The reconstructions of the head were done independently of the video resulta below, which come here by way of Scott Mardis' comparisons and from the "Not Just Nessie" website.
The profile is very significantly the same wedge shape tapering down from back to front, with a wide gash of a mouth and the eyes placed about halfway along the length.
http://www.njan.org/john.php"Not Just Nessie": below is Scott Mardis' comparison to a Plesiosaur skull. Above, Oudeman's SS reconstructions showing the heads as being much the same shape as the statistical averages reconstruction I made myself. I have put a lighter-coloured circle around the eye to make it show up better in this enlargement. Below are two views from sightings of the Loch Ness Monster showing the appearances of the head from above and from in front too compare to the other comparable points of view from the other locations. The view of the neck overall in the drawing of a recent Periscope sighting at Loch Ness shows the longer forward section of the neck, much the same thickness throughout, and then the larger and thicker rear portion of the neck (Significantly also shown in the Surgeon's Photo) The same type of neck features in the "CORINTHIAN" SS witness' illustration reproduced below.
The CUBA SS drawings chosen in the Sea Slug article actually help illustrate that the reported shape of the head is consistently reported in all of the reports from the different points of view.These illustrations are from Heuvelmans' book In the Wake of the Sea-Serpents and they are added here to illustrate the apparent head shape of Longnecks from several angles. The Southwold SS has a good view of the wedge-shaped head tapering down from back to front, and Mrs. Borgeest's sighting shows the very flat and wide "Snakelike" head from front-on. Heuvelmans remarks on both aspects (The wedge-shaped, taper-down profile is what is sometimes called "Horselike") in the case of the Corinthian SS it seems the Euryapsid openings in the back of the skull are taken for eyes (this seems to be a consistent misinterpretation among some witnesses and it is even possible that this area is marked with false decoy-eyes such as occur in many different kinds of animals. There is a quandary about sea-serpent eyes in that some of them have them prominently marked while the rest (Femalse and young) have the eyes coloured about the same as the rest of the animal and the eyes are not obvious. In the reconstruction composite above I have indicate the eye sockets as being fairly large and visible from all angles, but it is entirely possible witnesses are seeing false eyespots instead. Among their own kind the false eyespots serve to divert potentially damaging attacks from the real eyes when males are sparring. And my interpretation of the Corinthian SS is that it actually is a male surprised while sparring with another male, and the creature has a mouthful of the "Mane or fin" material ripped off of the other male. The position of the material makes it look more like it is coming out of the mouth rather than from the places where animals ordinarily have whiskers.The head on this one is exaggerated by making it too long generally but it does show about the right overall shape as seen from above.The statistical norm would have it that the head would be much smaller in proportion to the neck, and more especially much "shorter".
Depiction of traditional Scandinavian Sea Serpent. Same kind of head, I think the dark patches behind the eyes once again indicate the presence of Euryapsid skull openings such as are also indicated in many other sightings and artistic depictions.. Below "The Children of Loki"with the big snake being the Midgard Serpent. The head is modeled after carvings of Dragons on Viking churches and such, also traditional, and once again the same type of head. [Traditionally the tongues are depicted as pointed, not forked) There is an earlier separate blog entry on Viking depictions of Longnecks and why they are Euryapsids, and other blog articles on various similar dragons heads the world over and back to the dawn of civilization, with specifications as to why they are Euryapsids, too." Snakes do not have skulls that are anything like a Plesiosaur's skull and they have no structure corresponding to a Euryapsid skull opening".
The original study was done between 1975 and 1980 in several revisions and the SITU archives should still have handwritten copies of the earlier drafts. The document was ultimately never published but these result are easily summarised and presented as they are here. The 1980, final version of the manuscript included "A Field Guide to Water Monsters" which was being submitted for publication in PURSUIT as a series of articles starting in 1986, but stopped when I moved out of New Jersey, and started up again for submission to PURSUIT in 1990 (Typed articles with illustrations provided, also ultimately unpublished, PURSUIT became moribund at about that point)
ADDENDUM:
"Joe Richardson" is becoming dreadfully tedious insisting that I explain every single instance of why a Euryapsid skull opening has to be a Euryapsid skull opening. I have said on numerous occasions, the matter is written up in earlier blogs on this site. "Joe" really must learn how to look things up in the provided index and do his own research. I refuse to spoon feed him any further and I refuse to repeat myself endlessly on matters where I have already answered him before. He has never shown me once that he even pays attention when I cite sources to him and he never seems to learn anything, he continues to re-assert the same tired old arguments even after he has been thoroughly refuted. "Joe Richardson" is hereby served notice that he is making an irritant of himself and his comments will be deleted until and unless he can stop sounding like a broken record. And once again, if you "Joe" do not have the anatomical expertise which gives you the authority to criticize or comment on Plesiosaurian anatomy, your remarks carry no weight as criticism or indeed even as any sort of a relevant argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment