Atlantis Online
June 16, 2019, 06:33:48 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Giant crater may lie under Antarctic ice
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  


Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2011, 03:53:20 pm »

-- At the existing degree of decomposition, a plesiosaur would probably have retained its upper jaws and teeth (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 63), but no teeth were reported in the specimen carcass (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 48). A basking shark, however, is known to easily loose both jaws, and even if it retained the upper jaw, its extremely tiny teeth could be more easily overlooked.

-- The carcass length was reported as 10 meters (33 feet). Basking sharks commonly grow to 30 feet more (Dingerkus 1985; Freedman 1985), and specimens over 40 feet long have been reported (Heuvelmans 1968; Herald 1975; Soule 1981; Steel 1985). Some authors indicate they may even grow to 50 or more feet (Springer and Gold 1989; Perrine 1995; Allen 1996) The carcass size would also be compatible with a small plesiosaur, but the body proportions are not (explained below).

-- Although some of Yano's measurements seem surprisingly round (for example, 2000 mm for the tail and 10000 mm total length), if we assume they are reasonably accurate, then the body proportions (approximately 2:6:2 for the head+neck:torso:tail) are incompatible with any known plesiosaur fossils (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 52). In many plesiosaurs the neck is by the longest section, and in no case is the torso (between the pelvic and pectoral fins) much longer than the head and neck, as it is in the carcass. The carcass could have lost some length through tail loss (discussed below), but the neck to torso ratio would still be incompatible with plesiosaurs.

-- The carcass body proportions are largely compatible with a large basking shark carcass, especially one that lost its tail (compare Figures 5 and 2). Loss of the tail would be likely, since the wide tail would tend to snap at the narrow juncture during decay and buffeting in the water. This would explain the blunt rather than tapering tail end in Yano's sketch. The rostrum (nose tip) may also have been lost, but would not appreciably affect the overall body length or proportions. Adding a tail would mean the shark was closer to 12.5 meters (41 feet) in life, which would be exceptionally large, but still within the generally accepted size range of basking sharks. After all, this poor basker may have died of old age.

The combined anatomical evidence thus strongly indicates a shark and and effectively rules out a plesiosaur. Obata and Tomoda (1978, p 52) conclude, "there are no known fossil reptilian species that agree with the animal under consideration." Likewise, Hasegawa and Uyeno (1978, p 64) write, "From the osteological point of view, we conclude that this creature does not belong to the plesiosaurian reptiles."
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2011, 03:53:38 pm »

Miscellaneous Observations

-- Japanese shark-fin processors, who are thoroughly familiar with shark carcasses, identified the animal in Yano's photographs as a shark (Abe 1978).

-- In September 1977, a positively identified basking shark carcass was stranded at Nemuro, Hokkaido, and showed a remarkable resemblance to the Zuiyo-maru carcass found only five months earlier. Describing the September stranding Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya (1978, p 59-60) wrote, "The jaws and gill-arches were missing, and the cranium had a somewhat turtle-like appearance...the pectoral and pelvic fins were damaged at their apexes but still remained. The results of this experiment undertaken by nature support the view that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a giant shark that has lost its jaws and gill arches."

Summarizing their findings, Hasegawa and Uyeno (1978) state, "Based on available evidence, we are convinced that this New Zealand creature is not the "New Nessie," that much of the world was hoping for, but more than likely a carcass belonging to a large size shark."
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2011, 03:53:53 pm »

Alleged Inconsistencies

Despite all the evidence pointing to a shark, some purported inconsistencies with the shark identification were raised in the 1978 report and elsewhere, and should be reviewed as well.

-- The carcass reportedly smelled like a dead marine mammal, and lacked an ammonia smell characteristic of shark carcasses (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 65). However, it is not known whether all sharks give off the ammonia smell while decaying, or for how long. The same authors noted that the lack of ammonia smell could be due to the extent of skin loss and decomposition, so that the ammonia from the carcass was washed out by the sea (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 65). Also, even when alive, basking sharks are known to emit a unique, highly offensive odor of their own (Steel 1985; Ellis 1989) which could have overpowered any ammonia smell.

-- A white, sticky, fat-like substance covered much of the carcass (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 49). Although Niermann (1994, p 103) and a few others (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978) considered this the strongest argument against the shark theory, it is actually consistent with it. Basking sharks have large deposits of fat in the white muscle and liver. According to some authorities they increase fat reserves during the summer for winter use (Steel 1985; Sims 1997). The animal in question likely died in late March or early April, which is late summer in New Zealand. Moreover, one of the Japanese workers (Seta 1978) explained the phenomena of adipocere formation in decaying carcasses of sharks and other animals, whereby new fatty material can be generated during the decay process. Seta indicated that the whitish, putrid-smelling viscous substance on the carcass was consistent with adipocere formation. Also, some of the whitish, stringy material probably consisted of ligaments and connective tissue (Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978, p 56). Such fibrous tissues on other basking shark carcasses evidently prompted some reports of "sea monster" corposes with white manes of hair (Heuvelmans 1968; Sweeney 1972).
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2011, 03:54:11 pm »

- The photographs reportedly show the presence of reddish muscle under the white material, which Obata and Tomoda (1978, p49) suggest is compatible with a tetrapod (four legged animal). However, the presence of reddish muscle is also compatible with a shark. Sharks like other fish have both white and red muscle (Fowler 1997; King 1997; Sims 1997). The former predominates, but fish that swim slowly and steadily like basking sharks generally have more red muscle than other sharks (Tullis 1997). Some of the reddish color also could be due to blood residue.

-- The concerns of some authors about the "small head" or "long neck" (Koster 1977, Yasuda and Taki 1978) are eliminated once one understands the process of decay in basking sharks. Summarizing this process, Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya (1978, p 59) state, "...a disproportionately small skull and long, slender neck can be accounted for by the loss of the jaws and gill-arches in the course of decomposition of the carcass."

-- Obata and Tomoda (1978, p 48) also suggest that unlike sharks, in which the nares (nostrils) are situated in the lower surface of the skull, the carcass had holes that Yano called "probably nares" at the front end of the cranium. However, the rostrum or anterior most structure may have been missing, so that the nares could have been on the lower side and also the "front" of what remained of the skull, eliminating any inconsistency. Alternatively, what Yano thought to be nares could have been any of several other fenestral openings that exist in shark skulls, or new ones created during decay.
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2011, 03:54:24 pm »

-- Some witnesses denied the presence of a dorsal fin (Obata and Tomoda 1978). However, even if a dorsal fin were absent, it could have been rotted away. Second, as mentioned, one photo does show an apparent dorsal fin (see Figures 1c and 5) which was evidently overlooked by Yano and others. Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya (1978, p 56) state, " a close examination of the photograph we can clearly distinguish the base of a dorsal fin, though it had slipped from the mid-dorsal line." They note that this somewhat dislocated dorsal fin evidently had partially overlapped the right pectoral fin, which may account for Yano's description of the latter as having two sets of **** fibers.

-- Obata and Tomoda (1978, p 49) suggest that the "long, cylindrical ribs" in the carcass are not found in selachians." However, as explained earlier, it is not certain that Yano accurately identified or measured the ribs. Even if he did, the rib length (40 cm) is more compatible with a large shark than a plesiosaur. If the creature were a plesiosaur, it would have had to be a short necked plesiosaur, whose ribs would be at least triple the reported length (John Martin 1997).

-- The head was said to be quite hard, whereas sharks contain no bones, only cartilaginous skeletons. However, cartilage in shark skulls can be quite hard and dense, and basking sharks have especially well-calcified skeletons (Steel 1985). Also, as a shark ages, its skull becomes harder and denser. The size of the carcass clearly indicates an older specimen.
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2011, 03:54:44 pm »

-- The pelvic (hind) fins were said by some of the crewmen to be similar in size to the pectoral fins, as in a plesiosaur (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 49). However, this cannot be confirmed, since no measurements or photos were taken of the pelvic fins. Yano and others may have mistaken the large, draping and dislocated dorsal fin for one of the other fins (Hasegawa and Uyeno, (1978, p 62). Or, the combination of the pelvic fins and rear genital claspers created the illusion of a sizable rear fin (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 63). This might explain Yano's comment that the rear fins had an unusual appearance like that of a seal (Koster 1977). It is also possible that the pectoral fins decayed somewhat more than the pelvic fins, reducing their size disparity. Yano himself acknowledged that to the best of this recollection the front fins were somewhat larger than the rear (Koster 1977). His sketch suggests otherwise, but it is known to contain a number of other inaccuracies, such as bones in the fins that were not really seen. Noting such problems, Yasuda and Taki (1978) considered the sketch inherently unreliable, and Obata and Tomoda (1978) suggest it was influenced by bias. Indeed, by the time Yano drew the sketch (two months after the netting) the plesiosaur idea had become popular, and Yano had become something of a celebrity over it (Koster 1977).

-- Some readers may be wondering if the location of the find was a problem for the basking shark identification (as hinted at by Yasuda and Taki 1978). However, basking sharks are known from many temperate parts of the world, including the waters around New Zealand (Burton and Burton 1969; Springer and Gold 1989; Francis 1997). The carcass was thought to have died in an area somewhat south of the capture site, well within the known range of basking sharks (Nasu 1978).
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2011, 03:54:59 pm »

Monsters Don't Die Easily

Overall 1978 reports provided strong evidence favoring the shark identification, and no substantial objections to it. Even workers authors such as Obata and Tomoda, who initially supported the plesiosaur idea and emphasized potential problems for the shark interpretation, acknowledged that most evidence pointed to a shark and ruled out a plesiosaur. They stated, stating, "There are no known fossil reptilian species which agree with the animal in question" (Obata and Tomoda 1978). Most of the other 1978 report authors more plainly stated that the evidence strongly indicated a basking shark or closely related species (Abe, 1978; Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978; Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978; Kimura et al 1978).

Unfortunately, the 1978 reports received less public attention than the original "sea-monster" stories. Most popular media seemed content to simply let the matter drop rather than helping to set the matter straight with follow-up articles. Likewise, several monster/mystery writers continued to depict the case as largely unresolved, including Welfare and Fairley (1980), Soule (1981), and Bord & Bord (1989). However, some good summaries of the 1978 research were provided by Cohen (1982), Bright (1989), LeBlond (1992), and Ellis (1994) who put aside any hopes that the beast was a plesiosaur, and properly explained that the specimen evidently represented one of several basking shark carcasses mistaken as a sea-monster.
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2011, 03:55:17 pm »

Unfortunately, many creationists continued to promote the plesiosaur interpretation long after 1978, including Ian Taylor (1984, 1987, 1989, 1996), Paul Taylor (1984, 1987), Baugh (1987), Peterson (1988), Baker (1988), Dye (1989), Bartz (1990, 1992), Buckna (1993), and Morris (1993, 1997). Most seemed unaware of the 1978 resarch and reports. Some flatly called the beast a plesiosaur (Scoggan 1996; Hovind 1996), or "sea-monster" (Doolan 1994), or "dinosaur" (Hovind 1996) (plesiosaurs are not dinosaurs). Even more perplexing were the comments of creationists who did seem aware of the 1978 work and tissue tests, and yet suggested they supported the plesiosaur identification. Among the most troubling statements are the following:

"From photographs, sketches with careful measurements, and flipper samples for tissue analysis, it had every appearance of being a plesiosaur or sea-dwelling dinosaur..." (Ian Taylor 1984, 1978)

"Photographs, measurements, and tissue samples all show that it was probably a plesiosaur." (Paul Taylor 1987).

"Photographs, tissue examinations, and measurements were made by the Japanese scientists. Their findings point to a descendant of the plesiosaur" (Baker 1988).
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2011, 03:55:51 pm »

Some even complained that the press was suppressing the plesiosaur story (Bartz 1992; Scoggan 1996; Taylor 1996), despite its coverage in dozens of popular books and articles, and the fact that it was often presented in a way more favorable to the plesiosaur interpretation than the evidence warranted.

Recently two creationists have written more accurate but still incomplete summaries of the case. Niermann (1994) noted that the 1978 studies pointed to a shark, and that basking sharks tend to decay into plesiosaur-like shapes. Unfortunately, he tucked these comments into footnotes, while the body of the text encouraged the plesiosaur interpretation. Todd Wood (1997) acknowledged that the evidence strongly supports the basking shark conclusion, but listed several alleged inconsistencies with the shark identification--none of which stand up to close scrutiny.
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2011, 03:56:04 pm »

As expected, the New Zealand monster story has also drifted onto the Internet, often in mangled form. Creationists Kent Hovind (1996) , Walter Brown (1996), Bernard Northrup (1997) , Paul Smithson (1996), and Don Patton (1995) all encourage the plesiosaur interpretation. On his 1996 website, Brown matter-of-factly called the creature a plesiosaur, which he incorrectly called a sea-going "dinosaur." He also noted that the carcass had vertebrae, asserting these are "something not present in many fish, including sharks." (Of course fish, including sharks, do have vertebrae). To his credit, Walter Brown's 2006 website retracts his endorsement of the plesiosaur ID. See Brown, 2006 in the references. Another 1996 creatioist article in the British publication Origins reviewed the case and conclided "the weight of the evidence points to the New Zealand carcass being a decomposed basking shark..." and "strongly recommended" that creationist refrai from suggestions that the carcass is that of a recently living plesiosaur.

However, other creationists disregarded this advice and continued to encourage the plesiosaur ID, or suggested the matter was still "mysterious" as does the 2006 "Accuracy in Genesis" website. Perhaps the most curious example is that of John , who not only belives in living plesiosaurs, but also recent pterosaurs and dinosaurs. Goertzen wrote a paper published in the June 2001 Creation Research Society Quarterly arguing that there were extra fins on the Japanese carcass missed by other workers, but matching an eqyptian "seal." Never mind that no plesiosaurs are known to have the fin pattern he claims to see, and that the egyptian "seal" is interpretive at best. Even other strict creationists find no substance in Goertzen's arguments (Jerlstrom, 1998; Jerlström and Elliott, 1999).

Strange Magazine's "globsters" web site provides fairly accurate summaries of the Zuiyo-maru carcass and several other carcass strandings, as does Roesch (1997a).
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2011, 03:56:20 pm »

Recommendations to Future Monster Finders

Before closing, a word of friendly advice is offered to anyone who might come upon an unidentified sea creature in the future. Although it is fortunate that Yano thought to take tissue samples, had he or others on board saved the animal's head or even a vertebra (which could have been sealed in a bucket or other container to avoid fish contamination), much time, effort, and speculation could have been avoided. In most cases even a single skeletal element would allow scientists to readily identify an unknown creature. It also would have been wise to take more photos, including close-ups of the head and other body parts, rather than just a few distant shots. That these things were not done suggests that the crew did not even suspect the creature could be a plesiosaur until others later suggested this. After all, even among a group of fishermen someone should have realized that a prehistoric "sea-monster" would be worth incalculably more both financially and scientifically than a load of mackerel. As it turned out, there is little doubt that they actually caught a decomposed shark.

Nevertheless, it is possible that unknown creatures do still lurk in the ocean depths. As evidence, only five months before the Zuiyo-maru incident a naval research vessel near Hawaii accidentally snagged a bizarre, 4.5 meter (15 foot) long shark in its parachute-like sea-anchor. The curious fish had an unusually large head and wide, bowl-shaped jaws--features which soon earned it the nickname "megamouth." Its jaws were filled with hundreds of tiny teeth, and opened at the top rather than at the bottom as in most other sharks. Even stranger, the inside of the mouth seemed to glow with a silvery light. Apparently megamouth uses its reflective mouth tissue to attract tiny crustaceans while feeding in deep water, where little sunlight penetrates. Eventually the odd selachian was given the scientific name Megachasma pelagios, and was determined to represent a new species, genus, and family of shark (Welfare and Fairley 1980; Soule 1981). Coincidentally, the megamouth is now considered a close relative of the basking shark.
Report Spam   Logged
In the Mouth of Madness
Superhero Member
Posts: 1970

« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2011, 03:56:51 pm »


Several lines of evidence strongly indicate that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a large shark, and most likely a basking shark, rather than a plesiosaur. Those giving the opposite impression have done so by telling only part of the story, or mischaracterizing portions of the evidence. To help set the record straight, such authors should correct any misleading statements of the past on this issue, and refrain from any further suggestions that the carcass was a likely plesiosaur.

References Cited

Note: The term CPC in the references below refers to the collection of papers in the following report: Sasaki T, ed. Collected papers on the carcass of an unidentified animal trawled off New Zealand by the Zuiyo-maru. Toyko: La Society franco-japonaise d'oceanographie, 1978.

Abe T. What the giant carcass trawled off New Zealand suggests to an ichthyologist. In CPC 1978. pp 79-80.

Aldrich HR. Was it a plesiosaur? INFO Journal. 1977; 6(3).

Allen T. Shadows in the sea. New York: Lyons and Burford, Publishers, 1996.

Anonymous (AP Report). Japanese scientist says that sea creature could be related to a shark species. New York Times 1977 July 26.

Baker R. Biblical dinosaurs. Klamath Falls (OR): Self-published, 1989.

Bartz PA. Questions and answers. Bible-Science Newsletter. 1990; 28(1):12.

Bartz PA. What shall we tell the children about dinosaurs? Bible Science Newsletter. 1992; 30(3):8.

Baugh, Carl E. Dinosaur: Scientific Evidence that Dinosaurs and Men Walked Together. Orange, Ca.: Promist Publishing Co. 1987.

Bord J, Bord C. Unexplained mysteries of the 21st century. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1989.

Bright M. There are giants in the sea. London: Roleson Books, 1989.

Brown Walter. Center for creation science. 1997; Agailable from Accessed 1997 May 20. Note: the site is no longer active.

Brown, Walter, 2006. On this web page Brown retracts his previous endorsement of the plesiosaur ID and acknolwdeges that the carcass is a likely basking shark.

Buckna D. Those dino-might dinosaurs. Creation Science Dialogue 1993; 20(3):4-5.

Burton M, Robert B. eds. The international wildlife encyclopedia. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 1969.

Cohen D. The encyclopedia of monsters. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1982.

Dingerkus G. The shark watchers' guide. New York: Julian Messner, 1985.

Doolan R. ed. News blackout on strange creature: was it a plesiosaur? Creation Ex Nihilo 1991; 13(2):40-41.

Doolan R. ed. Sea monster caught by fishermen? Creation 1994; 16(3):31.

Dye B. Ogopogo and other monsters. Dialogue 1989; 16(2):5.

Ellis R. The book of sharks. 2nd Printing. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989. p 91.

Ellis R. Monsters of the sea. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.

Ellis R. Email communication, 1997 Jan 16.

Fowler S. Email communication, 1997 Jan 17.

Francis M. Email communication, 1997 Jan 16 and Jan 30.

Freedman R. Sharks. New York: Holiday House, 1985.

Harold ES. 1975. Living fishes of the world. Gardn City (NJ): Doubleday & Company, 1975.

Hasegawa Y, Uyeno T. On the nature of the carcass of a large vertebrate found off New Zealand. In CPC 1978. pp 63-66.

Heuvelmans B. 1968. In the wake of sea serpents. New York: Hill and Wang, 1985.

Hovind K. Unmasking the false religion of evolution. 1996; Available from .

Jerlstrom, Pierre. 1998. Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence. Technical Journal, Volume 12 Issue 3. Web version

Jerlström, Pierre, and Bev Elliott, Letting Rotting Sharks Lie: Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur, , Vol. 13, Issue 2, p. 83-87, Nov. 1999.

Kimura S, Fujii K, and others. The morphology and chemical composition of the **** fiber from an unidentified creature captured off the coast of New Zealand. In CPC 1978, pp 67-74.

King L. Email communication, 1997 Jan 16.

Koster J. 1977. Creature feature. Oceans 10:56-59.

LeBlond P. New Zealand cryptid studied. British Columbia Cryptozoology Club Newsletter. 1992; No. 12, n.p.

Martin J. Email communication, 1997 Feb 1.

Mollet H. Email communication, 1997 Jan 17.

Morris HM. Dragons in paradise. Impact #241. El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1993.

Morris JD. Dinosaurs, the lost world, and you. El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1997.

Naish D. 1997. Email communication, 1997 April 29.

Nasu, K. Oceanographic environments at the area where the unidentified animal was trawled. In CPC 1978. pp 81-83.

Neirmann DL. Dinosaurs and dragons. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 1994; 8:85-104.

Northrup, B. Taphonomy: a tool for studying earth's biblical history. 1997; Available from

Obata I, Tomoda Y. Comparison of the unidentified animal with fossil animals. In CPC 1978. pp 45-54.

Omura H, Mochizuki K, Kamiya T. Identification of the carcass trawled by the Zuiyo-maru from a comparative morphological viewpoint. In CPC 1978. pp 56-60.

Patton D. Interview with Don Patton (June 13, 1995), part I of III. 1995; Available from

Perrine D. Sharks. Stillwater (MN): Voyageur Press, 1995.

Petersen DR. Unlocking the mysteries of creation. El Cajon: Master Books, 1988.

Phelps D. Email communication, 1997 April 22.

Roesch BS. Three recent "sea monster" carcasses. The Cryptozoology Review 1996; 1(2):15-17.

Roesch BS. 1997a. Ben Roesch's home page. 1997; Available from . Accessed 1997 July 1.

Roesch BS. 1997b. Email communnication, Sept 9, 1997.

Sasaki T. Foreword. In CPC 1978.

Scoggan B. 1996. Cadborosaurus--survivor from the deep (book review). Creation Research Society Quarterly. 32(4):243.

Seta S. On the condition of the unidentified animal. In CPC 1978, pp 75-76.

Sims D. 1997. Email communication, Jan 16, 1997.

Smithson P. Untitled web page. 1996; Available from

Snelling, A. Creation Research Society Quarterly 1980; 17(1):74.

Soule G. Mystery monsters of the deep. New York: Franklyn Watts, 1981.

Springer VG, Gold JP. Sharks in question. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Steel R. Sharks of the world. New York: Facts on File Publications, 1985.

Swanson R. A (recently) living plesiosaur found? Creation Research Society Quarterly 1978; 15(1): 8.

Sweeney JB. A pictorial history of sea monsters and other dangerous marine life. New York: Crown Publishing, 1972.

Taylor IT. In the minds of nen. 2nd Edition. Toronto: TFE Publishing, 1987.

Taylor IT. Creatures that time forgot? Creation Ex Nihilo. 1989; 11(3):10-15.

Taylor IT. Those fascinating dinosaurs. Bible-Science Newsletter 1996; 34(3):16.

Taylor PS. A Young people's guide to the Bible and the great dinosaur mystery. Sunnybank (AUSTRALIA): Creation Science Foundation, 1985.

Tullis A. Email communication, Jan 16, 1997.

Taylor PS. The Great dinosaur mystery in the Bible. San Diego: Master Books, 1987.

Welfare S, Fairley J. Arthur C. Clark's mysterious world. New York: A & W Publishers, 1980.

Wood, Todd C. The Zuiyo-maru carcass revisited: plesiosaur or basking Shark?. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 1997; 33:292-295.

Yasuda F, Taki Y. Comparison of the unidentified animal with fishes. In CPC 1978, pp 61-62.

For more information on Basking Sharks, see The Basking Shark Project For web sites and internet mailing lists on sharks, see Ben Roesch's Shark Links

Updated: Nov. 2005, Added a note that Walter Brown rescinded his endorsement of this carcass as a plesiosaur.

I invite anyone with comments, corrections or questions to contact me by e-mail or regular mail at the addresses below. Thank you.

Glen J. Kuban

Note: This page had 62,966 hits from 10 May 1977 to 03 Dec. 2004.
On Dec. 5, 2004 a new counter was added for internal stats
Using the Paluxy site project counter at
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy