Hang on Capeo

dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun (Horse gallopping noises)

jhonnyb, I'd say it is you not thinking to clearly.

How do you escape the other factors that are constantly discussed and shoved under the noses of everpresent questioning noobs that don't bother to read a thread.

Food and environment for what is a shallow water shark are non-existant at this depth. No cracasses of animals or victims (you said yourself a giant squid just washed ashore the other day), and the fact that their main competition - the Orca - is still here,suggesting it was the winner of the battle for that ecological niche.
Megalodon would die out making such a rapid change to such a depth, considering you assume that 1.6 million years ago, when they dissapeared from the fossil record they went deep, and the change would have to be sudden considering the new competition. Evolution does not work that rapidly.

Never seen a Giant Sqiud alive - you are kidding me right??? You missed the japanese video near two years ago? Clicky here, check it out yourself. You are missing out my friend!!!!!

Megs dead. Long live the Meg. Time to ride of into the Sunset,.....Saddle up that Meg Sally.....dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun dun da dun.........

Megs were not purely restricted to shallow waters. Specially the adults could survive in deep waters but not as deep as some would like to believe.


Orcas are here because they were not affected by the major environmental and geological changes that took place over a million years ago. They are mammals and they can survive in cooler waters. Additionally, when the surviving species of Whales migrated to the cooler regions to escape the constant threat of Megs, Orcas could follow them without any problems but Megs could not.

So Orcas are not responsible for the extinction of Megs and neither is their any proof that shows that they actually displaced the Megs.

It is an entirely different scenario (in which you attack a Whale that is actually a slow moving gentle creature and cannot fight back effectively and tear you apart) from a scenario (in which you go against a huge, very powerful, very agile, fast moving and efficient killing machine with amazing senses and is armed with huge serrated teeth and worst of all is that this animal can tear you apart with a single bite in a matter of seconds and will definitely fight back).

Orcas are indeed very smart creatures but still no creature likes to commit suicide.

And now before you come and tell me that Orcas move in Pods, I would like to tell you that many Whales move in Pods and not just Orcas. Now Megs were specialized Whale hunters, which clearly suggests that they knew how tackle even the Pods of Whales.

And where there is food, there are several predators stalking them and not just one. Thus this fact eliminates the assumption regarding Megs being pure solitary hunters.

However Orcas might have competed with the juveniles but that does not means that they actually displaced them. Fossilized evidences have proved that Meg juveniles were also very successful hunters. They attacked and preyed upon Dolphins, Porpoises, Sharks, Elephant Seals and even the unlucky juvenile Whales.

Yeah if they were still alive, they would live deep down and hunt whales.

Besides that thing captive would be crazy, the longest a great white has been captive was like 200 days before it was too much.. those things eat like a bear's worth of meat daily

Good gracious Meg man, you will attempt to debate anything.

From what we know of Carcharodon carcharias, it is very likely indeed that Meg was PRIMARILY a shallow water hunter. All creatures will venture into new places in search of food when it becomes scarce. It was not adapted to live and hunt at great depth. Certainly not one at which a giant shark could remain hidden for 1.6 million years. I any case, great depth means less food. It is surmised that Meg chased it's prey on occasion to some depth. There is no evidence to suggest it ever adapted to deep water environments. That is, going of the fossil record.

I was not about to tell you Orca's moved in pods. "No evidence they displaced Megs":- even though they shared the same ecological niche? And were better adapted to survive in it? And shared a food source. Are you saying Orca offered NO competition? What is you basis for this theory?

Can you please clarify this line



Surely you are not calling Orca a slow moving gentle creature?? Suicide to take on a shark?? Amazing senses compared to an Orca? You are kidding right? Orca had a massive intellectual advantage on old Meg.

Now if I could offer you some clarification on my post



I offered Orca as ONE cause for ther demise, of which there were many. I fail to see where I stated it as the sole reason for extinction of the Meg. In fact it was one of three options put forward in that sentance. I find it strange you keep telling Nena that we don't know anywhere near enough about Meg to draw solid conclusions yet.........here you are telling me Orca was no competition.
Personally, I feel the evidence suggests Orca was the final battle and did indeed cause the final nail for Ol' Meg.
I love debate, I really do, but in here, Meg has been a bit done to death, to us reglars it's kind of like arguing the extant possibility of a Dimetrodon. A read through the thread will reveal these debates have already been covered in depth many times. Steve Alten has a great deal to answer to starting up stupid rumours to boost sales on his book. I'd love to know what you think killed Meg of, but we are all sensible enough to know such a monster is indeed extinct, the continuing debate for it's existance is a bit boring really.
I'd like one of those teeth to put on my study wall.

It's an ad!!!! that picture is faker than the kasai rex thing.

I prefer to debate on cases involving points that lack sufficient proof or are hypothetical in nature but people still try to mention and portray them as facts.


You cannot judge the habitat of Megalodon from that of Carcharodon Carcharias. These two are different species of sharks and occupied entirely different niches.

And mostly the juvenile Megs preferred hunting in shallow water regions but not the adults.


This is true.


Did I said anything like that? When did I used the term "great depths"?

An advice: stop putting words in to my mouth.


When did I said that Megs have survived in great depths? Again! You need to double-check my comments.


Not necessarily less food but lack of sufficient food to sustain a very large creature, specially when its main diet does not lives at such depths.


Again! I told you that Megs could go down deep (mainly during the process of hunting) but they would not go down as deep as some would like to believe.


Tell me first that what is the ecological niche that Orcas have accustomed themselves to? No you can't give a definite answer to this because Orcas eat almost anything that they can. They do not restrict themselves to a specific habitat.

However a few examples of the animals that have fully accustomed themselves to specific niches are:

1) The main diet of Great White Sharks are Seals and Sea Lions.
2) The main diet of Sperm Whales are all kinds of Squids.


Where is the evidence of Orcas hunting in Meg infested waters in the Miocene or Pliocene epochs? Better show me one this time.


Clarifications given below!


Did I called them that? No!

Perhaps you need to get your eyes checked.

I was talking about Whales (specially the Baleen ones) that are not savage and vicious monsters and hardly ever fight back because they are not "built for the kill."


Oh boy!

To take on a shark that is far bigger, stronger, vicious and dangerous then any shark that swims in the waters in this age.

There is hell of a difference between an 11 foot GWS and a 60 foot Monster.


Believe me! Shark senses are often under-estimated. They are not just pure mindless killing machines like you saw in the JAWS movie. They are among the most successful creatures on the planet.

Where is the proof? Have you seen a Meg in real life to warrant this claim?

And you think that a shark that was specialized in hunting big game like Whales (both Toothed and Baleen) will have not have very advanced senses!


Double-checked.


Which cannot be proven by anyone and is a hypothetical claim at best.

During the process of extinction, they might have taken out a few vulnerable juveniles but that does not means that they played any major role in the extinction process of Megs.


An option that lacks any credibility due to lack of any proper evidence is not worth mentioning.


That discussion was mainly focused on the size of the Megs. Seriously get your eyes checked.


I would like to see one, if any exists.


Steve Alten's work is considered to be FICTION for a good reason.


I have already mentioned the main reasons before and some of them are:

- Major changes in the Climatic and Geological conditions of the world.
- Cooling down of the temps of the Oceans in the entire world.
- Loss of important breeding grounds due to major geographical changes and drying up of several parts of the oceans that provided rich environment for Megs to thrive in.
- Shortage of food, specially when the primary food source aka "Whales" migrated to far cooler regions, where Megs could not follow.
- Cannibalism among Megs.


Some of us are sensible enough to think that this species is extinct but not all.


Your choice!

Lol. Meg Man has this discussion in his pocket.


Nice work, Meg.

Oh, clever comments... ugh.

Psyche, I think you and Meg_man actually has a lot in common, it's just sometimes both of you didn't read clearly of just read other's post in quick flash reading...I dunno, you guys says all the same things over again and still asking the same question. Anyway, I enjoy your debate as usual! Keep going, this will make us understand Megalodon more.and actually, I used Meg_man's arguments (lost of food stocks since whales are migrating to cooler seas and the cooling down of the ocean) to debunk some of those who believe that Megalodon can still be living today.I personally believe that all this 'megalodon' sightings were actually a great white with gigantism...Psyche, I think you and Meg_man actually has a lot in common, it's just sometimes both of you didn't read clearly of just read other's post in quick flash reading...I dunno, you guys says all the same things over again and still asking the same question. Anyway, I enjoy your debate as usual! Keep going, this will make us understand Megalodon more.and actually, I used Meg_man's arguments (lost of food stocks since whales are migrating to cooler seas and the cooling down of the ocean) to debunk some of those who believe that Megalodon can still be living today.I personally believe that all this 'megalodon' sightings were actually a great white with gigantism...you know, take one big predator out and the other will grow to greater extend...

Errrr... yes it does. Evolution has been known to occur in certain animals such as snakes in a matter of years or the birth of a new generation. Snakes have been known to change size and shape in a matter of years due to the rapid change of its habitat. Evolution moves at it own speed. Humans can evolve just as quickly. There have been many cases of feral children altering drastically in apperance when made feral and also upon returning to civilisation. Thick coarse hair has been know to grow on feral children and drop out once the need for such hair diminishes. Thats a form of evolution. Not major but evolution none the less.

This would require a very radical anatomical changes and a change in eating habits, etc; don't find that very likely. It's not a snake after all. Going deep is not really a question of conforming to it's habitat changing either, but rather purposely switching habitat.

Ahh, that would be like the facts YOU presented that Nena corrected for you in his post #276!

You just prefer to, not actually follow your own example hey



Some think that the Great White also helped the Meg go away.



Source

Hrrmmzzz, seems they may have lived quite close together......with Meg inhabiting most parts of the Ocean, it is pretty stupid to think that two similar species would not come to conflict over the same resources. SOme paleontologists surmise Orca likely fed on Juvenille Megs.
I order to reduce the large amount of quotes, I will discuss niches where you bring it up..again further down the page.



In your post #302



Deep waters = great depth.



I refuse to take responsibility for anything that comes out of your mouth, or is portrayed by your fingers. Any mental regurgitation you offer is entirely your own.

An Advice: Don't give me advice If you don't like the way I post, don't reply to my offerings.



Above. Check your own comments. No need to repeat them, they are recorded. You certainly implied Meg could go deep. You never completed this theory, why mention it when the previous debate was that Meg was not hiding at that depth for 1.6 million years, and in response you offer this little Gem of information. It is obvious you wished to encourage that silly debate as well. You are just being adversarial.



Actually, it is theorised that they mainly hunted shallow waters.



Source

Again, the third time, same point. Covered.





Source



Source

Orca's don't eat anything they can. What Human has been consumed by an Orca?



Refrences to Meg and Orca living together already given above. Repeat yourself alot don't you.

What point are you attempting to potray in regards to niches? You are wrong about Orca.

Three Orca types have recently been documented in the Antarctic.

Type A looks like a "typical" Orca, living in open water and feeding mostly on Minke Whales.
Type B is smaller than Type A. It has a large white eyepatch and a patch of grey colouring on its back, called a dorsal cape. It feeds mostly on seals.
Type C is the smallest type and lives in larger groups than any other type of Orca. Its eyepatch is distinctively slanted forwards, rather than parallel to the body axis. Like Type B, it has a dorsal cape. Its only prey observed so far is the Antarctic toothfish.



No need to break up the question and keep answering the same thing. Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.

Thank you for clearing up your vauge reference to whch type of Whale you were refering to. I understand what you meant now.



Oh boy indeed.
The best-educated estimates of this creature's maximum size range from 12-16 m (40-52 feet long). No problem for a creature that can travel in packs of up to 60 animals tht are 25 feet themselves. Comparing them with other whales in not an honest comparison because Orca also hunt in packs, hence their nickname, Wolves of the Sea. These are not plaknton feeding gentle giants.
Orca is not without it's success either. It sounds to me you underestimate the intelligence of the Orca. Studies have indicated that an Orca has an outstanding memory.
The Orca's use of dialects and the passing of other learned behaviours from generation to generation has been described as a form of culture. The paper Culture in Whales and Dolphins, goes as far as to say, "The complex and stable vocal and behavioural cultures of sympatric groups of killer whales (Orcinus orca) appear to have no parallel outside humans and represent an independent evolution of cultural faculties."

Perhaps you should take less note of refrences like JAWs and stick with some of the links I have offered.

Mmmmm, make one want to vomit doesn't it.

All your claims are hypocrtical hypothetical as well.
Eating juvenilles surely helped extinction.

I have offered refrences to this repeated insult in the previous response. And offered sources.




Yeah, they are crap. Even his questionable promotional tactics are crap.




Of course, all these factors, but definitly, in no way could Orca have had some contribution, What rubbish. Once again, links are offered in previous post.

Ohh, what's this from MY post


Ohh, including the above!!! I never disgreed that any of the above were contributions. I simply offered another, in which you seened to take offense to for some strange reason, and I have backed it with valid references.

Now, I ask you
You seem to be happy to make claims abut the Meg. Have you seen a real live on to validate yur claims?

Spot on. Thanks Nena.

Good gosh I hope not. I thought his comments to Nena rude, and adversarial. No need for that in a common environment. I understand good debate, but arguing minor disrepancies to the point of flaming is completely unnecessary. Especially when essentially we are all on the same page. Gawsh, I was only having some tongue in cheek fun whith you when the fun police showed up to tell us how he is the almigty Meg authority and we are all wrong. Heck, he has been wrong too, we all are from time to time
Except me of course. LOL.

Uhh... que?

He made his points and many of them got refuted by me. Only in one case, he actually provided me a proof.


I actually do! Why do you think that I am debating on hypothetical assumptions?


Another theory that lacks any concrete evidence and logic behind it.

Do you know that Great White Sharks can actually live in cooler waters? I bet that you forgot to take note of this basic fact.

For 10 million years, Great Whites have co-existed with Megs and nothing happened but about 2 million years ago, when things started to change and situation started to become unfavorable for Megs. suddenly GWS contributed to their extinction?

FACT 1: Megalodons could not tolerate the cooling of the Oceans arround the world and this factor was the ultimate undoing of it.

FACT 2: Great Whites have never displaced young Meg species because they occupied an entirely different niche.

Do you seriously think that these puny Great Whites will pose any threat to the mighty Megs that were specialized in hunting big games?

I think that you need to read an excellent article called "Paleocology of the Megalodon and the White Shark."

This article was developed after extensive research conducted by several paleontologists who have used fossil records to explore the paleocology of Megs and White Sharks to see that how these two species could co-exist with each other.

And the discoveries will really surprise you because this is what they have actually found out after several years of research and observation from evidences available:



NOTE:

- Giant Toothed Sharks refers to the family of the Giant Sharks (including Megs) and this entire family is now extinct.
- Small Toothed Sharks refers to the family of small sharks (including Great Whites and Mako sharks) and this family is still alive.

Source: Click!

Point to be NOTED: GWS have avoided regions that were populated by Megalodons and one particular reason is that Megalodons could be a big threat to them as well. Like I said before, no animal likes to commit suicide.

I have stressed on this point in several of my posts before but you failed to take notice of it and you actually think that you can fool every person with unsupported assumptions?


Check the above facts that refute the above mentioned BS theory that you referred to. Do you seriosuly think that puny Great Whites will pose a threat to much bigger and deadly Megalodons?

Even if some encounters did took place, no one can doubt that who would have won in such encounters.


And where is the evidence?

ANS: No there is none.

So another reason that you should stop trusting people blindly who have got no evidences to validate their claims.

Do you know that even the Meg juveniles were also really big (Size ranging between 20 feet to 35 feet in length) and were very successful hunters? Fossil evidences have proved that Meg juveniles have fed on small-to-medium sized toothed whales (suborder Odontoceti), dolphins and porpoises.

The most believable scenario is that at the end of the Pliocene period, most coastal waters were near or over where the continental shelf drops off into oceanic depths. This was a major sign of loss of breeding grounds for young Meg pups (during the massive changes in geographical conditions of this world) and they became vulnerable to attacks from larger predators. Some large pelagic predators such as Killer (Orcinus orca) and False Killer (Pseudorca crassidens) whales may have been able to snap up the 12-foot (4-metre) Megalodon pups in such vulnerable situations.

Thus at the end of the Pliocene period, Megs had lost most of the ideal breeding grounds for its pups due to major geographical changes and dyring up of several ideal coastal water regions.

So it is only theorized that in such vulnerable situation, Meg pups actually became vulnerable to attacks from Orcas. And not the much larger juveniles.

Now you were saying?


And just like above, they will be debunked as well.


Not necessarily. Actually only you think like that.

The depth of waters can be classified in to 3 categories:

1) Shallow
2) Deep
3) Ultra Deep (Also referred to as "great depths")

Waters are classified as simply "deep" from the depth of 1000 feet and further down.

The term"great depths" actually refers to "ultra deep waters" and these waters are classified from the depth of 5000 feet and further down.

Source: Click!

An advice: improve your general knowledge.


And I refuse to believe any of the unsupported assumptions that come out from your mouth and you try to portray them as facts. Even the sources that you have cited do not provide concrete evidences to back their claims.

I will debunk any of the unsupported assumptions that you will post regarding this subject.

If you have got what it takes to prove my points wrong then do so. It is an open challenge from me.


Since you seem to think that "deep waters" actually always refer to "great depths", you are mistaken.

Going down deep does not means that an animal will dive down to "Ultra Depths." What I mean't to say was that a Meg would have dived down to depths like 2000 or 3000 feet and that too only during the hunting process. One reason is that some Whales do dive down this deep, so it is highly likely that adult Megs would get opportunity to tackle them more easily at such depths by ambushing them and then drag the carcass up in to the shallow waters to feed on.

So once again! Your own understanding of even basic things is flawed, so why blame me?


I mean't that Megs could go down to depths of 2000 feet or even more but not at those depths that one would term as "ultra great depths."

Do you know that even Great Whites can dive down to depths of over 2000 feet?


Once again! They are actually refering to "ULTRA DEEP WATERS", which can be also termed as "COLD FOOD POOR SEA."


Wikipedia is a dubious source actually. People can edit and post things in that source with free will.


Wow! What an argument!

Simple FACT: They do not consider humans as part of their diet.

Simple FACT: They however eat lots of things that swim in the oceans. They have been found to attack Seals, Sea Lions, Dolphins, Sharks, Whales, several kinds of Fish and the list goes on.


Orcas existed in the time of Megs at some point but that does not means that they regulary clashed with each other for hunting food. There is no evidence to back the claim that Orcas actively hunted in Meg infested regions. Co-existing in the same age does not necessarily means, always clashing over food with the other species. Though competition might have occurred in some cases but we still do not know for sure. And do re-check the case of "co-existance of GWS and Megs" mentioned above for a good reference in this case.

So once again! Your sources do not provide concrete evidences to back their claims. Most of the things mentioned in them are just theories that are unproven.


We are still studying Orcas and we have yet to fully learn about their habitats. Orcas do not fully accustom themselves to any particular diets because they are highly adaptable creatures. When situation demands a change, Orcas are ready to adapt.

Of-course, each species of Orcas have "preferences" among the potential foods but that is not what they solely depend upon for survival. Recent research have proved that Orcas have been found to attack a large variety of animals including Seals, Sea Lions, Dolphins, Sharks, Whales, several types of Fish and the list goes on.


Since you claim to understand my point, I think that you should also give a second thought about the concequences of attacking a 60 foot monster (that was specialized in hunting big games)


There is a valid reason behind me pointing out before that it is not wise to argue upon the size factor of Megs. A little research can help you a lot in these kinds of cases but you never conducted one.

A 40 footer is actually a Sub-Adult and not a fully grown Adult. Also the best "so called" educated estimate of the maxmum size of Meg is placed at 52 feet but this is based on using a 6.5 inch long tooth and calculation has been done on Gottfried's formula (which actually makes calculations based on short TS to BL proportion). Now the problem is that the biggest Meg tooth yet found is 7.5 inch long and when you apply this tooth to the mentioned formula, it gives a size of 60 feet and weight of more then 50 tons.

Another new formula have been created by some very knowledgeable scientists and their formula gives 61 feet size for 7.5 inch tooth.

Even then many "Meg experts" believe that the talking about the size factor of Meg is a hypothetical business because no one has actually seen a live one. Though I would like to remind you that a modern Meg jaw developed by a famous Meg expert "Vito Bertucci" (which contains all real teeth) indicates an individual of over 70 feet in length. This man has spent 20 years of his life on researching on Megs and his works and findings are really amazing. But unfortunately, he is now dead.

An advice: You seriously need to update your knowledge.


The problem arises when you go against a predator which is actually "built of the kill" and will indeed fight back when threatened.

Whales are not built like Megalodons to kill and do not fight back, this is why they loose. But even then it often takes an entire pod of Orcas several hours to kill a large Whale. This fact alone shows that how difficult it is to hunt and kill a very large animal and Megalodons were specially built to tackle such giants and that too with ease.

So better think again!


I do not under-estimate the intelligence of Orcas. They are among the most intelligent marine life forms on Earth but that does not means that they can take on everything or are nearly unstoppable. Specially when you know that no large predator exists in this age that is built to be an ultimate killing machine and can be a serious threat to Orcas.


Better try to learn more about "shark intelligence" before commenting on this case. They are not clumsy and dumb creatures either.

Do you know that the latest research has proved that sharks actually can be considered to be intelligent?

Here is a quote from one source:



Source: Click!

And stop making silly assumptions regarding the most powerful and vicious sharks this world has ever seen. This shark species was the true APEX predator in the marine world (because it specialized in hunting big games) and this species had remained "dominant" for over 15 million years despite of facing many challenges, which shows that how successful they were in real life. So it is time for you to think with more clear mind.

NOTABLE FACT: Truth hurts.


WRONG! Actually most of your claims are hypothetical and based on unsupported assumptions. As proven above.


Here is one such example of an unsupported assumption that you try to portray as a proven fact.

They might have killed a few pups but that does not means that they played any major role in the extinction of Megs.

Pups of many animal species actually do get eaten by many predators (if some of them accidently fall in to vulnerable state) but this does not contributes to the extinction process of any species. Check the case of Crocs and modern sharks as an example.

Megs became extinct because about 1.6 million years ago, oceans became more cooler then they could tolerate, lost most of the important breeding grounds due to major geographical changes and their main food aka "Whales" had escaped to much cooler regions where Megs could not follow them, thus this resulted in massive shortage of food for them. Now with nothing impressive left to eat and restricted space for movement, they most likely turned on to each other or starved to death. These are some of the reasons that have proven to be true.


The problem is that the sources that you have pointed out actually lack any concrete proof to back the theories mentioned in them and have been easily debunked.


Many do not think like that.


I always prefer to mention those reasons that have been proven to cause the demise of Megs and not those that are purely assumed by "Dolphin Fans."


Again! You fail to understand that it is an unsupported assumption. Do you actually understand the meaning of word "unsupported"?


Huh!

Valid references that hold no credibility or lack any concrete proof!

Nice try but a waste of time actually.


I do not make silly assumptions about Megs. I study them and make conclusions on what I observe about them. Additionally! Many "Meg experts" have conducted credible research about this magnificient species (even risking lives in some cases) and their work also helps me a lot in determining the facts about Megs.

Gottfrieds orginal estimate was 15.9 m TL for the owner of the 16.8 cm teeth. However, as you have said, larger teeth have been found, 19.2 cm for example, which would indicate a size of 17-19 m or so. But then again, everything is just hypothesis and estimates that might be wrong, but for telling others the obvious (that it's all hypothesis) you certainly seems sure your position is correct.

Why do you write so-- how do I say, it's formulated like some sort of museum exhibition text. Click! Click me! I'm BOLD! Waah! See I bold those names? Isn't it cool?

Anyway, I don't trust this Vito guy. I saw his jaws on TV once. I'm a very knowledgeable scientist. *links to museum websites* I made the jaws in Mall of America. I've spent almost 10 years of my life researching Megatooth sharks. Gottfried says Megatooth shark so I must be cool like him and not conformist like all the dregs saying Meg (P.S. note the bolding).

NOTABLE FACT: Shaving with Megatooth shark teeth can hurt.

Mhmm! The truth-- which is a hypothesis-- is now no longer a truth but a hypothesis? Or is a hypothesis the truth? Can one even use a word such as truth when discussing entirely hypothetical subjects--if one can at all, that is--such as this?

This is all entirely parodic, a sandfly killed by a beetle, a dreamer who lost his senses while with vigilance he corrupted an entire generation--nonsensical drivel like a billion hurricanes eroding the coast of Panama.

Nena!

The point is that some people repeatedly mention this same line: "The best-educated estimates of this creature's maximum size range from 12-16 m (40-52 feet long)" and try to portray this information as a proven FACT and do not do any kind of research of their own to validate their suggestion. Now this is where the problem begins.

I am not against writing hypothetical theories because when we talk about ancient creatures that are now extinct, assumptions are indeed made. But the point is that if any such assumptions or hypothetical theories are mentioned, then they should be pointed out to be "hypothetical" in nature by the person who mentions them so that other people do not get confused between proven facts and hypothetical points. Unless such assumptions are proven to be true or at-least can be made believable through citing of a specific observation or an example.

My purpose is not to bash any person but to educate people regarding this animal through latest research and findings.!

I am not speculating about the size of Megs but the current available evidences clearly support my suggestions and this is what makes my case stronger. But even then I have pointed out that this subject is actually "hypothetical" in nature. Though from years of study, one thing is indeed clear to me now that this animal was indeed very big. But when some people participate in a discussion about this creature and tell us that it was only (12 m - 16 m) long and could not be bigger, this is where I feel the need to correct such people because they need to do more research. The latest research is now placing Megalodon in the 60 footer league and no longer in the 50 footer league and this needs to be pointed out to some people who do not know.

Additionally! I do think that a particular point, which can be proven through available evidences, should be mentioned along with the sources that back them with evidences during a debate. This is an important way to educate people.

Infact I was the only person who said that it is not wise to argue upon size factor of Megs.

But since the size factor of Megs is often discussed, here is what people should keep in mind:

The estimated size of Megalodon:

Meg Pups: 9 feet to 12 feet long.

Meg Juveniles: 14 feet to 38 feet long.

Meg Sub-Adults: 40 feet to 48 feet long.

Meg Adults: 50 feet to 65 feet long. [Widely accepted by most Meg experts and considered to be accurate through latest research and observations of available evidences at hand.]

Meg Monster - "The largest individuals": Over 70 feet long. Max size could be possibly 80 feet. [Theorized mostly. However one Meg Jaw reconstuction suggests an individual of this size.]


I did not understood one bit of this line? Could you please be more specific?


Then it is your issue and not mine. A person who has spent 20 years of his life on researching about Megalodons and have actually conducted several excavations to find out the facts about this shark and knows his stuff well, should be kept in high regard.

I don't think that he can be more wrong then any other Meg expert including Gottfried, if he even was.

People have found fossilized remains of "eaten" large whales that show clear signs of attack from an individual that was really very big in size. Such findings are taken in to account and God knows that what more "Vito" has witnessed in the ocean floor during the excavations conducted by him. Infact he is the person who found the 7.5 inch Meg tooth during one such excavation.

There is a rumour that a 7.6 inch Meg tooth also have been found.


Name calling of this shark is not a case that you should be concerned about. People can use different names when refering to this shark and they often use the word "Meg" to refer to Megalodon because it is easy to write "Meg" then the entire name.

Since you have spent 10 years on researching about Megs, why your knowledge still seems to be very limited about this creature? Don't mistake me here because I do think that you are a very knowledgeable person but you still need to learn a lot more about this particular prehistoric monster.

No matter what the photo is fake.

Truth is what is actually been proven. The reasons that were truely responsible for extinction of Megalodons have already been highlighted by me.

Now psyche101 mentioned some reasons that are purely hypothetical in nature and have not yet been proven; regarding extinction of Megs and he was trying to portray them as facts. This is where he actually went wrong and I felt the need to point out the flaws in his reasons.

I am not against making assumptions but I prefer to make assumptions that can be supported through citing certain real life based observations.


Is this comment mean't to show your personal vendetta against me or are you being jealous?

Always a Fascinating Subject! I fell in love with Megalodon many years back. The teeth are just AMAZING!

I would give just about anything to see one alive. I really don't think they died out, but I also do not believe they evolved into smaller Great Whites. I think they became whale sharks. Perhaps Whales became too fast or too smart, perhaps they moved to where the Megalodon could not follow. Perhaps it evolved to filter feed when food sources began to dwindle. A WHale shark would be a Perfect size to hold the size of the Megalodon teeth. It also makes sense to me that it's broad squarish head would have helped bite into Whales, instead of having a Pointy nose like a Great White.

Thats the only way I think Megalodon survived. Through idealistic stories/encounters or books. I don't see how it could exist in it's prehistoric form. We would have found evidence. The only way it could possibly exist if it became a DEEP SEA/ DEEP Dwelling Shark. But food sources that far down are usually smaller and blind. Not saying it's not possible, but to feed such a large shark would require a much larger food source such as Giant Squids. I still believe we would have run into it by now with all the Radar/Divers and Technological Instruments we have. It's size would be a dead give away to attention on radar for sure.

I actually have a tooth that is not fossilized. So yeah, I do believe they died out or evolved just around the ice age. This subject will remain FUTILE in debate until more is known. But deep down I pray that one day we can at least paint an accurate portrait of this creature

It's not really a "proven fact", for example the 40-52 ft (12-16 m) figure I assume refer to commonly attained lenghts, similar to the 4.3-4.6 m figure for the White shark; thusly not something that sets a definite maximum. Gottfrieds estimates for male specimen are 10-14.3 m (33-47 ft), which are within the previously mentioned lenght spectrum. Female specimens of course were considerably larger than males. It is inaccurate, in my opinion, to have a special category for "sub-adults", as maturity can be attained at varying sizes (much depending on the sex of the shark and possible environmental effects, etc).

The argument of the size-factor was in relation to a number of ridiculous fish-stories given eternal life by public mysticistic masturbation; ridiculous claims of shining ghastly white giant sharks of ridiculous overhyped sizes (surely the observators, if they saw anything real, thought they were many times larger than they were, but still). Anyway, what exactly does it mean to be "in the sixty-foot league"? Some specimens attaining and surpassing said size? Even if large females with some regularity surpassed 60 feet, it's hardly fair to consider it a normal occurance.



I think I was trying to show my displeasure with your bolding of certain words and names for emphasis.



I was mocking my own use of Megatooth shark, actually.

.

Modern literature is hard to come by, I have not been able to locate any recent publications which I could steal at my local library.



How can you prove anything anyway? In the end it will be words against words, inconlusive evidence, suggestions, inescapable!



Ehm, while I do harbour something of a personal vendatta against you, this was not an example of it. It was a entirely nonsensical attempt at surrealistic droning to illustrate the changing nature of truth.

... Why do you think it's "not" fossilised?

Measured the age, analysed the material it's compromised of? Re-fossilised--

Hey guys, Last night I was playing pool with my friends on a pool cafe when all of a sudden, the TV shows a National Geographic specials about the Great White Sharks. I watched it and I try to decipher some of the butt-ugly translation and I understand more of this fish's hunting method. Anyway, the shows also portrayed a comparison of the GWS with a Megalodon, and the fact that these two fishes once competed for food, however, the GWS managed to survive and won the race, as it got smaller size that can mobile and maneuver itself faster than a Megalodon and the ability to raise the body heat system by a certain constant swimming method which actually made it one of the most succesfull predator in ocean history. Meg's smaller preys were devastated by the GWS, and thus provided a very lack of food for Meg to crave. Especially after all the whales migrated to colder waters and Megalodon couldn't swim to waters that cold. I wondered...sure! These Megs are eating what they can, perhaps whatever visible to them, that's why GWS avoided them too!


...However, I lost many times in pool games that nite! I guess you should concentrate on the ball, not the TV when playing pool !

Though the size estimations of Megs are not 100% proven to be accurate due to an obvious reason. Scientists however do not make these kinds of claims through pure imaginations. They conduct massive research, which involves extensive study of things like:

1) Observation of the available fossilized bones of the extinct animal.
2) The diet of the animal.
3) Observation of the closest living relatives of the animal.
4) Anatomy of modern sharks including size, teeth structure and shape.
5) Biological anatomy of very large creatures.

So after a massive analysis of all these factors, they form a hypothesis about the anatomy of this shark and then give estimations of its size.

Now the problem is that "Sub-Adults" are often confused with "fully grown Adults" with respect to the size factor of an extinct animal. Latest research shows that Megalodons in the 30 foot league were still juveniles and not adults. Thus Gottfried is really not making proper sense in his estimations.

One clue you can note regarding this case is that we find many 3 inch, 4 inch and 5 inch Meg teeth and not so many 6 inch and 7 inch Meg teeth. This is because of the basic reason that the young or juvenile Megalodons mostly thrived in the shallow water regions, while the adults often ventured out much further in the oceans to hunt and feed on large whales. This is why we find more small teeth then the large ones and this is why very larg Meg teeth are extremely difficult to find in the shallow water regions.


Sub-Adults are a genuine part of the measurement scale of the size of an animal.

Infact the general measurement scale of the size of an animal is based on the following categories:

1) Baby or Pup [Very Small]
2) Juvenile [Small to Moderate]
3) Sub Adult [Moderate]
4) Full Adult [Large]

So the category of Sub Adults cannot be ignored. This is a work of basic maths and have nothing to do with sexual maturity of the animal.

For example: we can achieve sexual maturity at the age of 14 but we are still considered to be a small child at this age. And we are also physically smaller in this age then an adult.


I do agree that 80 feet is a a very large size even for the biggest shark in this world. But it is theorized that it is not unbelievable for "Megalodon" to attain this size. The presence of some Meg teeth that are over 7 inch long are generally responsible for suggestion of this kind of size.

One interesting clue that you can observe in this regard is that even the biggest Meg tooth know, which is 7.5 inch long is possibly not the biggest Meg tooth in the world. There are rumours that a 7.6 inch long Meg to