Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Mermaids: The Body Found

animal planet mermaids documentary

  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#76    LotusEater

LotusEater

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2013

Posted 28 May 2013 - 07:48 PM

The most compelling vid to me was the long distance shot in Israel where the merfolk was on a rock and swam away. It looks really legit (you can actually follow the silouette (?... I give) as it enters the water). But again, totally possible with effects and skill.

Edited by LotusEater, 28 May 2013 - 07:49 PM.


#77    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,267 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 07:51 PM

View Postterruss713, on 28 May 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

Why is it so difficult for people to agree that there may be things that have not yet been discovered.  Furthermore, discredit a acedemic based on there personal opinion not fact.  The net of the fisherman in the baltic sea clearly shows an arm and webbed hand reaching from the left to the right on the film.  The film from the Danish clearly shows a forearm and webbed hand slap the outside of the sub 2000 feet down.  The training of the coast guard seeing something go up to surface back down under the boat, if you slow motion the vidio you can see the ridges of the head of the "thing".  The subject also has indisputable evidence of audio.  So maybe they exist, maybe they don't, just remember we know more about the moon than our own ocean! :innocent: :hmm:


Ok, no one is arguing that there are not undiscovered creatures in the Ocean.

Mermaids...Uhm, no. Bilogically not even close. To live and survive in water full time, with a human body like that, nope....

What you fail to see is that this show is fiction, it has actors, and the entire thing is made up...Don't believe me?....Look at the link I posted a while back. Or, contact Discovery Channel yourself.

When people educate themselves from TV, especially not even looking to verify any of it, if it is a real investigation, show, etc, That shows true ignorance.

Go back to the start of this thread, read through. There are plenty of links, and quotes, that should show you that this mockumentary is just that, it is fiction, fake, for entertainment purposes only.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#78    LotusEater

LotusEater

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2013

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:00 PM

View PostSakari, on 28 May 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

I guarantee we feel the same about our oceans, and our eco-system.....You may just see that on a number of my posts......Also, look at my signature.( that is on the bottom, the link )


As for the cat, and the other thing you read....Stick around a while, you will see what I mean.

Ya, I get that. Lol. Try going to the NHL boards during the playoffs.

This is gonna really sound stupid and your cat might smack me but when I start getting caught up in all the lore surrounding merfolk, I can't help but think of that movie, Lady in the Water. I mean, what if? Not the movie so much, but the stories it's based on.

And right there... one of the reasons contemplating the oceans mass and age drives me crazy. The ocean is one big WHAT IF.


#79    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,267 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:07 PM

View PostLotusEater, on 28 May 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

Ya, I get that. Lol. Try going to the NHL boards during the playoffs.

This is gonna really sound stupid and your cat might smack me but when I start getting caught up in all the lore surrounding merfolk, I can't help but think of that movie, Lady in the Water. I mean, what if? Not the movie so much, but the stories it's based on.

And right there... one of the reasons contemplating the oceans mass and age drives me crazy. The ocean is one big WHAT IF.


it is one big if.....


But....

Just looking at known sea creatures, and then trying to say a human with a fin would survive, and is built for the ocean is biologically wrong. There is nothing there to give any advantage to hunting, and surviving. Actually, quite the opposite.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#80    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,267 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:09 PM

On "Mermaids: The New Evidence," Animal Planet revisited its documentary about the existence of mermaids from last year, "Mermaids: The Body Found." Biologist Dr. Paul Robertson returned with what appeared to be brand new footage of the alleged mythical creatures, allegedly taken this spring in the Greenland Sea.
Viewers were glued to the TV watching the new special, getting "Mermaids: The New Evidence" trending on Twitter.
But the whole thing is a hoax -- the original documentary was revealed to be staged. Discovery, Animal Planet's parent company, described the program as "science fiction" based on "scientific theory."
The executive producer of "Mermaids: The New Evidence" told the Mother Nature Network that he wanted people to think it was real -- that's why they made it look like a documentary.
And The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maintains, "Mermaids: The New Evidence" is just entertainment. Its website reads: "No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? That's a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists."




http://www.huffingto..._n_3343773.html

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#81    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,267 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:12 PM

Last night was the splash heard around the world for Aquatic Ape Theorists in the form of Animal Planets latest creation-- “Mermaids: The Body Found”. If anybody did not know this yet, I hate to spoil it for you but Mermaids is what some would call a fake-umentary with a few strands of truth laced into the story. Yes, “The Bloop” does exist but it is literally a “bloop” sound. Yes, beached whales have been found with destroyed innards due to blunt trauma. And yes, there are cave paintings in Karoo that look like mermaids but they do not look like the ones in the show. Other than that, it is pure fiction but it did get me thinking about why the descriptions of mermaids tend to be very similar around the world. After researching many theories, I found one that makes sense. They were Amas.

The term Ama lends an air of mystery to what they are but in reality they are human deep sea divers. In Japan they are called Ama, in Korea the name is Haenyo, and some version of them are in every region that relies heavily on the sea for survival. Where this ties in with the mermaid legend is that the best ones are usually women because they are better built to endure the rigors of deep sea diving. Women tend to have more insulating body fat in critical regions of their bodies, keeping them warm in the cold oceans. Adding to the story is that many of these female divers wore minimal clothing if any at all. These women also trained hard to expand their lung capacity and to deal with decompression sickness, often making themselves hyperventilate upon resurfacing and singing loud songs while treading water between dives to keep their lungs expanded...........................................................


read the rest:    <a href="http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/05/animal-planets-imaginary-dr-paul.html">http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/05/animal-planets-imaginary-dr-paul.html

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#82    LotusEater

LotusEater

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2013

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:15 PM

View PostSakari, on 28 May 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Ok, no one is arguing that there are not undiscovered creatures in the Ocean.

Mermaids...Uhm, no. Bilogically not even close. To live and survive in water full time, with a human body like that, nope....

What you fail to see is that this show is fiction, it has actors, and the entire thing is made up...Don't believe me?....Look at the link I posted a while back. Or, contact Discovery Channel yourself.

When people educate themselves from TV, especially not even looking to verify any of it, if it is a real investigation, show, etc, That shows true ignorance.

Go back to the start of this thread, read through. There are plenty of links, and quotes, that should show you that this mockumentary is just that, it is fiction, fake, for entertainment purposes only.

Ok... so why couldn't a humanoid develop and evolve in water? The arms of a merfolk would almost certainly remain through evolution because hands with thumbs fastened to the end of stick is useful pretty much everywhere on earth, including the oceans. The only thing a merfolk would really need for propulsion is a large tail, like every other. I mean look at other insane cases of evolution that have already occurred on this planet. I mean, there are islands where the same species of bird has developed new tools to use that his brother on the very next island doesn't possess. So why exactly couldn't humans evolve into merfolk? Based on what? Because based on the variety of life that has evolved in very, very different ways on land, it seems fairly obvious to me that things have evolved in the ocean in ways we can't even imagine. Seriously, just look at some of the insane creatures that roam the ocean... that we know about. Is it really that hard to believe that evolution like that could have occured. Just look at all the racial differences we face on land living as humans. Why would the ocean, being the biggest mass of anything on earth, be any different?

Edited by LotusEater, 28 May 2013 - 08:27 PM.


#83    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,267 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:22 PM

View PostLotusEater, on 28 May 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Ok... so why couldn't a humanoid develop and evolve in water? The arms of a merfolk would almost certainly remain through evolution because hands with thumbs fastened to the end of stick is useful pretty much everywhere on earth, including the oceans. The only thing a merfolk would really need for propulsion is a large tail, like every other. I mean look at other insane cases of evolution that have already occurred on this planet. I mean, there are islands where the same species of bird has developed new tools to use that his brother on the very next island doesn't possess. So why exactly couldn't humans evolve into merfolk? Based on what? Because based on the variety of life that has evolved in very, very different ways on land, it seems fairly obvious to me that things have evolved in the ocean in ways we can't even imagine. Seriously, just look at some of the insane creatures that roam the ocean... that we know about. Is it really that hard to believe that evolution like that could have occured. Just look at all the racial differences we face on land. Why would the ocean, being the biggest mass of anything on earth, be any different?



I am heading off to work soon, I work graveyard :(

Need a nap....

I will go back through this thread and see if this has been touched on. I do recall either posting, or reading a article from a Marine Biologist explaining why that would not fit well in that environment.....

Also, things evolved from the Ocean to land, not the other way around......Might take me a while, work takes over.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#84    LotusEater

LotusEater

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2013

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:22 PM

View PostSakari, on 28 May 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

it is one big if.....


But....

Just looking at known sea creatures, and then trying to say a human with a fin would survive, and is built for the ocean is biologically wrong. There is nothing there to give any advantage to hunting, and surviving. Actually, quite the opposite.

Exactly... and since we know next to nothing, what are we left with. How long did it take before we had confirmation of our fist planet in another system? Did you believe we were the only planet? I certainly hope not.

So it seems we are well on the way to figuring out the universe, multiverse, astral plane, whatever. Yet we still have very little knowledge of the ocean. Not to mention the system of underwater caves that no doubt exist everywhere below the surface.

Lets say you wanted to live your life and hide from the creatures in the ocean and never see them. How hard would that be for you? Barring a biblical event that brings the ocean to your door, you can easily live your entire life and never see the ocean. Ever. And land is way smaller than the ocean.


#85    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 11,267 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:30 PM

View PostLotusEater, on 28 May 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Exactly... and since we know next to nothing, what are we left with. How long did it take before we had confirmation of our fist planet in another system? Did you believe we were the only planet? I certainly hope not.

So it seems we are well on the way to figuring out the universe, multiverse, astral plane, whatever. Yet we still have very little knowledge of the ocean. Not to mention the system of underwater caves that no doubt exist everywhere below the surface.

Lets say you wanted to live your life and hide from the creatures in the ocean and never see them. How hard would that be for you? Barring a biblical event that brings the ocean to your door, you can easily live your entire life and never see the ocean. Ever. And land is way smaller than the ocean.


As for Mermaids, it is the same as Bigfoot to me.

If you have so many witnesses, a body would have been found, dead or alive.

Sorry, sea creatures, yes....Mermaids, no. ( undiscovered sea creatures have no witnesses )

As said, i need to go try to sleep for an hour....

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#86    LotusEater

LotusEater

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2013

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:30 PM

View PostSakari, on 28 May 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

I am heading off to work soon, I work graveyard :(

Need a nap....

I will go back through this thread and see if this has been touched on. I do recall either posting, or reading a article from a Marine Biologist explaining why that would not fit well in that environment.....

Also, things evolved from the Ocean to land, not the other way around......Might take me a while, work takes over.


4+ billion years of evolution and evolution is only a one way ticket to land? Highly doubtful.

Plus I'm pretty sure that whales are considered an example of evolution that took a species from the water, to land and then back to water. If true, makes your last line moot.

Edited by LotusEater, 28 May 2013 - 08:38 PM.


#87    Insanity

Insanity

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 29 May 2013 - 12:26 AM

I caught these disclaimers or statements at the end of the show.
  • None of the individuals or entities depicted in the film are affiliated or associated with it in any way, nor have approved its contents.  Any similarities to actual person living or dead are entirely coincidental.
  • Though certain events in this film are fictional, Navy sonar test have been directly implicated in whale beachings.
  • The Bloop is a real phenomenon, there is still debate about what it may be.
I recall reading during November 2012 that the Bloop is now accepted to have been an ice shelf breaking away from Antarctica.  
As much as I may have liked it to have been Great Cthulhu rising from R'lyeh, I also doubt he would announce himself so discretely.

View PostLotusEater, on 28 May 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Ok... so why couldn't a humanoid develop and evolve in water? The arms of a merfolk would almost certainly remain through evolution because hands with thumbs fastened to the end of stick is useful pretty much everywhere on earth, including the oceans. The only thing a merfolk would really need for propulsion is a large tail, like every other. I mean look at other insane cases of evolution that have already occurred on this planet. I mean, there are islands where the same species of bird has developed new tools to use that his brother on the very next island doesn't possess. So why exactly couldn't humans evolve into merfolk? Based on what? Because based on the variety of life that has evolved in very, very different ways on land, it seems fairly obvious to me that things have evolved in the ocean in ways we can't even imagine. Seriously, just look at some of the insane creatures that roam the ocean... that we know about. Is it really that hard to believe that evolution like that could have occured. Just look at all the racial differences we face on land living as humans. Why would the ocean, being the biggest mass of anything on earth, be any different?

Whether a group of primates could adapt to a marine environment can be debated, with enough time and evolution, anything may be possible.  However I suspect there would be a good deal of convergent evolution and adaptation.  Look at the marine mammals that are either completely or mostly dependent on the marine environment.  They all share some very similar adaptations to their environment; a relatively large torpedo shaped bodies, reduced appendages, limbs modified for either propulsion and steering, tail flukes or dorsal fins for propulsion and balance, and a thick coat of fur or blubber for insulation.  If a group of primate were to have adapted to a marine environment, they would need to evolve most, if not all the same features.

My thoughts on the depiction of mermaids in the show is that they do not really have most of these adaptations.  The shoulders would be a source of drag in the water, the body is not that streamlined and doesn't seem to have the same degree of insulation.  How the skull is show attached to the spine is also quite different from marine mammals, and while swimming these mermaids would either be looking at the seafloor all the time or flexing their neck constantly to see ahead of them.  The tail, if I recall from the first mockumentary/docufiction, is the result of a fusing of the hindlimbs and the flukes being formed from the toes.  This arrangement has never occurred in any of the marine mammals and really would only allow three points of movement in the tail; at the hip, knees and ankles.  The cetaceans and sirenians have an elongated spine and boneless tail flukes with which they propel themselves with a vertical motion, while the pinnipeds retain their hind limbs and propel themselves with a horizontal motion with the hind flippers alternating providing the thrust.  Any marine primate would likely adapt either an elongated fluked tail or the hind flippers of a seal.

Any adapted marine primate probably wouldn't be immediately recognizable as a primate.

View PostSakari, on 28 May 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

I am heading off to work soon, I work graveyard :(

Need a nap....

I will go back through this thread and see if this has been touched on. I do recall either posting, or reading a article from a Marine Biologist explaining why that would not fit well in that environment.....

Also, things evolved from the Ocean to land, not the other way around......Might take me a while, work takes over.

Not quite true with ocean to land, at least in regards to marine mammals.  More recent molecular DNA evidence is supporting the theory that all marine mammals have their evolutionary roots in terrestrial mammals.  The pinnipeds likely shared a common ancestor with a group of bear-like ancestors some 23 million years ago, and the cetaceans shared a common ancestor with a group of even-toed ungulates, and in fact the clade Cetartiodactyla derives its name from combining the Cetacea and Artiodactyla.  It is thought that the closest related living land mammal to the cetaceans is the hippopotamus.  The manatees and dugongs are also thought to be descendent from four-legged terrestrial mammals and the elephants and hyraxes are thought to be their closest living relatives.

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#88    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,188 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

  • Ah, but I was so much older then,
    I'm younger than that now. Dylan

Posted 29 May 2013 - 01:03 AM

I got a beautiful book on ocean life today by the American Museum of Natural History, but sadly and tellingly,imo, it contains no mermaids or mermen . :(
Except Mermaid's Wineglass a marine algae.

"That was definitely a bigfoot, you could tell by the bear-shaped body" YT poster

#89    Heru

Heru

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2005

Posted 29 May 2013 - 03:54 PM

All I have to say is There are mermaids.  Just because everything doesn't knock on you door doesn't mean they don't exist.  Weither there mammals who evolved i don't know but I don't think there mammals I mean a neck and arms isn't a mammal only feature.

Just like giant squid, everyone was like BS about em cause there was no body found then one day we find one and every ones like oh okay i guess there are giant squid down there.

And that one cell phone video where the mermaid was on the beach and the guy poked it with the stick and it grabed him. You can tell it was fake(bad sfx) but that would be freaky if it happened to you one day :w00t:


Its a lil off topic but If im suppose to believe camels came from north america and even lived in the canadian artic a cold foresty area but traveled across alaska/russia bridge settled in africa and adapted and thrived in a desert area while everyone else back home died off (cause ive never seen a damn camel over here). You can believe in mermaids or atleast be open to there possibility.  Hell I read a article how they found a eco system in the deep deep part of the ocean (i think it was the trenches) living from a crack in the earth where geothermal heat was escaping. They were some freaky looking creatures.

Edited by Heru, 29 May 2013 - 04:11 PM.


#90    ReaperS_ParadoX

ReaperS_ParadoX

    Don't try to force your flawed human logic on us!

  • Member
  • 2,456 posts
  • Joined:29 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A really cold region devoid of stars

  • The boundaries which divide Life from Death are at best shadowy and vague. Who shall say where the one ends, and where the other begins?

Posted 29 May 2013 - 03:58 PM

View PostInsanity, on 29 May 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

I caught these disclaimers or statements at the end of the show.
  • None of the individuals or entities depicted in the film are affiliated or associated with it in any way, nor have approved its contents.  Any similarities to actual person living or dead are entirely coincidental.
  • Though certain events in this film are fictional, Navy sonar test have been directly implicated in whale beachings.
  • The Bloop is a real phenomenon, there is still debate about what it may be.
I recall reading during November 2012 that the Bloop is now accepted to have been an ice shelf breaking away from Antarctica.  
As much as I may have liked it to have been Great Cthulhu rising from R'lyeh, I also doubt he would announce himself so discretely.



Whether a group of primates could adapt to a marine environment can be debated, with enough time and evolution, anything may be possible.  However I suspect there would be a good deal of convergent evolution and adaptation.  Look at the marine mammals that are either completely or mostly dependent on the marine environment.  They all share some very similar adaptations to their environment; a relatively large torpedo shaped bodies, reduced appendages, limbs modified for either propulsion and steering, tail flukes or dorsal fins for propulsion and balance, and a thick coat of fur or blubber for insulation.  If a group of primate were to have adapted to a marine environment, they would need to evolve most, if not all the same features.

My thoughts on the depiction of mermaids in the show is that they do not really have most of these adaptations.  The shoulders would be a source of drag in the water, the body is not that streamlined and doesn't seem to have the same degree of insulation.  How the skull is show attached to the spine is also quite different from marine mammals, and while swimming these mermaids would either be looking at the seafloor all the time or flexing their neck constantly to see ahead of them.  The tail, if I recall from the first mockumentary/docufiction, is the result of a fusing of the hindlimbs and the flukes being formed from the toes.  This arrangement has never occurred in any of the marine mammals and really would only allow three points of movement in the tail; at the hip, knees and ankles.  The cetaceans and sirenians have an elongated spine and boneless tail flukes with which they propel themselves with a vertical motion, while the pinnipeds retain their hind limbs and propel themselves with a horizontal motion with the hind flippers alternating providing the thrust.  Any marine primate would likely adapt either an elongated fluked tail or the hind flippers of a seal.

Any adapted marine primate probably wouldn't be immediately recognizable as a primate.



Not quite true with ocean to land, at least in regards to marine mammals.  More recent molecular DNA evidence is supporting the theory that all marine mammals have their evolutionary roots in terrestrial mammals.  The pinnipeds likely shared a common ancestor with a group of bear-like ancestors some 23 million years ago, and the cetaceans shared a common ancestor with a group of even-toed ungulates, and in fact the clade Cetartiodactyla derives its name from combining the Cetacea and Artiodactyla.  It is thought that the closest related living land mammal to the cetaceans is the hippopotamus.  The manatees and dugongs are also thought to be descendent from four-legged terrestrial mammals and the elephants and hyraxes are thought to be their closest living relatives.
Well said Insanity!

COME WITH ME. OVERWHELMING POWER AND MADNESS AWAIT

THAT IS NOT DEAD WHICH CAN ETERNAL LIE AND WITH STRANGE AEONS EVEN DEATH MAY DIE





Also tagged with animal planet, mermaids, documentary

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users