes of fossils which stubbornly continued to look like animal remains.
The author and perhaps Mr. Towner, the discoverer, believe that the bones are the vertebrae and the remains of a giant saurian.

Mr. Towner invited everyone who had a theory to share it.

“One day this week there was unearthed something that passes all the other specimens, a shape that can barely be mistaken in its identity, and yet from its position, condition and surroundings, is a wonder study. How such a piece could have been preserved so long, or where it came from, or whether it be really the head bone of prehistoric man or not; all these are questions to be answered.

Yet the same skull is apparently that of a human skull, with perfect ridges on the sides. It hardly seems possible that the gigantic leg and other bones could have belonged to one with so small a cranium, yet scientists tell us that the troglodyte, or cave-dwelling man was of enormous stature, with very small brain capacity.”

Photo: From the Original Article


According to the article, there appeared to be a head wound on the skull which no doubt contributed to the man’s death. This explains why the bones of man and dinosaur are “so weirdly intertwined”; the giant man and giant saurian were locked in mortal combat and both had perished as a result.

“What a fight that must have been! Fancy some great man with arms a foot or two longer than our current largest man, and of such stature as we have never contemplated, engaged in deadly struggle with a monster of the Saurian type.”

The author argues that this man was no slouch for he gave as much as he got.


Human Skeleton Inside Mammoth Carnivore with Eight Pound Teeth
Another What Was it?
November 2, 1877, Carthage Montana Patriot

“Mr. Henry Woodard owns a stock rancho in the Indian Territory, in the Peoria Nation, on which is situated the big sulphur spring. The spring is surrounded by a quagmire, which is very deep and slushy, and so soft that it will not bear any considerable weight.

Mr. W lately undertook to curb up the spring in order to get water more easily, and while working in the mire came upon what appeared to be an enormous bone. He at once began an examination which disclosed the fact that it was the head of some mammoth beast.

His curiosity was aroused, and, with the assistance of three other men, he began the work of excavation. For four days they worked, but did not succeed in bringing the monster to the surface. They threw off the marl, but could not lift the head of this golitic giant. They found the skeleton well preserved, and the immense teeth still sat in the jaws.

The jaws were both in place and the spinal column attached to the cranium. The earth was thrown off from the body to the length of twenty feet, but still the gigantic skeleton remained beneath. Three of the front ribs were forced out and proved by measurement to be each eight feet in length.

The dirt was removed from the inside of the osseous structure, and there lay the skeleton of a human being, with one hundred and two flint arrow points and fifteen flint knives. The cranium indicated that it was the skeleton of an Indian.

It would have been impossible for the man to have been inside the animal without having been swallowed by him, and this theory is substantiated by the fact that the bones of the right side of the skeleton were broken and mashed, apparently by force.

The monster, therefore, must have been carnivorous, which is also proven by the teeth, which exhibit the marked characteristics of a flesh-eating beast. A large molar and two incisors, taken from the upper jaw, were exhibited to us at our office yesterday, the largest one weighing eight pounds and measuring eight by four inches in size.

There are two large molars and two blunt tusks on each side of each jaw, the teeth between the molars and the tusks are incisors, having from two to six points and corresponding prongs to each tooth. In front of the tusks the teeth are similar to those of most carnivorous animals in shape.

All the bones indicate that they have lain buried for an incredibly long period, as they crumble rapidly when brought in contact with the atmosphere.

Every circumstance goes to show that these are the largest animal remains ever resurrected, and the teeth, tusks, and structure of the head and jaws prove unmistakably that it was of the carnivorous class.


River Monster that Ate, A Canoe, A Deer and an Indian
The Daily Times, August 25, 1877

Back in the 1800′s a family of “settlers” looks for a suitable Island on which to build a new home off the coast of Northern Alabama. This is an excerpt from the story of their encounter with a dying river monster/aquatic reptile.

“During their visit in search of homes they were induced to go on to the Islands to ascertain if they, or any of them, were of sufficient size to make a settlement.

In order to reach them they procured Indian canoes, made of the bark of trees, in which to cross over the water to the islands. These bark canoes were very small crafts, only of sufficient to carry one, or not more than two persons.

Having prepared themselves for the Inspection of the islands, they set out, and on approaching one, they saw a strange animal of immense size and length about the color of a cat-fish, but more In the shape of a snake, which seemed to have drifted upon the edge of a small island, and was partly in and out of the water, making movements and contortions like it was in the agonies of death.

They approached it. It was partly covered by the water and partly on dry land, but it was of such enormous size and strange shape it baffled all their ideas of such animals, or their knowledge of the whole animal kingdom, but it was certainly a water animal of the snake genre.

After watching its movements and holding a short consultation they determined to kill it if bullets would do so. They then approached more closely; to it and fired several rounds until they discovered that it was dead. Then they went to it for a close examination- to ascertain what it really was, and discovered from the sharp protuberance and unevenness of its body on one side an the evenness of the other that there must be something in it.

When they discovered that they had never seen or heard, or read of such an animal they proceeded with their tomahawks and butcher knives to open it and in doing so, to their utter amazement and surprise, they found in it a bark canoe, the horns and skeleton of a large deer, the skeleton of an Indian, also an old rifle gun such as the Indians of that day used, and bow and arrows.

From finding the above named articles in it and their appearance they concluded that some weeks previously an Indian had-killed a deer, put it into his canoe, and, while crossing the river, the monster had swallowed the canoe, with the Indian, deer and other articles In it. The flesh of the Indian and deer had been digested but the canoe, the gun, the bow and arrows and bones were so indigestible as to sicken the monster, and so enfeeble it that it had floated to where they found it and could not escape from them.

Ancient Mound Builder Controversy: Did They Interact with and Memorialize Allosaurus, T-Rex or Carnotaurus? Plus, Champ or Ogopogo?

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 28 2011

by Chris Parker

Drawing: Mound Builder Artifact from the book: “Records of Ancient Races in the Mississippi Valley, 1887

It’s amazing how little we as a supposedly educated culture actually know about the past. Even if we’ve studied the past, much of what is being taught or that is commonly believed is untrue. For instance, Columbus did not “discover” America. He was preceded here certainly by its inhabitants of the time, but also by the Norse, the Chinese, Africans, the Irish and the Vikings to name a few. Nero did not fiddle while Rome burned, Eve did not eat an apple, Egyptians were Africans. Dinosaurs and man Did interact

When in comes to the American continent, Native Americans supposedly came here from Asia 20,000 years ago across the Bering Straight land Bridge. However, a mysterious people, now called the Mound Builders whose works the Native Americans didn’t know were apparently here before them and their artifacts show that they interacted with the mastodon, dinosaurs and aquatic reptiles. Dinosaurs and aquatic reptiles supposedly went extinct more than 65 million years ago.

No one knows for sure who the Mound Builders were and where they came from but one thing is certain; no one believes that they lived with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The question is; did some dinosaurs and Mound builders live together here on this continent in “recent” times?

I present here some theories about the actual aimals being depicted here. Of course I could be wrong but I feel that if science believes that the ancient mound depicted on the left represents a Swan rather than a quadruped such as a sauropod that I’m on safe ground.

“The group of cultures collectively called Mound Builders were prehistoric inhabitants of North America who constructed various styles of earthen mounds for burial, residential and ceremonial purposes. These included the Pre-Columbian cultures of the Archaic period; Woodland period (Adena and Hopewell cultures); and Mississippian period; dating from roughly 3000 BCE to the 16th century CE, and living in regions of the Great Lakes, the Ohio River valley, and the Mississippi River valley and its tributaries.

As a comparison, beginning with the construction of Watson Brake about 3500 BC in present-day Louisiana, indigenous peoples started building earthwork mounds in North America nearly 1000 years before the pyramids were constructed in Egypt. Since the 19th century, the prevailing scholarly consensus has been that the mounds were constructed by Indigenous peoples of the Americas, early cultures distinctly separate from the historical Native American tribes extant at the time of European colonization of North America. The historical Native Americans were generally not knowledgeable about the civilizations that produced the mounds. Research and study of these cultures and peoples has been based on archaeology and anthropology.” Wikipedia

Mound Builder Theropod Dinosaur


This artifact (also pictured at the top of the page) is a drawing from the book; Records of Ancient Races in the Mississippi Valley: Written By William McAdams published in 1887 Page 14.

The author and the experts refer to the depiction as a “dragon” and it might seem presumptuous of me to disagree (particularly since we have only the head of the creature) but I see something else entirely. The Mound Builder creatures surrounding this piece are for the most part recognizable and are sculpted in a realistic style. There is no reason to suppose that this is a mythological creature other than because one has an A Priori scientific belief that these creatures did not exist within the lifetime of man.

Here is the author’s discussion of the piece in question and the other pieces found with it in the mound.

Graphic:Left, T-rex, Right Carnotaurus

“In our collection of pottery from the ancient mounds we have several pieces ornamented with dragon-like devices. We give an illustration of two of these; burial vases, with a most pronounced dragon-head standing up from the rim of the vessel. There is the great mouth with the teeth revealed, and protruding tongue, with fierce eyes, and the general aspect, not only of the Piasa, but of those mythological representations of the dragon so frequently found in Asia. We present a sketch of another.

Graphic:Left, Allosaurus, Right Carnotaurus


It is all the more interesting since we found with it a magnificent collection of pottery, of more than a hundred pieces, at the base of the great Cahokia mound, (pictured above, right) in the American Bottom, in Madison County, Ills.

This is the largest artificial mound in the United States, and perhaps in the world, being one-hundred feet in height, and covering with its base sixteen acres of ground. It is the centre of a group of seventy-two others, which surround it, and of which a description will be given farther on in this work. They are situated on a level plain, miles from any natural elevation. For a complete description and survey of them, see “The Antiquities of Cahokia, or Monk’s Mound’

Upon taking these curious old burial vases from the place where they had rested for ages, it was like exhuming a museum of natural history in ceramics ; for these were the shapes of animals, birds, reptiles, fishes, and aflmost all animated nature, together with the shapes of From Cahoki Mound. ithe human form. Among them were several vases adorned with the dragon heads.”

This is a realistically sculpted creature, posed withn a frog, it is certainly not a lizard and its teeth and head indicate that it is a carnivorous reptile. Quite frequently, such a creature is laabeled a dragon, and if not then a crocodile or alligator. This creature is clearly not one of those. It appears to be a lifelike depiction of a theropod dinosaur; a species similar to the allosaurus, t-rex or Carnotaurus. Are those horns on the top of its head or are those prominent eye ridges as depicted in a number of t-rex renditions. Keep this in mind; the piece you see here may have been done by an eyewitness.

We have compared here the Mound Builder creature with several examples of meat eating theropod dinosaurs. In our minds, the Carnotaurus, to date found in South America, most closely matches the Mound Builder artrifact.

Carnotaurus (pronounced /?k?rn??t?r?s/; meaning “meat-eating bull”, referring to its distinct bull-like horns (Latin carne = flesh + Greek tauros = bull) was a large predatory dinosaur, with horns vaguely resembling a bull’s. Only one species, Carnotaurus sastrei has been described so far. Carnotaurus lived in Patagonia, Argentina (La Colonia Formation) during the Campanian to the Maastrichtian stage of the Late Cretaceous, and was discovered by José Bonaparte, who has uncovered many other South American dinosaurs. Wikipedia

Allosaurus and T-rex are North American dinosaurs according to science.

Mound Builder Aquatic Reptile: Champ or Ogopogo

The Tusayan people are named after a ruin located in the Grand canyon National park in Arizona. These ancestral Puebloan people lived in the area until 1,000 years ago archaeologists believe. In American Anthropologist, Volume 5, January 1892, in an article entitled “ A Few Tusayan Pictographs” is a very interesting pictograph showing four long necked creatures.


Aquatic reptiles became extinct more than 65 million years ago as did the long necked sauropods according to science. The pictographs were thought to be a little as a thousand years old, possibly several thousand but certainly not millions of years old. Could science be wrong or are the more benign “nothing to see here, move it along” explanations of the archeologists satisfactory?

Here we compare the Mound Builder pictographs with; an ancient Roman “sea monster” and with several other classic sea or lake monsters.

Here’s what the author wrote about the pictograph in question:

“It will be noticed in examining the cut of these four pictographs of the great serpent that one is about horizontal and the other three erect. It will also be noticed that the horizontal specimen has a zigzag outline, as if in motion, which the others do not have. They are undoubtedly, however, figures of the same mythological personage”.

Ogopogo and Champ


“Ogopogo or Naitaka (Salish: n’ha-a-itk, “lake demon”) is the name given to a cryptid lake monster reported to live in Okanagan Lake, in British Columbia, Canada. Ogopogo has been allegedly seen by First Nations people since the 19th century. The most common description of Ogopogo is a forty- to fifty-foot-long (12 to 15 m) sea serpent. It has supposedly been photographed and even been caught on tape.” …Wikipedia


“Champ, or Champy is the name given to a reputed lake monster living in Lake Champlain, a natural freshwater lake in North America, partially situated across the U.S.-Canada border in the Canadian province of Quebec and partially situated across the Vermont-New York border. While there is no scientific evidence for the cryptid’s existence, there have been over 300 reported sightings. The legend of the monster is considered a draw for tourism in the Burlington, Vermont area.”… Wikipedia

The creature appears to be drawn with a beard which is typical of some “sea monsters” and drawn with a type of headcrest or ears.

I’m not suggesting that this creature is either Ogopogo or Champ but that it could represent a tyoe of sea or lake monster that has been seen and described by even the Romans and Greeks and by ancient and recent North and South Americans.

It appears that neither theropod dinosaurs or aquatic reptiles died out millons of years ago and were instead seen and memorialized by ancient peoples.

The New Nessie? Mystery ‘Sea Creature’ Spotted Off British Coast

Crypto, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 02 2010

Photo:Mystery: The ‘sea serpent’ was spotted stalking a shoal of fish just yards off the Saltern Cove in Paignton, Devon. The fish were apparently so scared that they beached themselves. Click photo for higher resolution..

By Daily Mail Reporter

Cynics may dismiss it as just a piece of driftwood or a trick of the light. But a photograph showing what appears to be a long-necked sea creature has got marine experts scratching their heads.

The ‘animal’ was snapped stalking a shoal of fish just 30 yards off the British coast.

The fish were apparently so terrified they beached themselves just seconds later.

The creature was spotted off the Devon coast at Saltern Cove, Paignton, by locals who reported a sighting of what they thought was a turtle.

But pictures taken by one of the baffled witnesses, Gill Pearce, reveal the neck of the greenish-brown beast with the reptile-like head is far too long for it to be a turtle.

Mrs Pearce, who took the photo on July 27, reported her sighting to the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) where it was studied by sea life experts.

Claire Fischer from the MCS said: ‘Gill Pearce spotted the creature about 20 metres from the bay at Saltern Cove, near Goodrington.

‘It was observed at about 15.30 on 27 July but by the time she had got her camera it had moved further out.

Photo: The ‘sea serpent’. Click photo for higher resolution.

She spotted it following a shoal of fish which beached themselves in Saltern Cove.

‘The creature remained in the sea, then went out again and followed the shoal – this indicates it’s not a turtle as they only eat jellyfish.

‘We would love to know if other people have seen anything like this in the same area and can help clear up the mystery.’

Some people think the sea sighting could be linked to that of a sperm whale sighted off south Devon recently but Miss Fischer dismissed that explanation.

‘They [sperm whales] wouldn’t come that close inshore and the reptilian-like head counts that out – at least that’s what the experts are saying.’

The sighting has caused a stir on the MCS website too, where theories range from sea serpent to salt water crocodile.

An MCS spokesman said: ‘It was reported as a turtle as it had large front flippers and small back flippers and what appeared to be a shell but was also said to have a small head on a thin neck about two-feet long which craned above the surface like a Plesiosaur.

Read More from Original Source

Were Ancient Sea Monsters Actually Mythological or Did the Ancients Actually See Monsters? An E-Book-Let

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 02 2009

by Chris Parker, Copyright 2009

Photo: This sea monster is actually an ancient bronze candelabra nicknamed “the sea monster”.

Excerpt

“Curiously, ancient dragon depictions closely match those of dinosaurs and pterosaurs which supposedly became extinct millions of years before man even “evolved”. Could the same be said for certain ancient “sea monster” depictions? Did ancient depictions also closely match those of ancient marine reptiles-which supposedly also became extinct before man came on the scene?
On the left is a Greek, bronze protome (animal figure) from a candelabrum
from around . 500-450 B.C.”

Excerpt

“The skulls of plesiosaurs have a fairly noticeable feature in the top directly behind the eye socket or orbit. This feature is on the upper part of the skull and is either a depression or a hole and it extends over the width of the skull. The feature is called the supratemporal fenestra, meaning upper, temporal fenestre; temporal related to temples and fenestra from the Latin meaning window.

The question for those artists depicting the plesiosaurus skull is; how specifically will they draw the skull over the supratemporal fenestra–will the feature disappear in their drawing, covered in flesh in a way that renders the feature non-apparent or, will they draw the skull with an obvious depression or other feature that makes this “skull window” noticeable?”

Click Here or Click Mini-Book to Read

New Footage of Lake Champlain Sea Monster? Burlington Man Claims to Have Caught ‘Creature’ on Video

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 06 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p00Xn1XRPJw

DailyGazette.com
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Stabilized Cell Phone Video

No Video? Try Clicking Here

BURLINGTON, Vt. — A cellphone video of a “creature” that appears to be swimming in Lake Champlain is causing a stir in the North Country.

According to the Burlington Free Press newspaper, Burlington resident Eric Olsen, 37, shot video with his cell-phone camera at sunrise Sunday that shows an object moving across the mouth of a small cover near Oakledge Park. The video can be viewed on YouTube by clicking HERE.

It is creating renewed discussion about “Champ,” the lake’s elusive, legendary monster.

The object appears to raise its “head” a foot or more above the water’s surface, the Free Press notes. At other times a portion of what appears to be a torso also can been seen.

“I was just filming the water when, out of the corner of my eye, I saw something move, and I turned toward it and tried to zoom in on it,” Olsen, a Web site developer and musician, told the Free Press.

Read More about it at CryptoMundo

Thanks Shiv!
Comments for posting to: s8intcom@comcast.net

Florida Sea Monster Controversy?

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 11 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5auXcvx6bo

Video by Shiv

From: Shiv: “I strongly suspect that a mosasaur was caught on video.

I also point out how Monsterquest and/or the camera man were misleading the audience away from the mosasaur moment.

This moment didn’t appear on the monsterquest episode. They only showed the parts which appeared to show manatees and some weird seal like animal with a trident tail. I show the mosasaur moment at about 3:07 on the video above.

—Monsterquest did not deal with this issue properly. There is more going on than they presented and/or the original camera man did not want too much to be revealed. None of the audio, video or pictures in this presentation are being used for profit.

My sincere thanks to brothers Bill and Bob Clark ( the men who filmed the San Francisco sea serpent), they are genuine truth seekers and have been of real help. “..Shiv

View on YouTube Site

Did Mosasaur Become Extinct 65 Million years Ago? Ancient Greek Vase Depiction?

Photo:Caeretan black-figure clay vase from Stavros S. Niarchos collection. John Boardman, Classical Art Pl. VII 71. Photo. S.Hertig; Zurich University Collection

What do we think?

Interesting. We can’t of course confirm your hypothesis but it does remind us that there is a convincing depiction of the mosasaur-or other supposedly extinct aquatic reptile, currently catalogued by science as pliosauria, mosasauria or possibly one of the metriorhynchids. The thing is, much of what we think these creatures look like today is due to the workof a few illustrators from partial fossils.

In science, when it comes to illustrating extinct fossils, the general rule seems to be follow the leader. The “monster” shown here battling Hercules on the ancient Greek vase is uncannily silmilar to the mosasaur. What are the odds that the Greeks could have invented in their minds a creature so similar to modern depictions of “extinct”, sea dragons”.?

A very real seal and a very real dolphin are included in the artistic piece which tends to ground it in reality (as to the fauna) as well as to provide a sense of scale.

Critics of the idea that this vase represents a mosasaur would argue that; -it went extinct 65 million years ago, and thus could not depict a mosasaur , that there is no fossil evidence for a central frill (as shown) and that this depiction shows a tailfin, while mosasaurs are thought to have a flattened tail without fins.

Those may or may not seem like quibbles when you consider how accurate this depiction is in most of its details. The lack of fossil evidence for the frill can be dismissed as these characteristics are often soft and the least likely to leave an impression. For example certain pterosaurs, originally drawn without a headcrest are now being drawn with one (pterodactylus for example) because a fossil was found providing faint outlines of the crest.

Additionally, certain (brave?) scientists have suggested that the masosaur did in fact have a hypocercal tail, with two asymmetrical caudal fins. (See Greek Vase Tail Depiction In this Post)

The Sternberg Museum held a symposium in 2007 and among their findings: “little work has hitherto been done on the different stages of mosasauroid tail fin evolution, and most studies inaccurately assume that they were all anguilliform swimmers powered by isocercal caudal flukes (i.e. single-lobed tail fins supported by a centrally located backbone), unsuitable for rapid, sustained cruising.

Nonetheless, recent investigations have demonstrated that at least the derived members of the Mosasauroidea were pisciform animals equipped with semilunate tails, making them similar in appearance to moderately derived ichthyosaurs (another group of extinct marine reptiles), sharks and whales….”

Darren Naish, of the Paleobiology Research Group, complained in a recent newsgroup post that , “Robert Bakker has been restoring his mosasaurs with well-developed tail fins and dorsal fins (!). I think this is pretty fanciful.”

Robert T. Bakker, Ph.D. is the Curator of Paleontology at Houston Museum of Natural Science. Of course, we don’t suggest that he would agree to an ID of mosasaur for the creature on the vase.

Those who would suggest that this cannot be a mosasaur because of the tail depiction should read the latest literature. Wouldn’t it be ironic that this depiction could be discredited as a mosasaur because it accurately depicted what it looked like?

Comments to: s8intcom@comcast.net