Giant Sea Monster videotaped in Japan

[firecoins]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-12-22T133726Z_01_T148997_RTRUKOC_0_US-SQUID-GIANT-JAPAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

The Giant Squid had videotaped alive. This former cryptic zoo ology monster now on video.

[Teetop]

I would call it a -not so giant-squid--
The term "giant squid" tends to make one imagine a creature the size of a football stadium

[SteveGrenard]

Stills from video of recent live find on National geographic website:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/

About a month ago a video of a necropsy exam at (London) Museum
Of Natural History of a dead specimen that went on display (Nov 2006):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VFAqTN6yhI


Presumably this report was posted in General Skepticism and the Paranormal because somehow it is "believed" that such creatures do not exist. Those who dismiss such creatures as fakes or who don't "believe" they exist don't actually appreciate the vast, unexplored regions, both deep and shallow,of the world's oceans.

[Tricky]

About a month ago a video of a necropsy exam at (London) Museum
Of Natural History of a dead specimen that went on display (Nov 2006):

Presumably this report was posted in General Skepticism and the Paranormal because somehow it is "believed" that such creatures do not exist. Those who dismiss such creatures as fakes or who don't "believe" they exist don't actually appreciate the vast, unexplored regions, both deep and shallow,of the world's oceans.
There have been a number of dead specimens over the years. Also, toothed whales had been captured with sucker scars that circled their whole body.

In short, there has long been evidence for such creatures. You could have been a skeptic for years before this film and still have believed the evidence is sufficient to justify accepting the existence of giant squid.

Still no Krakens though.

[Skeptical Greg]

I found this article about squid beaks found in the stomach of a sperm whale intriguing..

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/kaikoura/creatures/beaks.html

They estimated there were over 10,000 beaks in the stomach.

They also estimated that sperm whales consume over 100 million tons of squid a year ! More than the annual fish harvest by humans ..

[Huntster]

There have been a number of dead specimens over the years. Also, toothed whales had been captured with sucker scars that circled their whole body.

In short, there has long been evidence for such creatures.

Carcasses have been washing up on beaches for eons. There are such cases recorded in the 1600's (http://kodos86.tripod.com/cryptozoology/id17.html), and whalers have known about them for centuries.

Yet science hadn't accept them until Professor Addison E. Verrill first described them in 1864.

You could have been a skeptic for years before this film and still have believed the evidence is sufficient to justify accepting the existence of giant squid.

So, "skeptics" refuse to accept scientifically described animals, which have been pretty much known by others outside science for many centuries before science accepted them?

Wouldn't that be a "denialist", not a "skeptic"?

[chacal]

That was the smallest "giant sea monster" I've seen... well not seen personally.

[carcharodon]

So, "skeptics" refuse to accept scientifically described animals, which have been pretty much known by others outside science for many centuries before science accepted them?

Wouldn't that be a "denialist", not a "skeptic"?

Yep, I make you right there Huntster.

[geni]

So, "skeptics" refuse to accept scientifically described animals, which have been pretty much known by others outside science for many centuries before science accepted them?

Wouldn't that be a "denialist", not a "skeptic"?

Problem is that there are a lot of claims about things that get washed up on the shore. Unitll you can get hold of one and have someone with the right knowlage base go over it it isn't safe to fraw conclusions.

[Dr Adequate]

You could have been a skeptic for years before this film and still have believed the evidence is sufficient to justify accepting the existence of giant squid. So, "skeptics" refuse to accept scientifically described animals, which have been pretty much known by others outside science for many centuries before science accepted them? Tricky said the exact opposite.

Duh.

[SteveGrenard]

I would call it a -not so giant-squid--
The term "giant squid" tends to make one imagine a creature the size of a football stadium

You mean such as in Giants Stadium?

http://www.meadowlands.com/giantsStadiumFAQ.asp?navID=7

That was the smallest "giant sea monster" I've seen... well not seen personally.


This observation requires a definition of “giant” if even there was one. Is it based on some fixed percentage greater than normal or average or does it require a preconceived set of dimensions or measurements to qualify? The discovery of a six inch guppy weighing a pound, relative to all other guppies, would be considered “giant.”

Of greater scientific interest is understanding how cephalopods (squids and octopus)grow. Biologists studying this group now generally accept the tenet that barring an untimely death due to trauma (accident or being eaten), an environmental disaster or constraint causing death, disease or starvation, some species of cephalopod are alleged to actually never stop growing. The longer they manage to stay alive and basically healthy, the bigger they will grow.



Understanding the process of growth in cephalopods

Natalie A. Moltschaniwskyj

A School of Aquaculture, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1370, Launceston, Tas. 7250, Australia.
B Email: natalie.moltschaniwskyj@utas.edu.au


Abstract
Many cephalopod species grow throughout their lifetime. Critically, this means that they lack an asymptotic phase of growth, when, for a substantial part of the lifetime, growth slows and body size increases minimally. Understanding the form of the growth curve requires an understanding of the growth processes operating at several biological levels including the relative growth of organs, muscle fibre production and growth, and at the level of proximal composition and protein synthesis. There are key differences in growth processes between fish and cephalopods; cephalopods have a sac-like body form that provides greater surface area for respiration, continuous production of new muscle fibres that ensures a supply of somatic material for growth, and high retention of synthesised protein. These characteristics provide process-orientated explanations for non-asymptotic growth in cephalopods. However, differences found in growth curves of laboratory-reared animals (two-phase growth curve) and of wild animals (single growth curve) suggests that future work will be needed to resolve this paradox. We need to determine the generality of growth processes observed to date, and how biotic and abiotic factors modify these processes during the lifetime of the animals.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF03147.htm

[firecoins]

You mean such as in Giants Stadium?

http://www.meadowlands.com/giantsStadiumFAQ.asp?navID=7

.
I imagine a sea monster could probably swallow the Jets. Or possibly be buried under the goal post opposite Jimmy Hoffa's body.

[athon]

Yet science hadn't accept them until Professor Addison E. Verrill first described them in 1864.

Science? Science? What is this 'science' you speak of? A card carrying organisation? A men's club? An authority with a secret handshake?

There is no such organisation as 'science'. It is a method, and people use it. Perhaps there were a large number of people who did not feel that the evidence of sucker marks, beaks and identified specimens all indicated an organism which had yet been seen living. Those people were wrong, and have been shown to be.

'Science' the musical - it never had a say in it.

So, "skeptics" refuse to accept scientifically described animals, which have been pretty much known by others outside science for many centuries before science accepted them?

Wouldn't that be a "denialist", not a "skeptic"?

Yes, it would. They'd be a skeptic if there were only scantly plausible anecdotes of giant squid, without a single verified piece of physical evidence where evidence would be expected to be present.

Athon

[Huntster]

Science? Science? What is this 'science' you speak of?

Good question.

A card carrying organisation? A men's club? An authority with a secret handshake?

A gang of BSers?

There is no such organisation as 'science'. It is a method, and people use it.

Where was it between 1545 and 1864?

Perhaps there were a large number of people who did not feel that the evidence of sucker marks, beaks and identified specimens all indicated an organism which had yet been seen living.

So, those whalers were just "stupid"?

All those reports of tentacled sea monsters were just seeing things until Verrill described the giant squid?

Those people were wrong, and have been shown to be.

Of course.

All those folks seeing giant squids before 1870 didn't really see them.

They just thought they'd seen them.

Everybody knows that you can't see something until a scientist somewhere says it exists, then a bunch of "peers" say "Yup!".

Yes, it would. They'd be a skeptic if there were only scantly plausible anecdotes of giant squid, without a single verified piece of physical evidence where evidence would be expected to be present.

And if they'd been skeptical of the existence of giant squids before 1870, they'd be just as wrong as a clown in the Barnum and Bailey circus.

[geni]

Good question.



A gang of BSers?


No just people who try to work from evidence.


Where was it between 1545 and 1864?


Getting off the ground


So, those whalers were just "stupid"?


No but there are many things that could have caused them to make mistakes.


All those reports of tentacled sea monsters were just seeing things until Verrill described the giant squid?

In some cases. There have certianly been no shortage of mermaid reports over the years


Everybody knows that you can't see something until a scientist somewhere says it exists, then a bunch of "peers" say "Yup!".


Not at all no one is claiming this.


And if they'd been skeptical of the existence of giant squids before 1870, they'd be just as wrong as a clown in the Barnum and Bailey circus.

No. If they had stated that the evidence did not firmly support the existance of giant squids they would have been correct.

[WildCat]

I imagine a sea monster could probably swallow the Jets. Or possibly be buried under the goal post opposite Jimmy Hoffa's body.
But obviously Bears are destroyers of Jets and Giants, and even Bills for the NY trifecta. ;)

[Tricky]

So, those whalers were just "stupid"?

All those reports of tentacled sea monsters were just seeing things until Verrill described the giant squid?
Ya know those whalers used to bring narwhale tusks too and describe them as "unicorn horns". Should we have believed them on that one too? After all, fishermen and whalers never lie.