It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by greenkoolaid
You say that the top one is too big to be a crocodile, but what are you using for perspective? For all we know that creature could be no bigger than an iguana. The photo is likely blown up, hence the poor quality.
The second one just looks like a cut out job to me. Or possibly There is no wake and there are no ripples around the creature to show that it is moving. The shadow looks good, so probably not a photo shop, unless the person did a good job with that.
Originally posted by Seapeople
There is definitely a logical explanation for them both. The problem is that the logical explanation doesnt include dinosaurs.
Originally posted by Monk
To big to be a tail. of a crocodile. Or mayb its just a BIG crocodile....
Originally posted by Monk
I think we have established it is not a dinosaur. Tell what Universal?
Originally posted by UniversalFiction
Originally posted by Monk
I think we have established it is not a dinosaur. Tell what Universal?
Huh? Sorry that makes no sense to me
Originally posted by triplesod
he means. "how can you "tell" what? Universal"
Originally posted by Aztec
I've found one of the photos shown on the documentary about Nagas, but this creature looks like a sea creature to me. www.pantawee.dk...
Originally posted by Aztec
I've found one of the photos shown on the documentary about Nagas, but this creature looks like a sea creature to me. www.pantawee.dk...