Megalodan eats 9 foot great white shark???

[OTHstrong]

Sasquatch too 

nope, just LN 

[The Ugly]

nope, just LN 

Eh.

[the trainer]

Vampires, ufos, demons, shape shifters all that shit is real but I think its better if you guys just sit there in your ignorance cause your minds could not handle the truth you would end up in the nut house.

[OTHstrong]

Eh.

I am convinced the creature is real in Loch Ness, i am not an expert and I know 99% of the sighting are frauds and Bull Shit but man there is some really convincing info regarding the Creature and its also sighted in other parts of the world as well, like south China Sea and even off the Coast of Canada.

[Parker]

I am convinced the creature is real in Loch Ness, i am not an expert and I know 99% of the sighting are frauds and Bull Shit but man there is some really convincing info regarding the Creature and its also sighted in other parts of the world as well, like south China Sea and even off the Coast of Canada.

Loch Ness is sturgeon. In order for Loch Ness to be a plesiosaur, there would have to be a population of them. Plesiosaurs are air breathers, and chances are would be slightly "warm blooded" due to adaptation to that water. Also, the lake is 3 miles long and 1 mile wide. Plesiosaurs would probably need to come onto the beach or land to breed and hatch, unless they are viviparous---bearing live young. So, that means that they would disturb the local flora and you could see their flipper marks in the dirt.
Now, unless there are under water caverns/caves which have areas that are above water, I can't see anything to the Loch Ness story other than the huge sturgeon that they have.

[The Ugly]

Loch Ness is sturgeon. In order for Loch Ness to be a plesiosaur, there would have to be a population of them. Plesiosaurs are air breathers, and chances are would be slightly "warm blooded" due to adaptation to that water. Also, the lake is 3 miles long and 1 mile wide. Plesiosaurs would probably need to come onto the beach or land to breed and hatch, unless they are viviparous---bearing live young. So, that means that they would disturb the local flora and you could see their flipper marks in the dirt.
Now, unless there are under water caverns/caves which have areas that are above water, I can't see anything to the Loch Ness story other than the huge sturgeon that they have.

Interesting, Parker. By sturgeon, you mean that giant shark-like, freshwater fish we see in River Monsters and whatnot? Or is this a species that has some kinda dinosaur-type offshoot I don't know about? Because the videos, drawings, and recollections of LN always show flippers, which aren't consistent with a fish species. 

[Parker]

Interesting, Parker. By sturgeon, you mean that giant shark-like, freshwater fish we see in River Monsters and whatnot? Or is this a species that has some kinda dinosaur-type offshoot I don't know about? Because the videos, drawings, and recollections of LN always show flippers, which aren't consistent with a fish species. 

Yes, sturgeon the giant fish. They have been caught in Loch Ness. One guy thought he shot Loch Ness, but it was a sturgeon. There is an old grainy photo of what people believed to be a flipper belonging to Loch Ness Monster, but you can clearly see that it is sturgeon's flipper.

Loch Ness would have to support a breeding population of Plesiosaurs, and such breeding population would have been seen by now, or signs of one. Especially since it is a lake. You cannot miss signs of them coming on land. Markings, dragging of the body and tail and flipper marks. As this is an aquatic dinosaur, it would be awkward on land. Brush and branches would be destroyed, bent and broken.

There is supposedly an underwater conduit of some sort from the sea, so who knows.

[OTHstrong]

Loch Ness is sturgeon. In order for Loch Ness to be a plesiosaur, there would have to be a population of them. Plesiosaurs are air breathers, and chances are would be slightly "warm blooded" due to adaptation to that water. Also, the lake is 3 miles long and 1 mile wide. Plesiosaurs would probably need to come onto the beach or land to breed and hatch, unless they are viviparous---bearing live young. So, that means that they would disturb the local flora and you could see their flipper marks in the dirt.
Now, unless there are under water caverns/caves which have areas that are above water, I can't see anything to the Loch Ness story other than the huge sturgeon that they have.

The creature is described as a plesiosaur because of it having flipper and a neck but it does not necessarily have to be the same creature we come to know as a plesiosaur. There is one picture that is 100% authentic of a creature of this description that washed up to shore, you can clearly see it has a long neck. Although this was somewhere else, it is easily the same creature being described in Lock Ness

The picture is real 100% and accepted by even the biggest skeptics, a creature with a long neck, humongous head and terrifying in appearance,

As for the lake, being 3km long according you made me spit out my drink, lmao, the lake is 36 km long, everyone knows this

[BIG AL MCKECHNIE]

Also, the lake is 3 miles long and 1 mile wide.

It's not a Lake, it's a Loch laddie.
23miles long, 750 feet deep. It hold more water than all the pansy wee Lakes in England combined.

[Parker]

The creature is described as a plesiosaur because of it having flipper and a neck but it does not necessarily have to be the same creature we come to know as a plesiosaur. There is one picture that is 100% authentic of a creature of this description that washed up to shore, you can clearly see it has a long neck. Although this was somewhere else, it is easily the same creature being described in Lock Ness

The picture is real 100% and accepted by even the biggest skeptics, a creature with a long neck, humongous head and terrifying in appearance,

As for the lake, being 3km long according you made me spit out my drink, lmao, the lake is 36 km long, everyone knows this

my bad about the length and width.

What pic that washed up?  And has it been tested for DNA?
The lake is cold, so therefore if it is a pleasiosaur, it would have to have some type of homeothermy.

All things point to Sturgeon, nothing points to Plesiosaurs. You would have to have a sustainable breeding population, and said population would more than likely have to come on shore to breed. Also, noises, chances are they would have different calls to mates, young, since they are air breathers, they would make sounds. Again, disturbance of brush. A population of large animals would make sound and damage to the local flora.

Use common sense. Think about it.

[The Ugly]

Yes, sturgeon the giant fish. They have been caught in Loch Ness. One guy thought he shot Loch Ness, but it was a sturgeon. There is an old grainy photo of what people believed to be a flipper belonging to Loch Ness Monster, but you can clearly see that it is sturgeon's flipper.

Loch Ness would have to support a breeding population of Plesiosaurs, and such breeding population would have been seen by now, or signs of one. Especially since it is a lake. You cannot miss signs of them coming on land. Markings, dragging of the body and tail and flipper marks. As this is an aquatic dinosaur, it would be awkward on land. Brush and branches would be destroyed, bent and broken.

There is supposedly an underwater conduit of some sort from the sea, so who knows.

What would something like this feed on? Pretty impressed by your knowledge here; you've obviously looked into it a bit.

[Parker]

What would something like this feed on?

Fish more than likely. There are different types of plesiosaurs. Long neck, short neck, etc. most were all fish eaters. Then you had some that ate mollusks, special type of teeth.

So, there is the question again. Does a 22 mile lake have enough fish and mollusks to sustain a population of plesiosaurs for yrs? Thousands of years? And without a noticeable drop in food supply? And feeding the local human population without being noticed as well? And feeding other fish predators as well?

So, you have a population of large predators that breed, and feed off of the local fish stock, nobody has captured it on film alive or dead, no eggs or young, nobody has heard any odd calls that it makes, nor recording any, found any tracks or drag marks, seen a nest. Nobody has any tissue samples.

[The Ugly]

Fish more than likely. There are different types of plesiosaurs. Long neck, short neck, etc. most were all fish eaters. Then you had some that ate mollusks, special type of teeth.

So, there is the question again. Does a 22 mile lake have enough fish and mollusks to sustain a population of plesiosaurs for yrs? Thousands of years? And without a noticeable drop in food supply? And feeding the local human population without being noticed as well?

Your thoughts on Megalodon's existence?

I know they're still discovering new animals every now and again, but something this size?

[Parker]

What would something like this feed on? Pretty impressed by your knowledge here; you've obviously looked into it a bit.

its not so much as looked into it. You have use observation. I used to read about it when I was young.
But the. You have to realize---the animals are large, so you have to think "how much do they eat, and what do they eat?" And "can this food source sustain a living population?"
Then all the other questions.

I just looked up the wiki page...come to find out, plesiosaurs and Ichthyosaurs were found in England, and many of their fossils are found there. They also actually don't know how plesiosaurs fed.and there is a theory that they could feed on things at the bottom---benthos, crabs, shrimp, flounder fish, lobsters, clams etc.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosauria

[Parker]

Your thoughts on Megalodon's existence?

I know they're still discovering new animals every now and again, but something this size?

Don't know. Again, what would a giant 60+ foot shark feed on? And why would it stay "hidden"?
Feeding on Giant Squid puts it in direct competition with Sperm Whales, and how many sperm whales have been found with huge chunks taken out it...and still are living or were not fed on?

There is always the possibility, especially with our seas warming up. Would be interesting.

[Hulkster]

So, there is the question again. Does a 22 mile lake have enough fish and mollusks to sustain a population of plesiosaurs for yrs? Thousands of years? And without a noticeable drop in food supply? And feeding the local human population without being noticed as well? And feeding other fish predators as well?

there is a famous paper published as a tongue and cheek article (Ryder was the author)in one of the zoology journals that we read when I was in 4th year university (I have a bio degree) and it looked at exactly that:

does loch ness have enough of a food supply to allow a large enough population of plesiosaurs to live?

the answer was no. loch ness is oligotrophic and not very productive.

not enough food in it to sustain a breeding population of predators that large.

[Kwon_2]

[Parker]

there is a famous paper published as a tongue and cheek article (Ryder was the author)in one of the zoology journals that we read when I was in 4th year university (I have a bio degree) and it looked at exactly that:

does loch ness have enough of a food supply to allow a large enough population of plesiosaurs to live?

the answer was no. loch ness is oligotrophic and not very productive.

not enough food in it to sustain a breeding population of predators that large.

Kinda figured that.
Upon looking at the wiki page, the chances of a plesiosaur coming onto land were slim to none, as it seems that they were strictly aquatic and probably would beach themselves if they came on land. And more than likely gave birth to live young (viviparous).

Too many things point to it not being a plesiosaur.

[OTHstrong]

Bro, if Lock ness was full of baseball stadiums, you can fit the entire human population of 7 billion and way more, having a breading population is not a problem whatsoever for elusive creatures.

We are talking cubic dimension here not square area, huge difference in capacity.

[Hulkster]

Bro, if Lock ness was full of baseball stadiums, you can fit the entire human population of 7 billion and way more, having a breading population is not a problem whatsoever for elusive creatures.

We are talking cubic dimension here not square area, huge difference in capacity.

space isn't the problem.

food supply is. loch ness is like a dessert.

there isn't much in it but cold deep water. a few fish and eels yes, but thats it.

creatures this big need a buffet of food to keep going.

[Parker]

Bro, if Lock ness was full of baseball stadiums, you can fit the entire human population of 7 billion and way more, having a breading population is not a problem whatsoever for elusive creatures.

We are talking cubic dimension here not square area, huge difference in capacity.

Doesnt matter. Even if you ask marine biologist and zoologists about that. You need to think about this.
Predatory animals, large ones at that. How long do they live? What type of species fish are in the lake? Temp of the lake, how often do the species of fish breed? And what do they feed on? Then you have to ask about a breeding population. Are they inbreed? How did they get there? Are they warm blooded (chances are yes they are).

Just because you put 7 billion people in there, that lake couldn't support 1 million people in terms of fish stock. I would even say a far less amount of people would severely put a dent in fish stock...depending on what type of fish they have in there. As was stated, Loch Ness is Oligotrophic and is not that productive.
Now, let's take a look. A predatory animal that is at the least 20 feet long, and at the most 50 feet long and several tons in weight is going need a lot of food to sustain it. Now, how about a breeding population?
So, if that lake is not really productive, then let's say that they feed off of the benthos, that means that there has to be a lot of bottom dwelling animals down there, which is doubtful, as again, the lake is not that productive.

Everything has pointed to Sturgeon...photos flippers, etc. No real evidence of a plesiosaur. Would I like it to a population of plesiosaur? Hell Yes! But, it ain't practical.

[OTHstrong]

Doesnt matter. Even if you ask marine biologist and zoologists about that. You need to think about this.
Predatory animals, large ones at that. How long do they live? What type of species fish are in the lake? Temp of the lake, how often do the species of fish breed? And what do they feed on? Then you have to ask about a breeding population. Are they inbreed? How did they get there? Are they warm blooded (chances are yes they are).

Just because you put 7 billion people in there, that lake couldn't support 1 million people in terms of fish stock. I would even say a far less amount of people would severely put a dent in fish stock...depending on what type of fish they have in there. As was stated, Loch Ness is Oligotrophic and is not that productive.
Now, let's take a look. A predatory animal that is at the least 20 feet long, and at the most 50 feet long and several tons in weight is going need a lot of food to sustain it. Now, how about a breeding population?
So, if that lake is not really productive, then let's say that they feed off of the benthos, that means that there has to be a lot of bottom dwelling animals down there, which is doubtful, as again, the lake is not that productive.

Everything has pointed to Sturgeon...photos flippers, etc. No real evidence of a plesiosaur. Would I like it to a population of plesiosaur? Hell Yes! But, it ain't practical.

you totally missed my point,... and that was that the dimensions are fucken enormous, just massive and we have seen nearly extinct animals survive on just 100 in count so the population does not have to be enormous, also you keep saying we know patterns of this and that, sorry but you know nothing of such sort when you don't even know what type of creature you are dealing with. Good debating on your behalf though 

[Parker]

you totally missed my point,... and that was that the dimensions are fucken enormous, just massive and we have seen nearly extinct animals survive on just 100 in count so the population does not have to be enormous, also you keep saying we know patterns of this and that, sorry but you know nothing of such sort when you don't even know what type of creature you are dealing with. Good debating on your behalf though 

And you are missing my point, and Hulk's point.

This is an enclosed area, not the open sea. We are talking about a reptile and a very large one at that. We don't know how long they lived, reproduction, mating habits. It's speculated that they lived in complex social pods.
But, the fact is, that these are predatory animals that need fuel, and Loch Ness is lacking in that.
Just like large land predators need large amounts of food to sustain them---which means that that feed on large prey. If they have adapted to that, if large prey dies out, or prey becomes scarce, the predator dies out or has to move.

Regardless of size, you need prey species to sustain a predatory species, and not just individual, but multiple. Over a long time period.

It's like going to the grocery store. The store could be large, but have a small selection of meat for the population it serves. What happens? Well, that meat section runs out of meat quicker than they can replenish it. And that is what I am getting at.

[Gregzs]

I posted this on the shark week thread but it went unnoticed. 

[arce1988]

fack