Dinosaur sightings

This site offers quite a bit of evidence that it was a basking shark carcass.

members.aol.com...

This evidence includes testing of the fibres collected and gas chromatography analysis to name a few. One of the comments from the testers "If the horny fiber was pulled out from an animal belonging to other classes except Chondrichthyes [sharks and relatives], it should be significantly different...These results strongly suggest that this unidentified creature is a basking shark or closely related species".

Yep, basking shark...

Wasnt there something reported about the amazon people seeing something in the water, some kind of creature and they had a name for it?

You are thinking of Africa, not Amazon... See William's post regarding Mokelembmbe....

goddammit. Are we talking about sea monsters? pleaseosaur? OgoPogo? A reward has been offered for thw Ogopogo

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
This site offers quite a bit of evidence that it was a basking shark carcass.

members.aol.com...

This evidence includes testing of the fibres collected and gas chromatography analysis to name a few. One of the comments from the testers "If the horny fiber was pulled out from an animal belonging to other classes except Chondrichthyes [sharks and relatives], it should be significantly different...These results strongly suggest that this unidentified creature is a basking shark or closely related species".

Almost every single point in that article (including that of the "horney fibres" has been contradicted and debunked rather well in other articles.

"THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HORNY FIBRES

[See Figs. 1 and 3 at top of page] Yano removed 42 horny fibres from the edge of the flippers and washed them in an antiseptic solution of sodium hypochlorite. When analysed, the amino acid composition was found to be almost identical to that for elastoidin that had been obtained from the fresh fin of a basking shark. That elastoidin is not found in mammals has been hailed by creationists and evolutionists alike as being definitive evidence for the carcass being a basking shark. However, the following shoud be considered;

(1) The most obvious fact is that the identity of this animal is uncertain, and it is the only specimen that they have obtained. It is therefore possible that it may be unusual in being a plesiosaur-type creature having a similar composition to elastoidin in the horny fibres at the end of its flippers.

(2) Whilst their chemical composition might be very similar, the position from which they were obtained on the animals is quite different. The horny fibres appear to be about 15-25 cms (6-10"). long and attached to the edges of the flippers. They can be seen in Fig. 4 as yellowy fronds to the flipper just below the skull. On the other hand, the elastoidin would have been obtained from the interior structures that support the fin of the shark. In no drawing of any basking shark have I ever seen any fibres hanging from any edge of any of the fins as was the case with this carcass. That they had a similar composition is far from being a crucial means of identification for this is overruled by their quite different location.

(3) Although the amino acid compositions were similar, the fifth report that deals specifically with this subject admits "In contrast to the amino acid composition described above, there was a marked difference between the horny fiber and the elastoidin in their reducible cross-links which are polyfunctional amino acids derived from lysine, .... the radioactivity of tritium incorporated into the horny fiber was 110 cpm... which was 1/7 of the specific radioactivity of the elastoidin. This fact indicated that the horny fiber contained the extremely low amount of reducible cross-links comparing to the elastoidin" [p72]. In other words, contrary to some authors' claims, differences were found.

A graph of an analysis of four chemicals B, C, D, E, that were radioactive components of these cross links, gave the following values: Chemical B C D E
Elastoidin 0.9 5.5 11.7 0. 6
Horny fibre 0.7 2.7 2.2 1.9


These values are of the radioactivity "which represents the total amount of reducible compounds". They are significantly different, and the author tries to explain them by saying they were "conceivably" due to age-related changes and the treatment by the sodium hypochloride by Yano [p72]. They had the option of treating the specimens with sodium hypochloride to see if this affected the values, but neither of these factors were examined further. It might be thought that the lower values in the horny fibres were due to the chemicals being washed out by the sea water, but this is improbable as there is more of chemical E in the horny fibre than there is in the elastoidin!

The tested substances seem to be sufficiently different to say with reasonable certainty that they were NOT the same material, yet this is not discussed further in any of these papers. By contrast, the close similarity of the amino acid content of the two fibres is hailed as crucial. One can understand evolutionists claiming this, but it must be asked why none of the creationists who had access to these papers made no mention of these differences? Why did they not bring to the notice of their readers this discrepancy? Surely, in the interest of truth and accuracy, this and the various other contradictions of the shark identification should have been highlighted. Yet no article in any creationist magazine refers to this feature. One is left asking "Why?"


I'm not saying this WAS NOT a basking shark, but many seem to have only read the evidence suggesting it is. When it fact, there is a number of irrefutible evidence seriously suggesting it isn't. I don't think it can dismissed that easily.

Mhmm...nice one. Im just cant help thinking about that name...hehe horny chemicals....*hits self*

Yep, I believe it. There's thousands of past and relatively present siteings of dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures all over the world. There may well be still some living today. Just because scientists say that they're extinct doesn't mean they are. I think they should rethink the theory of evolution, in terms of when dinosaurs were alive and how they mananged the survive the proposed extinction. The colour picture seems to be a bit of a fake, but the black and white one could well be geniune.

Originally posted by Monk
Yea, dinosaurs could not exist now

But...we are still counting on Big lizards!

Oh they exist all right.

How do I kow?

Well, I've seen one in broad daylight with another witness in a very remote region.

Amazing I know, but true just the same.

J.

Dinosaurs can be exists, but not hugh or large.
People didn't discover all the africa, still the center is undiscovered! So maybe there are some little or middle dinosaurs, but we don't check it.
And why we couldn't be in the center, because there are many creatures that can eat us. For example Giant spiders, any lions, tigers or any other...
So somehow i believe dinosaurs can be exists, but we didn't found them yet.

Wow. That looks so much like the Ogopogo from Okanagan lake. But during an in search program with Leonard Nimoy, they spoke of the possibility of giant eels via tunnels at the bottom that went to the ocean. There was salt water apparently down very deep, or at least there was speculated to be. What my mother saw was very much like a giant eel. So maybe its like a giant Naga, an intelligent snake monster related to et.