Favorite Answer

Your three weblinks do not offer proof.

One should always keep confirmation bias in check and look at data objectively. People are not always honest. Some things are done as practical jokes or in an attempt to make some quick cash by selling photos to any trash tabloid.

The claim that man hunted down dinosaurs is a total lie. No dinosaur bones have ever been found to conclude that they lived in the same time as man. I disagree that something reported in the Bible which states that something had iron ribs means a dinosaur. I also find very little evidence in the links which simply states 'two men saw a dinosaur in 1915' or 'in 1855 two men from the church congregation claimed to have killed a dragon'. To me, it offers no proof whatsoever. Yet, to a person who WANTS to believe in dinosaurs existing today, it registers in your brain as undeniable evidence.

If so many persons claim to have spotted Nessie, why is it that only one blurry photograph is all we have?

I do not state that no dinosaurs exist today somewhere in the oceans. I state that one needs to have an amount of skepticism whenever one delves into subjects where extremely little ACTUAL evidence exists.

--

Okay, let's take an objective look at the Moore beach (Natural Bridges State Beach) monster found in 1925 by Charles Moore. There was only one scientist who viewed the creature. He was E.L.Wallace, president of the Natural Historical Society of British Columbia. He stated that he could not identify it. He then concluded that it MAY have been some TYPE of plesiosaur. Later, he offered the theory that the monster may have been preserved in a glacier for millions of years, finally being released by the gradual melting of ice, eventually ending up cast upon the shore in Monterey Bay. This in no way suggests that plesiosaurs exist today.

Historical accounts are unreliable since newspapers which reported the find each gave different dimensions of the creature. Later, a book by Bernard Heuvelman served to confuse the subject even further by stating false exagerations of the newspaper dimensions.

Officials from the California Academy of Sciences carefully inspected the creature's skull, and announced to the waiting world that the mysterious monster of Moore's Beach was a North Pacific type of beaked whale. Baird's Beaked Whale (Berardis bairdi) is rarely seen from ships at sea which means that the connection of a beaked whale did not quickly come to mind when attempting to identify the beached creature.

There is evidence which supports the beaked whale link. A report was published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel newspaper of an account of a battle between a dozen or more sea lions and a 'monster fish' observed by E.J. Lear, days before Charles Moore found it.

As stated by Mr. Lear himself: "I was driving a team toward Capitola, when suddenly I was attracted by some young sea lions not far out. They were lined up and several large lions were swimming back and forth in front of them. Much farther out I saw the water being churned to foam and thrown high up in the air. It was shiny and I took it for a big fish. A dozen or more lions were battling it, and every once in a while all would raise out of the water. It looked to me as though all the sea lions were attacking it beneath as the monster came out of the water several times. In telling of the battle of that night I estimated its length at 30 feet." Further evidence exists in the fact that beaked whales are highly aggressive towards each other resulting in scarring and deaths.

Persons in the scientific community sometimes make mistakes. In this case, the rest of the world was waiting for an answer which did not exist. Time pressures caused some to call the creature a plesiosaur simply to get the issue resolved. A similar example is the archeoraptor which was originally claimed to be a missing evolutionary link. Later, it was exposed as a hoax.

If the creature was not a beaked whale, it most probably was part of the cetacean family. Monterey Bay boasts the deepest underwater trench of the Pacific Coast. One of the world's largest and least studied underwater chasms. Possibly home to hundreds of unknown species.

--

How about the Japanese fishing boat monster? It was caught in a fishing net on 4/25/77. The National Enquirer was a pretty hot tabloid back then. It didn't matter if the story was highly fictional or fake. Of course, they printed it as a prehistoric monster because that's what it took to sell the paper. One would think that the creature would have been preserved so a profesional could study it. Nope, this amazing find was quickly thrown back into the water to avoid contaminating the other fish that were onboard. Seems kind ot strange don't you think? Fortunately, some tissue samples were taken.

Several lines of evidence, including lab results from tissue samples, strongly point to the specimen being a shark, and most likely a basking shark. This should not be surprising, since basking sharks are known to decompose into pseudoplesiosaur forms, and their carcasses have been mistaken for "sea-monsters" many times in the past. Unfortunately, the results of scientific studies on the carcass data received less media attention than the early sensational reports, allowing widespread misconceptions about this case to continue circulating. Truth doesn't seem to sell as well as mysteries. In fact, when the crew returned home the company owner played up the plesiosaur story for publicity even though the tissue sample were still in the lab being tested. It was the best place to shock people who have Godzilla as their hero. On 7/25/77, Taiyo Fish Company issued a report on biochemical tests on the tissue samples. The report stated that fibers sampled from the carcass was similar in nature to the fin rays of sharks but by now Japan was caught up in monster mania. Wind-up toys of the beast were sold and the camera company which produced the camera used to take the photos conjured an advertising campaign. The Japanese government decided to make some money too via a new postage stamp. Why would anyone making some quick cash want the truth to come out?

When lab results concluded that chromatography tests matched the amino acids of the blue shark particularly the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), it was too late for truth to replace the hype.

When the basking shark decays, the jaws and loosely attached gill arches often fall away first, leaving the appearance of a long neck and small head. All or part of the tail, and the dorsal fin may also slough away before the better supported pectoral and pelvic fins, creating a form that superficially resembles a plesiosaur. These remains are found in fishing nets about every 10 years.

Close photographic anaysis shows that the creatures head was turtle-shaped. This is consistant for basking sharks. Plesiosaurs had triangular-shaped heads. Photographic evidense reveals the presence of fin rays which are present in sharks and most fish. Plesiosaurs in contrast had bony phalanges. The creature had a dorsal fin seen in sharks and most fish. Plesiosaurs did not have this. The creature had myocommata found in sharks but not reptiles such as the plesiosaur. The anterior fins were articulated at a right angle to the shoulder, consistent with sharks but not plesiosaurs The pectoral girdle is shark-like in shape. If the carcass were a plesiosaur, the body would be unlikely to bend in the posture shown since the breast bone would be large and flat. The ventral bones of plesiosaurs are not seen in the carcass. In plesiosaurs, bones of all limbs were situated at the ventral portion of the body. If the creature were a decayed plesiosaur, it is likely the limbs would have already been detached from the body. A plesiosaur would probably have retained its upper jaws and teeth but no teeth were reported in the carcass. A basking shark is known to easily loose both jaws, and even if it retained the upper jaw, its extremely tiny teeth could be easily overlooked. The body proportions are incompatible with any known plesiosaur fossils. In many plesiosaurs the neck is by far the longest section, and in no case is the torso much longer than the head and neck, as it is in the carcass. The body proportions are compatable with a basking shark.

In 1978, scientists in Japan finally admitted their errors. They publicly acknowledged that most evidence pointed to a shark and ruled out a plesiosaur. They admitted that no known reptilian fossils matched the creature. They concluded that the creature was most likely a basking shark.

The media chose not to do a follow-up report. Thus, most people never heard the final conclusions. The plesiosaur remained a good topic for book sales even though there was overwhelming proof of it being a basking shark.

Since you appear to have such a strong interest in this topic, you may wish to choose a career in underwater biology.

--

I receive a thumbs down by someone who refuses to accept truth. Again it comes down to selective bias. I have presented the objective truth regarding the above. The person who thumbed down refuses to look at the subject objectively. This is why hoaxes and misunderstandings get perpetuated. This is why tabloid papers make money. Some people just WANT to live in a mysterious world. When the truth is presented, it is ignored because their immature BELIEFS override thruthful evidence. Maybe some day we may find prehistoric sea creatures. So far, we have only sharks and alligators. No plesiosaurs. If undeniable evidence does not prove the question wrong, then there is no hope. You can believe whatever you want to. But try to keep in mind that you are only deluding yourself. Such an approach is not a scientific one.

P.S. A plesiosaur is not a dinosaur.