tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post2128377599138096008..comments2024-03-22T21:58:18.933+00:00Comments on ShukerNature: CONTEMPLATING THE CON RITAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15628598508836601012noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-59855366227609995742022-11-03T14:17:02.168+00:002022-11-03T14:17:02.168+00:00The fossil record is massively incomplete, especia...The fossil record is massively incomplete, especially with marine species that may have left behind fossils in wholly inaccessible zones such as the sea bottom and abyssal zones. There could also be large segmented fossils that have fragmented into much smaller sections that have yet to be uncovered. Certainly, sightings of these cryptids at sea might have been overestimated, but this seems less likely for the carcase that was directly examined.Dr Karl Shukerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06222845702628862829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-89659448808577502932022-11-03T01:35:50.224+00:002022-11-03T01:35:50.224+00:00There's just one thing about this hypothesis t...There's just one thing about this hypothesis that bugs me (no pun intended). In the fossil record, the largest arthropods known reached only around three or so metres long. Taking the 60 ft carcass' size literally feels like a massive leap up from that. Could the size of the carcass (and live individuals seen at sea) have been overestimated or misremembered, and if so, what would the most "plausible" size for this animal be?Chris Forbesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3739684561063978507.post-53067654553267130282015-07-13T15:31:12.963+01:002015-07-13T15:31:12.963+01:00How about this guy?http://www.foxnews.com/science/...How about this guy?http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/07/13/rare-fossils-400-million-year-old-sea-creatures-uncovered/?intcmp=featuresAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com