It a few years ago already, but this questions resolves around McMenamin's hypothetical Triassic Kraken. No matter how cool it may be, I know it seems very unlikely that the Shinosaurus' vertebrae Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada are arranged by a gigantic cephalopod.

However, I found this comment:

"Commentator David Fastovsky, speaking to the press after the talk, attempted to critique McMenamins' quantitative argument, but Fastovsky neglected to account for the fact that the vertebral array is both hydrodynamically unstable and could not have formed by passive collapse of a vertebral column because the vertebrae are out of order. McMenamin's probabilistic calculations assume currents strong enough to displace individual vertebrae, but the main argument holds even if no currents were present. Adolf Seilacher has noted that this ichthyosaur bone arrangement "has never been observed at other localities"."

My question is: how much of this counter argument is true? Is the arrangement of vertebrae is out of order? Is passive decay an unjustly argument for the arrangements? Same thing for those currents giving this arrangement?

I think it's fair to say that the palaeontological community as a whole is extremely sceptical of every part of the 'Triassic Kraken' concept and none of the arguments are very convincing at all.

Speaking as another member of the palaeontological community: what Dave said.