Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Mothmen

Megalodon Sightings

72 posts in this topic

Sorry if this is posted before...then please delete it Moderators :)

And VERY interesting if you believe in Megalodons...

A few reports of alleged encounters with large, unidentified sharks have been proposed as evidence for C. megalodon survival. One of the most widely cited is an extraordinary tale recounted by Australian naturalist David Stead (1963: 45-46):

In the year 1918 I recorded the sensation that had been caused among the "outside" crayfish men at Port Stephens, when, for several days, they refused to go to sea to their regular fishing grounds in the vicinity of Broughton Island. The men had been at work on the fishing grounds---which lie in deep water---when an immense shark of almost unbelievable proportions put in an appearance, lifting pot after pot containing many crayfishes, and taking, as the men said, "pots, mooring lines and all". These crayfish pots, it should be mentioned, were about 3 feet 6 inches [1.06 m] in diameter and frequently contained from two to three dozen good-sized crayfish each weighing several pounds. The men were all unanimous that this shark was something the like of which they had never dreamed of. In company with the local Fisheries Inspector I questioned many of the men very closely and they all agreed as to the gigantic stature of the beast. But the lengths they gave were, on the whole, absurd. I mention them, however, as a indication of the state of mind which this unusual giant had thrown them into. And bear in mind that these were men who were used to the sea and all sorts of weather, and all sorts of sharks as well. One of the crew said the shark was "three hundred feet [90 m] long at least"! Others said it was as long as the wharf on which we stood---about 115 feet [35 m]! They affirmed that the water "boiled" over a large space when the fish swam past. They were all familiar with whales, which they had often seen passing at sea, but this was a vast shark. They had seen its terrible head which was "at least as long as the roof on the wharf shed at Nelson's Bay." Impossible, of course! But these were prosaic and rather stolid men, not given to 'fish stories' nor even to talking about their catches. Further, they knew that the person they were talking to (myself) had heard all the fish stories years before! One of the things that impressed me was that they all agreed as to the ghostly whitish color of the vast fish. The local Fisheries Inspector of the time, Mr Paton, agreed with me that it must have been something really gigantic to put these experienced men into such a state of fear and panic.

Shuker (1995) and Goss (1987) include two more reported sightings of very large sharks that they interpret as possible evidence for C. megalodon survival. One involved Zane Grey, the famous author of western novels and an avid deep-sea angler, and the other his son Loren. (Not having access to the Grey’s original works in which their sightings are recounted, I rely on Goss [1987] for details). The first sighting occurred when Zane Grey was deep-sea fishing off Rangiroa in the South Pacific in 1927 or 1928. Glancing over the boat’s railing, he spotted an enormous “yellow and green” shark with a “square head, immense pectoral fins and a few white spots.” Grey claimed it was “considerably longer than my boat---conservatively between 35 and 40 feet [10.5 and 12 m].” Some New Zealand fishermen aboard who also saw the great shark agreed with Grey’s estimate. Initially, Grey thought the shark was a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) (Fig. 3), which grows to a length of at least 12 m (40 ft), but according to Goss (1987) Grey thought “only the size of this ... shark was the same; otherwise it was in no way similar.” Here I beg to differ with Grey. Not only does the size correspond well, but whale sharks also have very wide, squarish heads, enormous pectoral fins and are covered with white spots (admittedly, Grey mentions only “a few” white spots, but the degree of spotting in whale sharks is highly variable among individuals and by body region [Richard Martin pers. comm.]). Nonetheless, Grey stated: “I figured out that the fish ... was not a harmless whale-shark but one of the man-eating monsters of the South Pacific. Then I was more frightened than I remember for a long time.” Despite his dramatic style, I would identify Grey’s shark as a whale shark long before suggesting that what he saw was a living C. megalodon or, say, an enormous tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier). (This latter species may exceed 5 m [16 ft] in length and has a characteristically squarish snout. Grey caught a great number of tiger sharks in his day and was probably thinking of them when he wrote the above quoted phrase.)

The second sighting took place in 1933, again off the coast of Rangiroa. Aboard the S.S. Manganui, Grey and his son Loren were returning to San Francisco after a fishing trip to Tahiti. One evening at about 5:00 p.m., Loren was at the rail when he saw a small flock of spiralling sea gulls and, near by, an area of yellow water (5):

At first I thought it was a whale, but when the great brown tail rose in the ship’s wake as the fish moved ponderously away from the liner, I knew immediately that it was a monstrous shark. The huge round head appeared to be at least 10 to 12 feet across if not more ... It was my belief that this huge, yellowish, barnacled creature must have been at least 40 or 50 feet long. He was not a whale shark: the whale shark has a distinctive white purplish green appearance with large brown spots and much narrower head. So what was he---perhaps a true prehistoric monster of the deep?

What we had seen was something [that] no ichthyologist had ever dreamed existed. The largest known specimen of this type of shark, generally known as a sand shark or black-tipped shark, had hardly been known to exceed a length of about 15 feet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, heard the first sighting before but the others are new to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll file this sighting in the "Wouldn't it be cool if it were true?" cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"square head with a few white spots" sounds alot like a whale shark to me- and the size (35-40 feet) matches too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do rememebr reading a story about a huge, pure white shark being seen by local fishermen. I'll have to find the book to recall the information, but I think thye called it "Lord of the Sea" or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some other sightings...great

The last eyewitness accounts interpreted as being of C. megalodon are put forward by Cartmell (1978). His first piece of evidence is sonar trackings by “one of the new breed of underwater exploratory vehicles” of an unidentifiable object about 100 ft (30 m) long that was travelling faster than any submarine. The absurdity of this account---which supposedly serves as evidence for C. megalodon survival---will not be commented upon. Cartmell also mentions another eyewitness account of a giant shark:

In the 1960’s along the outer edge of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, an 85 foot [26 m] ship experienced engine trouble which forced it to weigh anchor for repairs. Although the men subsequently refused to openly report what they had seen for fear of public ridicule, the captain and his crew later told friends of sighting an immense shark as it moved slowly past their ship. Whitish in color, they were awed by its size. It was as long if not longer than their boat! Experienced men of the sea, they too were certain the creature was not a whale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed out one thing from the first post: it is from a study (here) entitled "No Megalodon Survival", that gives rather good explanations of these incidents, and why they aren't about Megalodons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't got this info from that site...ill give the link in my next post, i have to go now. Like Bigdaddy_GFS said, it would be great stories for ''cool if that was true''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,I found this old thread ,so I will use it.

I've been facinated with sharks since I'm a child.

I still regret not becoming a marine biologist.

In any case,I think big M still exists.

Who knows why some of those boats and divers disappear without a trace.

Seamonsters reported when we had only wooden boats,could have easily been a megalodon,as who would be left to report it ?

However,its been suggested,that the megalodon,is just a full grown great white.

With the depletion of natural resources,and the ecosystem no longer able to sustain such a creature,they remain juvinile,and never reach full size before death.

Is say its possible.

We can only wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,I found this old thread ,so I will use it.

I've been facinated with sharks since I'm a child.

I still regret not becoming a marine biologist.

In any case,I think big M still exists.

Who knows why some of those boats and divers disappear without a trace.

Seamonsters reported when we had only wooden boats,could have easily been a megalodon,as who would be left to report it ?

However,its been suggested,that the megalodon,is just a full grown great white.

With the depletion of natural resources,and the ecosystem no longer able to sustain such a creature,they remain juvinile,and never reach full size before death.

Is say its possible.

We can only wonder.

Did you miss the 67 page thread on old Meg that is usually found on page 1 or 2 of this forum - it's on page 2 now.

Funny how we have extensive information on every other shark species in the world, but yet this giant shark seems to allude the efforts of scientists worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that C. Megalodon falls into the category of Crypto that I call "Blank Check Creatures". Supporters can and will always argue that since we don't know everything about the ocean and have not explored every corner of it then we can write what I call a "blank check" and put whatever huge cryptid we feel like in there. Kthulu, C. Megalodon, etc.

Its always fascinating when the fact that we don't know something can serve as ample evidence for the existence of just about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,I found this old thread ,so I will use it.

I've been facinated with sharks since I'm a child.

I still regret not becoming a marine biologist.

In any case,I think big M still exists.

Who knows why some of those boats and divers disappear without a trace.

Seamonsters reported when we had only wooden boats,could have easily been a megalodon,as who would be left to report it ?

However,its been suggested,that the megalodon,is just a full grown great white.

With the depletion of natural resources,and the ecosystem no longer able to sustain such a creature,they remain juvinile,and never reach full size before death.

Is say its possible.

We can only wonder.

If they remain juvenile then die how would they reproduce? Why do you think the ocean cant support a large creature? there are plenty of others in there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that C. Megalodon falls into the category of Crypto that I call "Blank Check Creatures". Supporters can and will always argue that since we don't know everything about the ocean and have not explored every corner of it then we can write what I call a "blank check" and put whatever huge cryptid we feel like in there. Kthulu, C. Megalodon, etc.

Its always fascinating when the fact that we don't know something can serve as ample evidence for the existence of just about anything.

I think most cryptids fall under the 'blank check' umbrella (or a variation thereof). ^_^

Meg is pretty much the Bigfoot of the ocean. Sure, we have sightings and stories but where is the evidence, why don't we have a carcass to study, what about man's propensity for exaggeration or misidentification and what's with the deep ocean theory when Meg was primarily a coastal predator? Too many unanswered and unanswerable questions. Meg would be cool if it were true (unless you work on or in the ocean :lol: ) but I don't see enough to call this one even plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If they remain juvenile then die how would they reproduce? Why do you think the ocean cant support a large creature? there are plenty of others in there

This premise was actually put forth in the book version of JAWS.

And dont many species have offspring before becoming full grown?

Full grown has nothing to do with sexually mature.

A 12 year old human can have a child,but is far from full grown.

This is mammals of course,but it's a consideration.

I recently saw a clip of a dinosaur expert,who totally blows former thought about dinosaurs out of the water.

He feels many dinosaur specimens,are not all different species.

He would cite maybe 4 dinosaurs,and show how they were all the same dinosaur,all at different stages of life development.

He did it with numerous different dinosaurs,and some have major changes structurally,as it went thru the developmental stages.

Size and bone structure both.

I forget the guys name....i will look for it.

But id say it's entirely possible,given sharks are ancient,that in todays world,maybe some do mature,but maybe the ones we see commonly,do not.

Another example of this is lobster.

The little 2 pounders we see on plates with butter sauce,are juveniles.

Full sized lobsters are super rare,because we fish them long before they get to be 40lbs.

There are records kept by the pilgrims I believe,who noted these creatures,and how huge they were,just back in the 1700s.

We fished adults into extinction for food.

I'd say this is a possibility .....no one has kept a great white in captivity (save Monterey ,for six mos)

So no one knows how big they might get,not exposed to the harshest elements they face day to day.

Edited by Simbi Laveau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the 67 page thread on old Meg that is usually found on page 1 or 2 of this forum - it's on page 2 now.

Funny how we have extensive information on every other shark species in the world, but yet this giant shark seems to allude the efforts of scientists worldwide.

This was an old thread,it appears to have been whittled down considerably since I posted on it yesterday.

Dunno,with my love of sharks,hate to say it,I rather think about it still being around in the same way someone day dreams about their soulmate or something..

Yeah,im weird....

:-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 fishermen off the coast of Malta last summer reported a giant shark,which was" bigger than their boat",and that was 35 feet long,and they refused to go back out the next day...I dont think Great Whites grow that big (but I dont know for sure)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 fishermen off the coast of Malta last summer reported a giant shark,which was" bigger than their boat",and that was 35 feet long,and they refused to go back out the next day...I dont think Great Whites grow that big (but I dont know for sure)....

That's much bigger than a Great White, but well within the range of Whale Sharks, which are the biggest species of shark, but not as well known or interesting as they aren't ferocious predators, but rather dull filter feeders like baleen whales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's much bigger than a Great White, but well within the range of Whale Sharks, which are the biggest species of shark, but not as well known or interesting as they aren't ferocious predators, but rather dull filter feeders like baleen whales.

Yep I know what a whale shark looks like,I've seen many a one while on watch at sea,with a pair of powerfull binocs,and I've seen Great Whites off the South African coast,and even a school of Manta Rays leaping out of the water but I haven't seen a shark of any species bigger than a 35 ft fishing boat....I suppose the fisherman knew the difference too,what ever it was it scared the crap out of them.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikipedia says c. 32ft long is the average adult size for a whale shark and the largest confirmed specimen was 41.5ft long.

So it's not unreasonable to think that fishermen may have reported a shark bigger than a 35ft boat, misestimates of the size notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to mama Mega baby !

:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since you revived this, I'd like to add something.

At first I thought it was a whale, but when the great brown tail rose in the ship’s wake as the fish moved ponderously away from the liner, I knew immediately that it was a monstrous shark. The huge round head appeared to be at least 10 to 12 feet across if not more ... It was my belief that this huge, yellowish, barnacled creature must have been at least 40 or 50 feet long. He was not a whale shark: the whale shark has a distinctive white purplish green appearance with large brown spots and much narrower head. So what was he---perhaps a true prehistoric monster of the deep?

Whoever wrote this was mistaken. It was obviously a whale, not a shark.

1) Sharks have vertical tail fins; whales have horizontal. 2) Barnacles cannot attach themselves to shark skin due to the rough denticles that cover the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since you revived this, I'd like to add something.

Whoever wrote this was mistaken. It was obviously a whale, not a shark.

1) Sharks have vertical tail fins; whales have horizontal. 2) Barnacles cannot attach themselves to shark skin due to the rough denticles that cover the body.

You know - thats a really good point. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

It couldn't have been a whale shark as whale sharks are not necessarily carnivorous.

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

It couldn't have been a whale shark as whale sharks are not necessarily carnivorous.

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

It couldn't have been a whale shark as whale sharks are not necessarily carnivorous.

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

It couldn't have been a whale shark as whale sharks are not necessarily carnivorous.

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

It couldn't have been a whale shark as whale sharks are not necessarily carnivorous.

I read a story once that matched descriptions of a whale shark except it was eating a whale carcass.

It couldn't have been a whale shark as whale sharks are not necessarily carnivorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently,whale sharks are not carnivorous.

Hmmm.....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.