Sea monster cast ashore

on May 16, 2007

A strange ugly sea monster was cast ashore in Guinea. The partially decomposed monster has 4 paws, a tail and long fur. Scientists who examined the creature said that they had already seen such animals before, but they have no clue to their definition.

More pictures after the jump.

Comments

Anonymous said…

hiya the monster doesnt look real at all , dont tell me that this is from sea , i think is fake , my opinion , by the way , looks like should visit my site with this skin :))

freeacnetips.blogspot.com

29 May, 2007 05:00

Spluch said…

I'm not entirely sure if it's real, but it does look ugly and disgusting!

01 June, 2007 01:41

Anonymous said…

In my opinion this "sea monster" looks like a decaying Woolly Mammoth. The process of a Woolly Mammoth decaying would probly take thousands or mabey millions or years. Who knows it could of been frozen in a glacier and now that we are haveing an El Nino the glaiccer could of just gotten out of its source of preservation. I could be in its process of decaying. Did you ever think of that? Thyis animal is not what you call it a "sea monster'. My prediction is that it is a Wolly Mammoth or some other animal from thousands of years ago with the same charicteristics. The head has a resemblance of a Woolly Mammoth I belive. Im only 14 and even I can tell it is a Woolly Mammoth.
Brooke Kramer =]

04 June, 2007 21:53

Anonymous said…

uh brooke that was a really stupid explanation, that 'sea monster' is obviously reptilian, and the Wooly Mammoth is NOT reptilian. That explanation would be as outrageous as it being a sea monster.

18 June, 2007 13:24

Anonymous said…

It's a rotting humpback.

23 June, 2007 11:05

RandomnessUnavaible said…

Trust me, Brooke, Its NOT a Wooly Mammoth. With the appearance of the skin, its certainly is NOT a Wooly Mammoth - Nor like one in any way. But, however, I tend to wonder - Perhaps a Turtle? Yes, I would think it to be quite impossible, but now think. Four limbs, a back with skin still on, and take a look at the head. Shouldn't it appear a Turtle's head, correct? I'd have to disagree with many people here, though I cannot say yes or no with it being true, real, and such. But I have concluded that this monster is none-other than a giant turtle, whether fake or true.

14 August, 2007 02:25

Anonymous said…

"4 paws, a tail and long fur," yeah.... I don't really even know what to say about it..... It is not a Woolly Mammoth at all.... and yes I thought it looked like a turtle head too.... but whats up with the PAWS!?!?! I don't understand, if it supposed to be a reptile why does it have fur? I don't know if it is real or not....

26 August, 2007 13:15

Anonymous said…

Its a decaying whale - the grooves in its flesh and the flippers are very characteristic. No mysteries here chaps.

06 January, 2008 15:50

benofmanycolors said…

how could it be reptillian or a turtle when the description says it has long fur?

26 January, 2008 08:48

Anonymous said…

as an zooarchaeologist im sure its a not mmooth or forrest elephant...it cant be also a whale or a fish cuz fishes as we all known doesnt have fur. At first look it looks like dead dinosaur but as we all know again dinosaurs were not having fur either so question is what is it?

26 March, 2008 07:20

andrew said…

That looks like a baleen whale to me. People say it has "paws" like a crocodile and "hair" but I don't see either of those features. If you look at pictures of whale skeletons (http://images.google.com/images?q=whale+skeleton&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1) you can see that the front flippers could be confused for "paws" if the flesh was decomposed. The skull is clearly a baleen whale. As for the hair, apparently some whales do have some hair( http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask99/0336.html or http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=whale+hair&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws0, and it is not inconceivable that a genetic mutation could cause an excess on some individual (I think, though I am by no stretch of the imagination an evolutionary biologist or geneticist who would be able to speak with any authority regarding that possibility).

26 March, 2008 22:54

Anonymous said…

It looks like a rotted Mosasaurus. It is not a whale because whales do not have four paws- only two flippers, it's not a sea tutrle nor a rotted shark- they don't have bones. I can see clearly in the picture the hair running along its decayed back. I don't see any fluke, it's tail is similar to that of the Mosasaur. It doesn't appear to be a hoax. So, the most possible explaination is a Mosasaurus, it isn't a Plesiosaurus because they have long necks. It's possible that the Mosasaur is a survivor of the Ice Age. This explaination isn't far fetched nor fancyful, many animals are still being discovered and those yet to be discovered. The likelyhood of a Mosasaur that survived extinction is the same as the Plesiosaur or Sasquatch. The world is one huge place, it would be arogant to think that science has discovered everything...

18 April, 2008 10:47

Anonymous said…

I believe it to be reptilian, like those above me have previously stated. It is possible that it is an ancestor to our sea turtle. The skeletal structure of the head and limbs suggest turtle. The girth of the animal could be due to the decomposition in water. When things die and decompose in the water the tissue expands and absorbs water, whereas in a relatively dry area it would shrivel.
It's possible to collect DNA samples and compare them to other samples of modern and prehistoric DNA;however, that would take a considerable amount of time and money.

07 May, 2008 00:08

Anonymous said…

there ARE, although few, species of prehistoric reptiles that are believed to have fur. We just don't know.

Until we obtain a similar specimen in better condition, we can only speculate what this may or may not be.

07 May, 2008 00:12

Anonymous said…

Looks more like a burnt toast...

10 May, 2008 21:33

Anonymous said…

i think that it's just a sea creature that hasn't been discovered yet. It's possible that it was a creature that survived the ice age and evolved into a whole different creature.by the looks of the picture it could be anything.It could be a dinosour that survived the ice age,it could be an old woolly mammoth that was in a glacier,it could even be a sea monster!It is a myth and no one really knows what it could be. by the way im only eleven years old and i figured that out by my self.if an eleven year old can do that that then how come scientist figure this stuff out!

22 May, 2008 23:17

Anonymous said…

I think it's a dog, my dog just ran away about 2 weeks ago, so u never kno. I live in Iowa, how far away is that from guinee or where ever it was found?

14 July, 2008 11:39

Anonymous said…

ok, i don't know about any of you, but the marks on its back kinda look like burns. not just burns, but scorches, how can there be scorches on an animal that was in a glacier or stuff like that? & how the heck can you see a skull, i see possibly the back of the head. sometimes when fish decompose in pressured water, they just break apart. my guess is that this thing could have very well have been a dinosaur, and when the ice age occurred, it swam deep in the water where it was closer to the core & possibly warmer. over time it swam down there, & by the time the ice age was over, it just stayed there. & maybe it hit a hot spot or went over a volcano or swam between tectonic plates. anyways, it got burnt to death, and it was so deep that by the time it surfaced, many of its parts fell off. that's what i think happened....either that or it is Godzilla

07 August, 2008 17:34