The Sea Monster of Santa Cruz

This apparent Plesiosaur washed up on Moore's Beach (now Natural Bridges State Beach) in Monterey Bay, California in 1925. The neck was described as being about 20 feet long. Some scientists postulated that it was an extremely rare type of beaked whale, while others believed it to be a variety of plesiosaur. After thoroughly examining the carcass, the renowned naturalist E. L. Wallace concluded that the creature could not be a whale and might be a plesiosaur that had been preserved and subsequently melted out of glacial ice. The story is given in Randall Reinsted's 1975 book Shipwrecks and Sea Monsters. It is also prominently featured in Skin Diver magazine of November, 1989 which discusses the Monterey Submarine Canyon. This mysterious underwater trench extends many miles into the Pacific and is one of the least studied ocean chasms.

www.6000years.org...

I dont have any idea what it might me. Normally when something like this washes up on a beach people say its a Whale.. This does not look like a whale to me..... Its old so there is only limited photography... Any ideas peeps...

Omg, is this real ? If so I have no idea. Looks like a dinosaur head interesting !! Thanks for sharing

Its a Dolphin

Originally posted by Ben81
Its a Dolphin

It looks to big to be a dolphin to me.. Unless you get big dolphins ofc..

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by Ben81
Its a Dolphin

It looks to big to be a dolphin to me.. Unless you get big dolphins ofc..

It's a Dolphin but I am thinking it's not THAT big.
The people in the background are likely a good distance away.

This looks like an effort to make a hoax.

- Lee

Dolphin or not cool pic. The people in back could be along way off

As far as I know the animal is generally accepted to be a Baird's Beaked Whale (not a dolphin).

Be warned: When you go Googling for images of this whale: The Japanese kill these whales as well, so you're going to find some gruesome images.

Even looking at that site made me laugh. A simple pic-search on google or other sites revealed the reality over some of their 6000-year-picture-proofs: Nessies which were placed in water by filmcrews to document peoples reactions and so on.

No, thank you. Any site doing pseudo-science like that one is a single source of disinformation. Can't trust a single bit (of a byte) from those sites.

Maybe it was a dolphin, why not? Or a very rare whale. Obviously, they didn't look for lungs or something, as usual for those "monster findings" on beaches.

Man, I like science. Those "News of the World"-sites just give me brain-hiccups.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


That site is perhaps not the best site to link to, but the story of "The Moore's Beach Monster" is well known - Click here.

In the mean time I found THIS. It is the skull of the Moore's Beach Monster and it was in fact a Baird's beaked whale.

reply to post by Gemwolf


Just looked at the picture of the Baird's beaked whale... and it does have the same headline.. Another of lifes mysteries solved ... ty)

nothing to offer to the debate but...

being a child of the 70s and teenager of the 80s this just makes me want to move to santa cruz (carla) all the more.
that is all

reply to post by purplemer


it doesnt look like a sea monster to me... just a some kind of whale...

reply to post by fluff007


Just curious. Did you read any of the posts?

At a half second glance I could tell that that was a dolphin or whale. I mean come on. Pleisiosaur? It has a blow hole on the head. which is also covered in blubber, and soft glossy dolphin skin. also it has a beak just like a dolphin. Also it's the size of a dolphin.

Originally posted by Gemwolf
As far as I know the animal is generally accepted to be a Baird's Beaked Whale (not a dolphin).

Be warned: When you go Googling for images of this whale: The Japanese kill these whales as well, so you're going to find some gruesome images.

That is what it was classified as. This is not possible if the description of the beast was accurate. This is an instance where an actual professional was on site (by happenstance) and he logged in a journal his professional observations. Perhaps there is more information I am unaware of, but as I understand it all the evidence is gone so we may never know.

reply to post by purplemer


ive been to that beach grew up near it those are the tide pools that are elevated high above the beach (10-25ish feet) and depending on tide are either submerged or dry and can be explored so its not a perspective trick i think i may have found my fist star fish there.....as for the picture its self i have never seen it which is mildly suprising having grown up around the area and no of no local ledged so to speak of what it could be but ill ask my friend whos family has been in the area for the past 150ish years and get back to you tomrrow with what he knows about it interesting picture op

www.trueauthority.com...

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
...
Perhaps there is more information I am unaware of, but as I understand it all the evidence is gone so we may never know.

edit on 22-5-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

Actually, as I mentioned earlier, the skull was kept and is available for viewing. It was a whale.

Click here for more information.