Skip to comments.
Unknown creature found by soldiers(Russia)-Cryptozoology
EnglishRussia ^
| Unknown
| EnglishRussia
Posted on 08/28/2006 10:23:33 AM PDT by Marius3188
This creature was found by Russian soldiers on Sakhalin shoreline. Sakhalin area is situated near to Japan, its the most eastern part of Russia, almost 5000 miles to East from Moscow (Russia is huge). People dont know who is it. According to the bones and teeth - it is not a fish. According to its skeleton - its not a crocodile or alligator. It has a skin with hair or fur. It has been said that it was taken by Russian special services for in-depth studies, and we are lucky that people who encountered it first made those photos before it was brought away.
TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Russia; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: animal; beluga; creature; crypto; cryptobiology; cryptozoology; fringe; hoax; itsadog; mystery; ohsomysteriouso; russia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-169 next last
To: Arthalion
101
posted on
08/28/2006 11:00:59 AM PDT
by
oxcart
(Journalism [Sic])
To: Publius
Looks like ambulocetas, the ancestor of all dolphins and whales.
Good call. I think you're right. That's amazing.
To: Arthalion
Thats the only thing I can think of. From the size of it and the loss of teeth it might have died of old age. 7m for a Beluga is really big, and look at the shape and tear of the teeth. Looks like a old animal.
103
posted on
08/28/2006 11:01:32 AM PDT
by
Marius3188
(Happy Resurrection Weekend)
To: Arthalion
Yep, Beluga whale.
You'd think the Russians would recognize one.
104
posted on
08/28/2006 11:02:13 AM PDT
by
ltc8k6
To: Arthalion
I was thinking narwhal, and was trying to account for the absence of a tusk. Looks like a match.
To: Marius3188
106
posted on
08/28/2006 11:02:51 AM PDT
by
ChadGore
(VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
To: Publius
How about the
Rodhocetus?
107
posted on
08/28/2006 11:03:59 AM PDT
by
Lady Jag
(People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.)
To: oxcart
The skull on the beach is a little worse for wear, but they are almost unquestionably the same. Look at the holes below the teeth on the lower jaw, the slope of the upper jaw, and the way the two align. You can even see the protuberance in the decaying flesh where the bone above the eye sticks out. It's a Beluga.
To: BigTex5
109
posted on
08/28/2006 11:04:39 AM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.)
To: Arthalion; Marius3188
I think it's a beluga too, I posted a skullsunlimited link above.
Lots of things look unfamiliar as skeletons. Before 1810 or so, digging up a mammoth skull was proof that there were giant cyclopean people walking around once. It fit the data- the Bible states that there were giants, and the trunk attachment looked like an eyesocket if you weren't too critical.
it's more fun to interpret the carcass as something far more mysterious than a dead whale, though, and some of the posts here show that.
Anyone suggest ocean-dwelling alien visitors yet?
110
posted on
08/28/2006 11:04:52 AM PDT
by
DBrow
To: Marius3188
Looks like someone tossed an alligator carcass overboard.
111
posted on
08/28/2006 11:05:09 AM PDT
by
fso301
To: Arthalion
Yes, you nailed it...good job!
112
posted on
08/28/2006 11:05:32 AM PDT
by
oxcart
(Journalism [Sic])
To: Arthalion
Yeah, that's really close, but Beluga whales aren't covered in fur. Good find on the skull, though. It looks to be an exact match.
To: Arthalion
Yes. It is certainly a cetacean of some sort. I'm not sure if it's a beluga or another toothed whale, but that skull pretty much says it all. I'm outa here.
114
posted on
08/28/2006 11:07:10 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(Non-evangelical Atheist)
To: Junior
"Teeth are wrong.
"
Not necessarily. They could be broken off. Wouldn't be surprising, really.
115
posted on
08/28/2006 11:07:46 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(Non-evangelical Atheist)
To: mysterio
the "fur" is seaweed I guess
To: mysterio
> Beluga whales aren't covered in fur
Rotten flesh... muscles, skin, fat... often looks "furry," as the strands that make it all up separate.
117
posted on
08/28/2006 11:10:24 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: mysterio
There is no fur on that animal, only strings of decaying meat. I looked closely, and even pulled the image into photoshop to blow it up, and couldn't find any trace of hair. Just rotting meat.
To: Kirkwood
That is the closest match yet. Explains the fur. The teeth are similar too.
119
posted on
08/28/2006 11:13:06 AM PDT
by
WVNan
To: StoneColdTaxHater
It's Rodan! No, looks more like Rodham!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-169 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson