Giant sea creatures do exist!

[Dark Knight]

Giant sea creatures do exist, sailors where right all along....

giant squids and gigantic octopus....first a look at squid

squid

Sailors knew about the octupus and squid, real ocean animals that had tentacles. However, the kraken was considered to be a different species because it was much, much bigger. Sometimes it was thought to be a giant octopus, sometimes it was thought to be a giant squid.

During the early part of the scientific era, the kraken was considered just as likely to exist as sea serpents. In other words, it was laughed at. Serious scientists steered clear of the kraken question, refusing to study it even when presented with beached kraken carcasses.

Several kraken carcasses were beached within a short time of each other, and there was such an uproar that the reluctant scientists were forced to pay attention.

The kraken was declared a real species. It was named the giant squid. The giant squid remains one of the most elusive large animals in the world. For many years, scientists tried to observe the giant squid in its habitat, but failed. Many people claimed to have seen giant squids, but they were mostly fishermen and sailors, the same people who are not believed when they report sea serpents.

Every live sighting was unconfirmed and in each case the witness was not a scientist. Scientists spent millions of dollars on expeditions, but could not obtain video footage of a live squid. Everything that was known about giant squids was based on dead bodies. All expeditions into deep water in search of the natural habitat of giant squids had proved fruitless. The giant squid still had much in common with mythical creatures and true cryptids, even though the scientific community no longer had any doubt that giant squids exist.

In September of 2004, that finally changed. Japanese scientists attracted a giant squid with a baited line, and automatic cameras took more than 500 photographs of the giant squid before it ripped itself free, leaving an 18-foot length of tentacle still attached to the bait.

There is still doubt about just how big giant squids get. Both eyewitness sightings and sucker scars on sperm whales seem to indicate that there are squids much bigger than any dead body we currently have. Most scientists refuse to believe that squids that huge could exist. Is there more than one species of giant squid out there, with one of them being really, really huge? Are the giant squids that have been netted near the surface or that have washed up on beaches the smaller ones?

Skepticism towards the idea of truly huge squids has weakened recently. Now, scientists think that the Antarctic species of squid called Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni actually grows much bigger than the giant squid. They don't have proof of this yet, as the only complete specimens of Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni have been juveniles, but the size of these babies suggests that really big adults are out there. In recognition of this, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni has recently been given the common name of "colossal squid."

from http://www.newanimal.org/

[Dark Knight]

gigantic octopus

For hundreds of years, sailors from all over the world have regularly made reports of a mythical creature known as the giant octopus (sometimes called the gigantic octopus, in order to distinguish it from the several known species of very large octopuses, namely the giant octopuses that are part of the genus Enteroctopus). The science of cryptozoology divides giant octopus reports into at least two different species, since these animals have been sighted in both freshwater and saltwater locations.

However, there is enough variability in the reports to suggest more than two species, especially since these reports come from across the globe, and in nature it is rare for a single species to be so widespread. The sizes reported cover a wide range, from a bit bigger than twenty-five feet (the accepted longest length of any known octopus) to ship-sized.

Some of these reports, namely those from the ocean, could be mistaken reports of the giant squid. In folklore and mythology, the giant octopus and giant squid are almost hopelessly confused. Long ago, reports of large sea monsters with tentacles were generally lumped together under the label kraken. Sometimes the two proposed species of gigantic octopus are called the "kraken octopus" (for the smaller kind) and the "colossal octopus" (for the kind big enough to threaten ships). Unproven types of gigantic octopus have also received local names in the regions where they are reported, such as rogu-tomu for the gigantic octopus of Tahiti.

In many cases, local legends stretch back into the past for as far as anyone is able to research. In other words, if you consider these legends to be evidence, then the evidence has a long history. Some of these legends cast gigantic octopuses as natural creatures, with roles similar to the roles of ordinary animals. Other times, these legends cast giant octopuses as supernatural sea monsters, or as forms taken by shapeshifting vengeful sea gods.

The Bahamas Islands, off the southeast coast of Florida, are a hot spot for encounters between divers and a mythical gigantic octopus called the lusca. It is supposed to inhabit underwater caves, especially the large, nearly-vertical underwater caves that are commonly called "blue holes." Unlike other octopuses, the lusca is described as aggressive, with many actions that could be interpreted as threat displays, mock charges or even attacks on human beings. Reports of the lusca's size vary from 75 feet long to a staggering 200 feet long. Besides its giant size, one problem with the lusca's supposed existence is that the deeper parts of blue holes generally have no oxygen dissolved in the water, making it impossible for anything other than single-celled creatures to stay there for long (divers can enter because they have air tanks, but nothing with gills can stay there for long or it will die from asphyxiation).

The most convincing reason for believing in the gigantic octopus is the fact that some very large octopus carcasses have washed up on beaches. Unlike the recovery of giant squid carcasses, these octopus bodies have not yet converted the mainstream scientific community, and therefore they are relegated to the status of globsters. This is partly because the best and largest of them rotted badly while the scientific community ridiculed them, and were not in good enough shape to convince skeptical minds once science did take interest. Measuring invertebrates is an inexact science anyway because of how easily their bodies stretch, and a carcass that has nearly rotted away is an even worse candidate than normal. Some people think that it is only a matter of time, though, until enough really large carcasses are recovered and giant octopuses longer than 25 feet begin to appear in biology books, not just cryptozoology books.

"Globster" is a technical term used by cryptozoologists to refer to mysterious carcasses that originate in a watery environment.

Both quotes from http://www.newanimal.org/

[Dark Knight]

While we're on the subject, here's an article from CNN.com that you all might find interesting:

HOBART, Australia (AP) -- A squid as long as a bus and weighing 550 pounds washed up on an Australian beach, officials said Wednesday.

The giant squid was found by a beachcomber on the Australian island state of Tasmania.

"It is a whopper," said Genefor Walker-Smith, a zoologist who studies invertebrates at the Tasmanian Museum.

Giant squid live in waters off southern Australia and New Zealand -- where a half-ton colossus, believed to be the world's largest, was caught in February. They attract the sperm whales that feed on them.

The dead squid, measuring 3 feet across at its widest point and 26 feet from the tip of its body to the end of its tentacles, was found early Wednesday by a beachcomber at Ocean Beach on the island state of Tasmania's west coast, the museum said.

The squid was expected to be taken to the museum, where DNA and other scientific tests would be carried out before it is preserved and possibly put on public display.

For anyone thinking of a calamari feast, Walker-Smith said giant squid contain high levels of ammonia in their bodies as a buoyancy aid.

"It would not taste very nice at all," she said.

New Zealand fishermen netted a 1,100-pound, 33-foot-long squid in the Southern Ocean in February. It is widely believed to be the largest specimen of the rare and mysterious deep-water species Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, or colossal squid, ever caught.

Experts believe the creatures, which have long been one of the most mysterious denizens of the deep ocean, may grow even bigger -- up to 46-feet long.

From other topic

[LightBrigade]

A few years ago, the newspapers published a photograph taken in Irak where a soldier was holding a giant insect, not a sea creature I have to admit in regard to the topic here. It was about three feet long and looked like an ant. The kind of insect was unknown. I have not followed the story to this day but when it came out, nothing new was heard for some time afterwards. I may have kept the picture in my files so if I find it I will enter it here.

Also, what about the Loch Ness monster? If there is any truth in it, Nature must be keeping some nice surprises for us.

[Boikat]

A few years ago, the newspapers published a photograph taken in Irak where a soldier was holding a giant insect, not a sea creature I have to admit in regard to the topic here. It was about three feet long and looked like an ant. The kind of insect was unknown. I have not followed the story to this day but when it came out, nothing new was heard for some time afterwards. I may have kept the picture in my files so if I find it I will enter it here.

Also, what about the Loch Ness monster? If there is any truth in it, Nature must be keeping some nice surprises for us.

The "camel spider"? It was actually a species of "Solpugid" or "sun spider" (So called because they hide from the sun.)

http://www.whatsthatbug.com/solpugids.html

The photo that was flying around the net is about 2/3 of the way down the page. I'm no "bug expert", but I think there was a bit of photo trickery involved to make the bugs in the picture look larger than they actually are.

[who me]

there are lots of unusual creatures in the sea (Arr mates)
enter deep sea creatures in google and then look at the pictures.
like the Jewel Squid ( Histioteuthis sp.) the left eye is always larger than the right.

Eurypharynx pelecanoides
Chauliodus sloani,

and for you who like large deep sea creatures there is the,sixgill shark or The oarfish, Regalecus glesne,can grow up to 50 feet in length and weigh as much as 100 pounds.

[LightBrigade]

Yes, Boikat, it is the link you gave us, down the page at "(04/05/2004)Giant Camel Spider?".

A double sting can be observed on its tail. In Zoology, this is important because insects of prey, if I could use this unofficial term, or wilder kinds of insects have more than one, while less aggressive insects bear one only, and losing it, they die. Like honeybees, for example, while it is the other way round with wasps which may sting more than once suffering no injury themselves.

Anyway, thank you so much for your trouble! *s*That insect is what I was talking about above (!) I am amazed that you at once realised and pinpointed what I meant! *shakes head in utter surprise*

I do not know if you agree with the opinion in that Web Site that this particular picture has been engineered but in this picture I can hardly see any possibility of imaging interference or manipulation, I admit. I mean that the soldiers' images may well be used for comparison. Even if a 'fisheye' lens (wide-angle lens) had been used to augment the foreground object dimensions, we would see some distortion in the depth of the image, as if the background were depicted on a sphere, curving backwards, especially on the rim. Of course I have such little experience in professional photography and imaging in general! I could _well_ be wrong, mind you.

[who me]

pim?
yes.
what is that tennis racket for?
bugs.
what bugs?
BIG bugs.

[Boikat]

Anyway, thank you so much for your trouble! *s*That insect is what I was talking about above (!) I am amazed that you at once realised and pinpointed what I meant! *shakes head in utter surprise*

I'm an avid listener (when I get the chance) and reader of "Coast to Coast AM with George Noory"

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

As far as I know, it's one of the first places that photo showed up. I don't know if the image and accompanying e-mail is in their archive. if it is, it's "way down there", since it's been years since the image was featured.

I do not know if you agree with the opinion in that Web Site that this particular picture has been engineered but in this picture I can hardly see any possibility of imaging interference or manipulation, I admit. I mean that the soldiers' images may well be used for comparison. Even if a 'fish eye' lens (wide-angle lens) had been used to augment the foreground object dimensions, we would see some distortion in the depth of the image, as if the background were depicted on a sphere, curving backwards, especially on the rim. Of course I have such little experience in professional photography and imaging in general! I could _well_ be wrong, mind you.

I'm fairly certain it's trick photography. If you look at the right of the image, you can see the sleeve cuff of the person holding the bugs. My guess is that both bugs are about 3 1/2 to 4 inches long (not counting the legs) The "in camera" effect could be due to the equivalent of a low "f-stop" of the camera iris. In bright light, there are two ways of balancing the brightness of the image, shutter speed or the F-stop, which controls the diameter of the iris. The lower the F-stop, the greater the depth of field. The upshot being you can take a close-up picture of a bug, and still have someone standing relatively close by appear in focus also.

But an interesting aspect that should not be overlooked is how this whole "bug picture" applies to the "sea serpent" mythos, and why scientists are usually skeptical of such reports.

Sailors at sea get board. They see something unusual, they tell their buddies. A game of "one up-man-ship" is inevitable. "I saw a four foot sea snake!" gets countered with, "Oh yeah? Well, i seen one that was at least ten feet long!", which gets countered yet again with, "Gee, that must have been the baby of the thirty footer I saw".. and so on.

Now, the ship gets back to port, and word gets out that "'so-and-so' saw a thirty foot long sea serpent". The account comes to the attention of a marine biologist (or back then, a "naturalist") and the proper response would be, "That's incredible! Evidence? Did you catch it? Can i see it?"

The answer of "Well, no, but I know a guy who knows a guy who knows the guy that did see it..." doesn't quite cut it in scientific circles. Science deals in evidence. With no evidence, it doesn't really count, even if there *is* a thirty foot sea serpent.

If not for that, then our biology books would be full of chapters addressing alien life forms, Yeti's, Bigfoots (Or is that Bigfeet?), mermaids, unicorns, fire breathing winged dragons and so on. In the case of an organism, like a sea serpent, giant squid, or octopus, scientists *have to be skeptical* until the have some solid (or squishy, as the case may be) evidence to examine.

By the same token, it's a mistake to assume that all scientists *dismiss* the possibility of such organisms existing. In the last few years, cryptozoology has become more scientific in their quest for "hidden animals", as opposed to those supposed "investigators" of the paranormal that get all excited when they feel a draft, or hear a rodent in the walls of a "haunted" house. Some who look for these creatures are legitimate scientists, such as the scientists from Japan (IIRC) who recently video taped the Giant Squid last year.

The bottom line is that the majority of scientists do not categorically reject the existence of "sea monsters" or "bigfoot", they just insist (rightly) on tangible, unequivocal evidence that can be studied.

[Magus]

Also, what about the Loch Ness monster? If there is any truth in it, Nature must be keeping some nice surprises for us.

The Loch Ness Monster has long been proven to be a fake. Understand, that pretty much all of the proof for the monster's existance is a single photiograph, from which nothing specific can be discerned. The people who started the hoax confessed; but, what's more, they demonstrated specifically how they shot the picture, what they built it out of, and replicated in front of a number of scientists and investigaters. The confession, combined with the detailed and irrefutable demonstration that they gave, as well as the complete lack of ANY evidence other than that photograph, is far more than enough to disprove the myth.

[Dark Knight]

While someone made a hoax, there is more to this Loch Ness Monster... In fact there is more than one photo

What is the Loch Ness monster? If it exists, it is probably not one animal, but a bunch of animals of the same species. This idea is supported by sightings of multiple "monsters" at the same time, and by simple ecology. If Nessie is an animal, it had to have a mother, and at one point there had to have been a viable breeding population of the species. Only a few people think Nessie is a single animal, such as a sea serpent that somehow became trapped in Loch Ness. The typical Nessie does roughly resemble the average sea serpent, but it lives in the biggest freshwater lake in Scotland instead of the ocean.

Witnesses tend to describe an animal with sleek, rubbery blackish-gray skin, about twenty feet long. Nessie usually has the serpentine body that is typical for sea serpents and lake monsters, furnished with humps along its length, and one or more sets of paddles (or sometimes, stumpy legs). Nessie's head is often described as roughly horse-shaped, it may have a straggly mane running down its neck, and some witnesses report small horns, especially those who see the Loch Ness monster from close up. Sometimes, witnesses report a smaller, rounded, turtle-like head. This head is the one that seems to appear in most of the famous Nessie photos.

Note it says photos.... there is more than one photo are they all a hoax?

The first serious wave of Nessie sightings came in the 1930s and they have continued ever since. Before the wave of sightings that started today's fad, there were older legends of water dragons and kelpies in Loch Ness (a kelpie is a magical aquatic horse that is often thought to be a shapeshifter). However, these older legends were much more variable in how they described the appearance of Nessie, so most researchers do not rely on them much, simply noting that they exist as being a reason to suppose that the Loch Ness Monster is much more than a recent fad.

Quotes from http://www.newanimal.org/nessie.htm

I would say that maybe there is something to this...maybe..

[Magus]

Could you expand on the multiple photos? Taken by other people? Do you know when these photos were taken, and by whom?

Personally, people will believe what they want to believe, and there's rarely ever any steering them away from it. These were either hoaxes as well (either perpetuated by the same people as admitted to it in the first, or by other copy-cat offenders) or people misconstruing the actual image taken, and believing it to be a picture of the ever allusive Nessie. The latter is what's known as confirmation bias: "the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions."

The legends that you referenced in what you quoted probably acted as the inspiration for the original hoaxers, and what lead to such widespread belief in the matter.

I'm no more inclined to believe in the existance of The Loch Ness Monster than I am in Big Foot.