It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this a plesiosaur?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I found this pic in the net. It looks like a small plesiosaur kind like beast, maybe a baby monster...

What do you think?




[edit on 29-6-2004 by Peronemlin]




posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Thw site mentioned at the bottom of the pic is a Christian one.



A Christian, creationist look at life, nature, and ourselves. We believe that God was around way before the idea of evolution!

www.creationtips.ws...

The creatures image seems too sharp to me and looks as if its been stuck there by an image editor. Plus the shadows don't fit all that well - given that the man standing beside the creature has such a long shadow, you would expect the creature to have a slightly longer one itself.

Pisky's opinion: Photoshop strikes again



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Better yet, this link..... www.users.bigpond.com...

SAYS it's a fake.


Not trying to down play Piskys observations, just went to the website posted on the photo




[edit on 29-6-2004 by NetStorm]



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Photoshop is my life, i use it at work all day doing photo manipulation. Piskey hit it on the head, the picture is to sharp. The left side of the creature where i asume is the back, has no depth, as though it is a paper cut out. Plus look at the persons foot, the ankle is the same height if not higher than the mid section of the animal. So it would "seem" the animal is burried half way, but the is no buldge in the sand.

Then to set it all off i put it in photoshop myself and the pixles do not match. The pixles on the edge of the monster dont flow.

Sorry imo its a fake. A photshoped seal or manatee carcass.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
It was too good to be true...



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
it would also be totally surrounded on footprints and hand prints as people got down good and close to it and it should have more sand on it after people manhandled it to have a good look, maybe rolling it over and back.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
i see no indentation in the surrounding areas of the body (i.e. sand) plus it's pretty horrible of a photoshop image. i suppose i could give the person some credit, but it would have been great for them to spend that extra 30 minutes on it.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Hehehe, my question is why weren't you brave enough to post the article to it. Some Real info on Plesiosaurs if yer interested, btw these ones are dead.

It's cool imo that they were so varied in size, tiny ones and massive 25 ton beasts.

www.plesiosaur.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Actually - it is a beached Megamouth shark. Here's a link to the original pic...

www.cryptozoology.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Good link Donner, this pic looks more realisic than the one first posted.

Look how much bigger the head looks and the rear fin is different in the one from Donner's link. Looks like someone was just fooling around with PS and removing bits and pieces of the original.










Here's a megamouth shark, think this is it?

Megachasma pelagios


This shark wasn't discovered until 1976 when a 14.6-foot (4.46-metre), 1,650-pound (750-kilogram) male specimen of a previously unknown species of shark was captured accidentally off Oahu, Hawaii, having partially swallowed a U.S. Navy ship's parachute-like sea anchor.


www.elasmo-research.org...



That same picture can be found here described as a megamouth shark....
www.sharkmans-world.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Im still not convinced. That shark picture looks fake to me...very poor photo editing



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The shark picture I found on cryptozoology.com, posted as is. It doesn't really look faked to me: you can see the indentation in the sand , sand partially covering one fin, and water in the depression the shark makes.

Keep in mind this is a 'carcass' that washed up onshore so there WILL be bits and pieces missing.

Also, why fake a picture of something already known to exist?



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donner
The shark picture I found on cryptozoology.com, posted as is. It doesn't really look faked to me...


Sorry, I was just being ironic. You really conviced me. I should have used one of this



posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Good job Donner....


E_T

posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudAmerican
This shark wasn't discovered until 1976 when a 14.6-foot (4.46-metre), 1,650-pound (750-kilogram) male specimen of a previously unknown species of shark was captured accidentally off Oahu, Hawaii, having partially swallowed a U.S. Navy ship's parachute-like sea anchor.

I guess that species is relative of Tiger shark which also eats pretty much anything.


It is a deadly predator who will eat anything it can catch and get down its throat
...
It really doesn't care what it eats, and all kinds of things have been found in its stomach, including metal objects like car license plates.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
the best work on that plesiosaur foto is the "missing kid"!! it desapear misteriously from the original one...lol, and we don't see a single error in it , the "delete"/build operation was perfect.
althow the original foto had some weird things on it too.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join