Cifford Paiva has given us much interesting data to work with (Previous Blog Posting on Creationist Plesiosaurs and Pterosaurs). I fully agree that modern Plesiosaurs include both a longer-necked and a shorter-necked kind, and the skeleton he illustrates for the shorter-necked kind is indeed the right skeleton to illustrate the right type. I disagree for several anatomical considerations with his statement that the longer-necked animal said to account for the Loch Ness Monster is an Elasmosaur: The reports do not specify a neck anywhere near as long as an Elasmosaur's neck. There were however other shorter-necked long-necked Plesiosaurs than the Elasmosaurs, right up to the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, and it is very likely that one of them is the base for all of our more modern Longnecked Sea-serpent types of reports (see the similar illustration above). I had at one time considered that some reports indicated an even longer-necked and more Elasmosaurian Plesiosaur persisted in tropical waters, but that early opinion has not been borne out by subsequent data and research. I no longer maintain that interpretation as necessary.
Also I do not consider the Zuiyo Maru carcass to be a Plesiosaur, it is a basking shark. I say this because the remaining anatomy (especially noting the vertebrae) look like a basking shark to me. I do not mean to detract fromPaiva's statements advancing the opposite point of view, merely stating what my own observations cause me to conclude in an independant study. The area of "Red flesh" as identified in Paiva's article is the remnant of the structures which hold the gills up and I am satisfied that the shape of the area does indeed fit the requirements for that.
|Markus Hemmler's Pseudoplesiosaur Diagram|
Going on to the Surviving Pterosaur section, the name Kongamato is voided as a name of a Pterosaurian Cryptid, it obviously originally applied to a winged water-monster with a long tail. hence most likely a stingray. Likewise a number of reports of "Ropens" overseas are references to (Manta) rays, and their shape and dimesnsions match. That is not the whole story and other reprorts attributed to Kongamatos and Ropens are references to other unrelated sorts of creatures.
The main problem with all of the reports on bioluminescence is that there is not one single good reason to assume the lights seen at night have anything to do with the sightings of supposedly Pterosaurian-shaped creatures otherwise observed. I count the "Bioluminescene" reports as a separate phenomena. This is not to slight the reports on the nature of bioluminescence which Paiva has included. I simply consider the reports in this category to be irrelevant.
|Ghost Lights (Marfa Lights, claimed as possibly Pterosaurian in Origin)|
The "Civil-War-Era Pterosaur Photo" is known to have been a deliberate mock-up of what the supposed "Thunderbird Photo" must have been. It was created theatrically and there are at least two other versions done as mock-ups which do not match this photo. The "Pterosaur" in this photo is a fullscale prop manufactured for a "Lost World" movie and I believe it currently resides in the collection of the Museum of Cryptozoology.
|fake civil war pterosaur picture|
The story goes on to say that the photo above is a deliberately false copy of another photo presumed to be genuine. However THIS is the other photo:A doppelganger picture? Yes! Because there exists a second, virtually identical imitation of this sepia photo, a yellowish photo with very similar content, that most people also don’t know the origin of! But more on that later. Here are the two pictures. The first we shall call the real “Sepia (colored) shot” & the second the fake “Yellow shot“:
1) The First “Sepia Shot!” — Study carefully! Click on photo to see big size.
2) The 2nd “Yellow Shot” imitation.
What’s up with these photos?
•Both photos show 6-7 American soldiers with similar Civil War uniforms & similar guns.
•Both photos show a dead, non-decomposed carcass of a recently shot pterosaur!?
•Both hunters have similar positions with their left foot on the pterosaur’s head.
•Both photos’ soldiers hold similar positions in similar open spots in a forest.
•Both photos have blurred edges, but the 2nd one’s blur seems applied & more artificial.
•Both photos have a similar fold line going vertically through the picture.
•Both photos have similar scrape marks at virtually similar spots. Coincidence?
•In the 1st sepia shot details are clearer than in the 2nd blurry yellow shot.
•Sun-faded spots in the 1st photo look more genuine than lightened parts in the 2nd.
•It seems that the 2nd is an imitation of the 1st one, except for the pterosaur size!
•Both photos’ content is very CONTROVERSIAL, to say the least!
Photography during the civil war was very developed and already produced detailed clear pictures. Although details on the sepia photo’s edge are not as clear as the middle of the photo most likely due to chromatic abberation (6), there’s no reason for the second photo to be so equally blurred, other than by design. Also the Civil War uniforms & equipment in the sepia shot are more correct than in the yellow one, where the belts are incorrect. Also the “dino” looks kind of flat and non-descript.
We can safely say that the second photo is not as old as the first and was purely intended as a copy of the first, a “doppelganger”.
...And it is also a recent construction using photoshop, not a very old photo at all. It includes these interesting features (or mistakes) among many others:
I have no problem with "Normandy Nessie" being a local type of "Sea Monster" but my own opinion is that it is a kind of giant seal (an elephant seal) otherwise identifiable from reports in the area.