Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yeah, you guys think they exist?

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

(yes... I did copy and paste...you try and typed it)

HASTUR!

HASTUR!!

HASTUR!!!

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Cthulhu. It was Cthulhu.


Whatever it was, it was several times bigger than a blue whale. That's effiin' HUGE!


That really freaks me out that something like that is out there that we haven't discovered. VERY creepy. I must say that off all the things on this Earth, that's really the only "creature" scare that I've ever had. Probaly the only creature "phobia" if you want to call it that. The fear of the unknown is effective against me...at least in this situation. I don't want to be on a boat trip and then get attacked by some massive creature that makes a blue whale looks small.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Whatever it was, it was several times bigger than a blue whale. That's effiin' HUGE!


That really freaks me out that something like that is out there that we haven't discovered. VERY creepy. I must say that off all the things on this Earth, that's really the only "creature" scare that I've ever had. Probaly the only creature "phobia" if you want to call it that. The fear of the unknown is effective against me...at least in this situation. I don't want to be on a boat trip and then get attacked by some massive creature that makes a blue whale looks small.

Couldn't it be tectonic plates grinding against each other?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Couldn't it be tectonic plates grinding against each other?

That's what they want you to believe. How many tectonic plates grinding do you hear per day?


(sorry if I sound jerkish...just saying)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Couldn't it be tectonic plates grinding against each other?


No.


Wouldn't even sound remotely close to the same. It is similar to current animal audio recordings, but not quite a blue whales. It's very animal, in nature.




And, if what you said was true, they would have tons of audio recordings of tectonic plates sliding against each other as they are constantly moving and there are dozens of Earth quakes each day.



More to the point, I believe the DO have audio captures of Earthquakes.

If it is some gigantic living creature, I'm guessing it's some unknown species of sea life, before an intergalactic overlord of insanity, billions of years old.

That or the Cloverfield beast.

Originally posted by Robtard
If it is some gigantic living creature, I'm guessing it's some unknown species of sea life, before an intergalactic overlord of insanity, billions of years old.

That or the Cloverfield beast.

Oh, definitely.


Just that, the unknown scares the shit out of me.

Wouldn't worry too much about it, as it'd be evolved to live at great depths and pressures, should it'd die should it try and surface.

Cloverfield beast withstanding, then were ****ed, at least those of us living coastal.

There's so much we don't know about what goes on inside the earth that it's likely that it's some process either in the crust or below that we don't know about yet. The idea that it's some super giant creature is a bit silly as it'd have to feed and there most likely wouldn't be enough food in the ocean to sustain it especially in the areas and depths where it would have to reside for humans to never encounter it.

Remember that the ocean is actually very sparsely populated. There is huge swathes of ocean where there is virtually no life at all. Mostly life only occurs where there are ocean currents like the gulf stream as there isn't enough oxygen or nutrients in the water to sustain the base of the food chain, plankton.

Originally posted by jaden101
There's so much we don't know about what goes on inside the earth that it's likely that it's some process either in the crust or below that we don't know about yet. The idea that it's some super giant creature is a bit silly as it'd have to feed and there most likely wouldn't be enough food in the ocean to sustain it especially in the areas and depths where it would have to reside for humans to never encounter it.

It would just have to eat more krill than a blue whale. Several times the amount. That's not silly or absurd to think that, at all. Blue Whales don't eat all day long. Adult Blue Whales eat over 3 tons of krill and other animals, a day. A larger animal would be able to get more in each gulp. Who knows, they may spend the exact same amount of time feeding and get 9 tons of small animal life.

It's extremely unlikely to be some sort of volcanic or tectonic process. They've matched the audio to existing animal profiles. Also considering that we have measured an many occasions the various "sounds" of tectonics and other things that are "heard" from the ocean.

Originally posted by jaden101
Remember that the ocean is actually very sparsely populated. There is huge swathes of ocean where there is virtually no life at all. Mostly life only occurs where there are ocean currents like the gulf stream as there isn't enough oxygen or nutrients in the water to sustain the base of the food chain, plankton.

While the open ocean lacks the diversity seen in reefs and coastal regions, there is still large amounts of life. The diversity is lacking, of course, but it is far from sparsely populated, as you suggest. Life exists, in diversity, near the surface, in almost ever single portion of the ocean. From there, lower level fish still survive. Even in the Arctic and antarctic areas, there is significant life near the surface, under the ice.

One thing is certain: where there is water, there is life as we know it.

Except krill (as we know it) don't live that deep.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except krill (as we know it) don't live that deep.

The were able to not only triangulate the location, but also the depth?


And, whales go fairly deep to find their giant squid. No reason to think a large creature would also not go that deep. This, of course, assumes that the creature is as deep as you imply.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would just have to eat more krill than a blue whale. Several times the amount. That's not silly or absurd to think that, at all. Blue Whales don't eat all day long. Adult Blue Whales eat over 3 tons of krill and other animals, a day. A larger animal would be able to get more in each gulp. Who knows, they may spend the exact same amount of time feeding and get 9 tons of small animal life.

It's extremely unlikely to be some sort of volcanic or tectonic process. They've matched the audio to existing animal profiles. Also considering that we have measured an many occasions the various "sounds" of tectonics and other things that are "heard" from the ocean.



While the open ocean lacks the diversity seen in reefs and coastal regions, there is still large amounts of life. The diversity is lacking, of course, but it is far from sparsely populated, as you suggest. Life exists, in diversity, near the surface, in almost ever single portion of the ocean. From there, lower level fish still survive. Even in the Arctic and antarctic areas, there is significant life near the surface, under the ice.

One thing is certain: where there is water, there is life as we know it.

Are you familiar with the fact that there is 5 ocean deserts?

The bloop is supposed to have originate in one of the more barren areas of the ocean just shouth of one of the ocean deserts.

Your point about the Arctic and Antarctic tell me you're unfamiliar with the studies into the oceans because they are actually some of the most active areas of ocean going life.

Oh...I also made a mistake. The problem isn't Oxygen...It's Nitrogen. While there is huge amounts of it trapped in sea water, most microscopic organisms can't utilise it and so very few exist in those parts of the oceans. Some can, Trichodesmium for example, but because most can't, they can't form the basis of the food chain that sustains larger creatures.

The best example I can think of is that in the TV series "Nature's great events" from the BBC...The episodes "The great tide" and "The great feast" both show how neccesary the smallest animals are to sustain the food chain.

So the problem in the area where these noises came from (off the west coast of South America) is that there just isn't the numbers of organisms available.

This is no different from the Loch Ness Monster theory. Loch Ness is virtually lifeless for it's size and depth because there is so much peat in the water that no light penetrates below about 20ft. There just isn't enough fish to support anything bigger.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The were able to not only triangulate the location, but also the depth?


And, whales go fairly deep to find their giant squid. No reason to think a large creature would also not go that deep. This, of course, assumes that the creature is as deep as you imply.

It's it's supposed to be super massive, it would likely have to live extremely deep, as to remain hidden from humans all this time. As I think some ship's or sub's sonar would have noticed something this massive swimming about.

Whales do go deep, but not that deep. Once you get to very great depths, life (which we've brought up in pressurized cages) starts to take on flatter and flatter forms, as to survive the crushing pressures. This thing would have to look like one ginormous carpet-like creature and it probably couldn't survive coming up in depth to hunt giant squid and the like.

Originally posted by jaden101
The bloop is supposed to have originate in one of the more barren areas of the ocean just shouth of one of the ocean deserts.

I could have sworn that I was the one who linked to that information.


And your entire argument about a creature that large not being found in a location like it was indicates that you are unaware of the pegalic fish that exist in the open ocean. You do know that there are large creatures that pass through oceanic deserts, don't you?

What about the increased phytoplankton concentration in the region the bloop was heard from? You do know that there is a large drop north of the area?

What about migration patterns for the creature?

Would not the large animal be able to cover vast distances of ocean, while in search of food?

Originally posted by jaden101
Your point about the Arctic and Antarctic tell me you're unfamiliar with the studies into the oceans because they are actually some of the most active areas of ocean going life.

You're attempt to pass of "ocean desert" as a anything but a relative term to the other parts of the ocean, tells me that you're arguing for the sake of arguing, now. Nothing you've said changes what I said.


And, you have a bad habit of saying the same things I do.

"Even in the Arctic and antarctic areas, there is significant life near the surface, under the ice."


I guess "significant life" doesn't cut it for you?


And, no, you've shown your knowledge of oceanic life is lacking. You'd know that information on sympagic life is limited and the bounds of biodiversity relatively unknown. This applies for much of the oceanic strata in the Arctic and Antarctic areas. Wanna talk about deserts, there's your oceanic deserts. Life is extremely limited at the most treacherous parts of the poles. Very little phytoplankton can grow there.



More on topic:

Phytoplankton = the vast majority of zooplankton food.

Zooplankton = a probable food source for an animal 3 times larger than a blue whale.


But, you probably want to start talking about how much chlorophyll containg organisms live near the poles. Yada yada. No need to keep talking in circles with you and I telling each other what we already know.




Originally posted by jaden101
Oh...I also made a mistake. The problem isn't Oxygen...It's Nitrogen. While there is huge amounts of it trapped in sea water, most microscopic organisms can't utilise it and so very few exist in those parts of the oceans. Some can, Trichodesmium for example, but because most can't, they can't form the basis of the food chain that sustains larger creatures.

The best example I can think of is that in the TV series "Nature's great events" from the BBC...The episodes "The great tide" and "The great feast" both show how neccesary the smallest animals are to sustain the food chain.

K.

So how does that change anything I've said?

It doesn't.


Next, I supposed you'll reply with phytoplankton density being drastically reduced in number, in these deserts, and then say that the Zooplankton rely on those phytoplankton, then tell me that the pelagic animals are few and far between in these deserts and that I don't know what I'm talking about.


There's no need to cover things that both of us already know.

You made faulty assumption while calling me silly, I provided insight. That's it.


Originally posted by jaden101
So the problem in the area where these noises came from (off the west coast of South America) is that there just isn't the numbers of organisms available.

This is no different from the Loch Ness Monster theory. Loch Ness is virtually lifeless for it's size and depth because there is so much peat in the water that no light penetrates below about 20ft. There just isn't enough fish to support anything bigger.

Yeah, cept you kind of already hit on currents, life, and life following currents. And I hit on large, macroscopic life, existing in the open ocean, outside of major currents.

Not only this, but I've provided additional insight, still further, from my previous post.



And, you've yet to refute the largest piece of evidence that is not in your favor: they matched the audio to known animal profiles.



If you don't think large creatures swim through the weak spots, then you're wrong.

You do know that blue whales pass through that area as part of their migration patterns, right?

You do know that there is a migration patter for humpback whales, right in that area, right?



http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4565591/48901_Full.jpg

http://lewisandclarktrail.com/section4/orcities/seaside/ecola/bluedist.gif

But, you're right, I'm wrong. We can settle at that and I'll go back to wondering what kind of creature it was and you'll go back to thinking my wondering is silly.

So if you knew what I stated then why state this?



Like those areas should somehow have less density of life?

And actually, if you superimpose the migration patterns of the whales to those of the ocean deserts you'll see that they either stop short of them of avoid them by going around them (Particularly in the case of the one in South America where the destination is a small but dense feeding area.

There's a reason they're called migration "routes"

Just think of it as going from the east coast to the west coast of the US...Between the places people actually give a **** about, you have to pass over thousands of miles of empty pointless shit that has the occasional weird looking inbred form of life.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/globe2.jpg

Large picture ^

Originally posted by jaden101
So if you knew what I stated then why state this?


Dude, I'm not going to explain a conversation that you could see just a tad up the page.

If you REALLY must know, it's cause you said this:



We aren't doing this, again, Jaden. No way do I feel like requoting myself or yourself, over and over again.

Originally posted by jaden101
Like those areas should somehow have less density of life?

And actually, if you superimpose the migration patterns of the whales to those of the ocean deserts you'll see that they either stop short of them of avoid them by going around them (Particularly in the case of the one in South America where the destination is a small but dense feeding area.

There's a reason they're called migration "routes"

Just think of it as going from the east coast to the west coast of the US...Between the places people actually give a **** about, you have to pass over thousands of miles of empty pointless shit that has the occasional weird looking inbred form of life.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/globe2.jpg

Large picture ^



Woah woah woah.

Why did you skip the whole part where I disproved this argument of yours:




To which I replied:




I don't want to start arguing your strawmans. (lol, doesn't sound right.) I wanna stay on topic.



Instead, it looks like you're arguing a strawman. I don't care that the whales stop just short of the empty ocean (which isn't true, the swim through some of it.) That's not the point. You tried arguing Ocean Deserts being a factor and not enough food for really large creature to feed off of.

The area the creature was in is NOT part of the southern pacific ocean desert. On top of that, both Whales swim through a relative desert portion in the southern pacific desert.

Since the creature was heard in an area that Baleen whales are found in a regular pattern, this directly contradicts your whole argument. On top of that, those same whales swim right through an ocean desert. This destroys both points in your argument and your ocean desert comment was a strawman, as the bloop was not heard in an ocean desert.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, I'm not going to explain a conversation that you could see just a tad up the page.

If you REALLY must know, it's cause you said this:



We aren't doing this, again, Jaden. No way do I feel like requoting myself or yourself, over and over again.




Woah woah woah.

Why did you skip the whole part where I disproved this argument of yours:




To which I replied:




I don't want to start arguing your strawmans. (lol, doesn't sound right.) I wanna stay on topic.



Instead, it looks like you're arguing a strawman. I don't care that the whales stop just short of the empty ocean (which isn't true, the swim through some of it.) That's not the point. You tried arguing Ocean Deserts being a factor and not enough food for really large creature to feed off of.

The area the creature was in is NOT part of the southern pacific ocean desert. On top of that, both Whales swim through a relative desert portion in the southern pacific desert.

Since the creature was heard in an area that Baleen whales are found in a regular pattern, this directly contradicts your whole argument. On top of that, those same whales swim right through an ocean desert. This destroys both points in your argument and your ocean desert comment was a strawman, as the bloop was not heard in an ocean desert.


They don't swim through it...They swim around it. It's clear as day on the migration maps you posted compared with the ocean life map I posted. They skirt the coast of South America to avoid the ocean desert. Even if they were going through it, it's not where they go to feed. That's why it's called a migration route.

So unless you have evidence that this "giant creature", which any sensible person knows doesn't exist, is also simply migrating then why continue to even pretend like you're putting up a logical argument.

Think about it. You're arguing for the existance of a creature that has allegedly been heard once and the noise is similar to that of other large creatures only a lot deeper. This creature has never been seen, supposedly resides in an area of the ocean where the Santiago shipping lanes pass through. An area of the ocean with little life to sustain it. Even if it did live on krill or plankton as many large whales do, there wouldn't be enough in that area to sustain it.


Logic would dictate that if this creature existed and had to feed then it would have to migrate to feeding grounds similar to those of whales. So why, despite the fact that most of the feeding grounds for whales and other sea creatures are now well documented and well filmed, has this creature never been seen.

And no. You clearly haven't disproven anything. Why? Because you stated that whales regularly swim through ocean deserts as part of their migration patterns. When the truth is that if you overlap the maps of the migration patterns with that of the ocean deserts then there is very few of those that pass through the most barren areas of the ocean.

That'll be those areas of ocean that you basically tried to argue didn't even exist at the beginning of this debate by saying that life is...



Which is, quite simply, not the case.

The only part of your argument that is valid is that the bloop wasn't heard in the middle of the ocean desert. It was, however, heard in a very unproductive part of the ocean relative to where feeding grounds are. The only saving grace for the argument is that a relatively short distance west and south of where the bloop was heard there is good feeding grounds.

Still...Until there is more solid evidence for this creature other than that of a noise then I'll continue believing it's nonsense....You wont.

On a related note, however. I think that the "slowdown" unknown noise is far more interesting.

Originally posted by jaden101
They don't swim through it...They swim around it. It's clear as day on the migration maps you posted compared with the ocean life map I posted. They skirt the coast of South America to avoid the ocean desert. Even if they were going through it, it's not where they go to feed. That's why it's called a migration route.

So unless you have evidence that this "giant creature", which any sensible person knows doesn't exist, is also simply migrating then why continue to even pretend like you're putting up a logical argument.

Think about it. You're arguing for the existance of a creature that has allegedly been heard once and the noise is similar to that of other large creatures only a lot deeper. This creature has never been seen, supposedly resides in an area of the ocean where the Santiago shipping lanes pass through. An area of the ocean with little life to sustain it. Even if it did live on krill or plankton as many large whales do, there wouldn't be enough in that area to sustain it.


Logic would dictate that if this creature existed and had to feed then it would have to migrate to feeding grounds similar to those of whales. So why, despite the fact that most of the feeding grounds for whales and other sea creatures are now well documented and well filmed, has this creature never been seen.

And no. You clearly haven't disproven anything. Why? Because you stated that whales regularly swim through ocean deserts as part of their migration patterns. When the truth is that if you overlap the maps of the migration patterns with that of the ocean deserts then there is very few of those that pass through the most barren areas of the ocean.

That'll be those areas of ocean that you basically tried to argue didn't even exist at the beginning of this debate by saying that life is...



Which is, quite simply, not the case.

The only part of your argument that is valid is that the bloop wasn't heard in the middle of the ocean desert. It was, however, heard in a very unproductive part of the ocean relative to where feeding grounds are. The only saving grace for the argument is that a relatively short distance west and south of where the bloop was heard there is good feeding grounds.

Still...Until there is more solid evidence for this creature other than that of a noise then I'll continue believing it's nonsense....You wont.



This is really easy to address.

No, they do not swim around it. Nice try.

The evidence is both the sound and he audio profile matching existing animal profiles.

Logical fallacy. We cannot tell that the creature does not "reside" in that part of the ocean. It is much more likely that the creature was passing through onto much more plentiful waters.

It is quite a common FACT that we are far from discovering all of the fauna secrets in the ocean. A creature as large as a bluewhale...hmmm. Have we seen them all? It's rather dim to think we could see all of the creatures in the ocean.

Another logical fallacy. You just said that it resides in a specific area, and now you imply that it has to migrate to feed. You seem to know so much about so little. And, you assume waaaaay too much in the way of feeding for this creature. Your assumptions are almost baseless. I'm quite sure you could think of a TON of what ifs, what ifs, what ifs, what ifs. Go ahead, try to think of more that are more supportive of a large baleen creature.


Yes, I've clearly disproven your entire argument. It is completely off and factually wrong. You shouldn't have replied at all.

Lemme show you what you did:

Jaden: "A creature that large couldn't be sustained. Not enough food."

dadudemon: "Uh. No. Baleen whales seem to get along just fine. A creature 3 times larger just would have to eat more. Besides, whales don't eat 24/7."

Jaden: "DUDE! Ocean deserts! Which have nothing to do with this conversation! They have no creatures!"

dadudemon: "Sure, the life is far less diverse and populated as say a coral reef, but it's hardly barren."

Jaden: "No large creature that large could live there. It is a barren place."

dadudemon: "Uh. Yeah. Blue Whales and Humpbacks pass through there all the time."





All of your arguments have been full of fail.

You have presented nothing plausible.

It IS possible a creature that large could live, be in that location, never be seen, etc.

What if it has been seen? What if people, having no sense of scale, saw a 150 foot whale? By my math, a 150 foot whale would be about 3 times as massive as a 100 foot whale. The do get up to 110 feet, there about. That's just 1 single "what if" that is unlikely, but still plausible. We have no idea if very few whales have a growing disorder similar to other creatures.



And, you can continue to believe it's not a creature. And I'll continue to believe the sound experts who matched it it existing animal audio profiles. (The same guys who debunk Sasquatch calls and call them human because some idiot went into the woods and made some monkey or ape sounds...are the same types who matched this audio profile. I'm sure you'd be all over agreeing with those audio-experts when they disproved a Sasquatch call, but nooooo, when they match it to something that could be real, it's crazy talk.)

Similar to.




I thought you'd try and pick me up on saying that it was only heard once...It was actually heard several times in 1997...All from the same area of ocean...Suggesting that, if it exists, it is not migratory.




Strawman...I never suggested that all the species of the oceans have been discovered. We haven't even discovered all the species of the land yet...As shown by todays announcement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8210000/8210394.stm





Yet not 3 lines before this you said.



It's also not a logical fallacy to presume that a creature that supposedly needs to be many times larger than a blue whale (the largest creature ever documented to have existed in all of history) has to migrate in order to find food.



You've disproven or proven nothing but your own astounding ignorance.




1: I would never use the word "Dude"...It's the staple of idiot surfers and annoying teenage halfwits.

2: No the conversation didn't go anything like that. For one, you tried to make out like it should be some kind of surprise that there is a large amount of ocean life near the poles...It seems that the only person that this fact was a surprise to is yourself because anyone with even basic knowlege of the oceans knows that the poles have a huge abundane of life.

3: You tried to make it out as if whales regularly live in the most barren parts of the ocean...You even tried to make out that they regularly pass through those areas of ocean all the time...But anyone who actually bothers to look at the migration patters you posted and the map of ocean life that I posted can see that they rarely overlap.

4: Again...Even when they do pass through those areas...That doesn't equate to them living there...If I pass through a ghost town in my car...It doesn't mean I live there.

Originally posted by jaden101
Similar to.




I thought you'd try and pick me up on saying that it was only heard once...It was actually heard several times in 1997...All from the same area of ocean...Suggesting that, if it exists, it is not migratory.

Fail. It didn't occur all year long. Just during the summer.




Originally posted by jaden101
Strawman...I never suggested that all the species of the oceans have been discovered. We haven't even discovered all the species of the land yet...As shown by todays announcement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8210000/8210394.stm

It's called hyperbole. OBVIOUSLY that's not what you said. I'm exaggerating your side of things.






Originally posted by jaden101
Yet not 3 lines before this you said.

Fail. The time period it was detected wasn't for very long. It is still more likely that it was migrating then remaining stationary, unless it feeds on humpback whales and blue whales. Seeeee.

You're focusing on one thing that I took care of in the same post. You know you were wrong on almost all points, so you're trying to "pwn" me back. I've been wrong before, and I admitted it. Just try it.

And, here's where I allowed for more than one possability to be allowed other than migration, stationary, how it lives, etc.

"I'm quite sure you could think of a TON of what ifs, what ifs, what ifs, what ifs."




Originally posted by jaden101
It's also not a logical fallacy to presume that a creature that supposedly needs to be many times larger than a blue whale (the largest creature ever documented to have existed in all of history) has to migrate in order to find food.


If you believe that, then you don't know what a logical fallacy is. I simply presented a plausible "what if". It is very plausible that the creature would be baleen and migrate. There are tons of other what ifs, as well. I covered that in my post.



Originally posted by jaden101
You've disproven or proven nothing but your own astounding ignorance.

The exact opposite is true. I've proven that my knowledge isn't wiki based, like yours always is, and I've destroyed your arguments rather absurdly.




Originally posted by jaden101
1: I would never use the word "Dude"...It's the staple of idiot surfers and annoying teenage halfwits.

Ahhh. I see. Add hominem logical fallacy. Because I do "a", then my unrelated claim "x" is wrong. Good job.

You do know that my username is "dadudemon", don't you? There's a reason that's my user name, dude.

Originally posted by jaden101
2: No the conversation didn't go anything like that. For one, you tried to make out like it should be some kind of surprise that there is a large amount of ocean life near the poles...It seems that the only person that this fact was a surprise to is yourself because anyone with even basic knowlege of the oceans knows that the poles have a huge abundane of life.

In your mind, the conversation didn't go anything like that, which is why we are still having a conversation after I handily destroyed your points. but in the real world, that's a gross digest of what has occurred.


And, no, you're wrong. There is very little life, relative to the other areas, under the icecaps. Around the poles, there is life, yes. Nice try, though. That was very much already covered by myself. See why I say that you just recycle what I say and pretend it's new information?

There's also the fact that I certainly didn't "act surprised". I pointed out that there is life at the poles (referring to UNDER The ice caps, btw..) You can't pretend as if you made that point and I was shocked because you didn't make the point, I did. It's so ridiculous what you're trying to do here.

Originally posted by jaden101
3: You tried to make it out as if whales regularly live in the most barren parts of the ocean...You even tried to make out that they regularly pass through those areas of ocean all the time...But anyone who actually bothers to look at the migration patters you posted and the map of ocean life that I posted can see that they rarely overlap.

No I certainly didn't.

This is exactly what I said, slander dude:

"On top of that, both Whales swim through a relative desert portion in the southern pacific desert."




I guess you should either:

A. Not lie.

or

B. Pay attention.

Originally posted by jaden101
4: Again...Even when they do pass through those areas...That doesn't equate to them living there...If I pass through a ghost town in my car...It doesn't mean I live there.

Riiiiight. So, I guess you missed the point of why I even said it.

Don't you remember waaaaay back in the beginning of this conversation you were saying shit about that thing not being able to survive in that area because there's nothing to eat?

Remember that?

Remember?


Since it was only heard there for a short period of time, your logic failed.


Compounding that logic, whales pass through a relative oceanic desert portion.


Get it?









Dude, if you're going to be this way the rest of the conversation, we should stop. I really can't debate or argue with someone who can't remember 3 posts back, slanders me by accident or on purpose, and misses points. That isn't my idea of a thrilling debate.

Strawman....did I say anything about it being spread throughout the year?...Nah.

Was it all in the same area?...Yes...




You're not exaggerating my argument. You're just lieing and making stuff up.



Were all the times it was detected all from roughly the same location?...Yes...So how does that indicate that it was migratory...And even if it did feed on whales then how would that mean it had to be stationary when the whales themselves are migratory...You do realise that predators actually follow their migrating prey don't you? I mean I did post information about 2 documentaries showing just that.




The only thing you've proven is that your knowlege is wrong.



Good for you. Best you don't try and tar others with the same brush you tar yourself with though. It's not appreciated.




You can keep repeating that line in some sad attempt to convince yourself you're winning this one but your astounding levels of ignorance and huge amounts of backtracking show otherwise.




Actually you're wrong...Extremely wrong...I suggest you look it up.





So why say "There' EVEN life at the poles" (paraphrased) like there shouldn't be. As I said, anyone with basic knowledge of ocean life knows there is. Anyone with basic knowledge of ocean life also knows there are barren areas of the ocean. You seemingly didn't know either at the start of this thread and then got all offended when I tried to tell you that information.




I remember being right...And I can see that I still am...All your "evidence" points to it remaining in an area of ocean where there is relatively little life. Far too little to sustain a species several times greater than the largest species ever seen on earth.

Of course, there's also the fact that it's never been seen or heard from again.



You couldn't even remember 3 lines back...Never mind 3 posts.

Yes probably best if you do stop.

I can give several more plausible explanations for the sound that still incorporate the animal theory.

1: That it is either simply a larger member of a currently known specie.. As we can see from humans, great variation in size due to genetic mutations can occur. Robert Wadlow for example was 8ft 11in and the tallest man to have ever lived due to a problem with his pituitary gland. Gul Mohammed on the other hand was the shortest person ever at under 2ft. There's no reason to think this couldn't happen with other species.

2: It was a normal sized whale but with enlarged sound apparatus.

3: Atmospheric focussing. A phenomena that means that sound waves can be channelled a focused for greater distances than normally possible because of pressure fluctuations in the surrounding atmosphere. Meaning that even a noise of a normal sized whale could be carried over longer distances and it's effects at the recording end amplified.

Originally posted by jaden101
Strawman....did I say anything about it being spread throughout the year?...Nah.

Was it all in the same area?...Yes...

The real strawman is you trying to pass it off as some sort of long ass phenomenon when it was just a brief period of time during the summer. Nice try though, to dodge that.




Originally posted by jaden101
You're not exaggerating my argument. You're just lieing and making stuff up.

Nah, it was hyperbole. It was obvious. We both know it was. No reason to pretend it was something it wasn't.



Originally posted by jaden101
Were all the times it was detected all from roughly the same location?...Yes...So how does that indicate that it was migratory...And even if it did feed on whales then how would that mean it had to be stationary when the whales themselves are migratory...You do realise that predators actually follow their migrating prey don't you? I mean I did post information about 2 documentaries showing just that.

Do you know the exact period of time it was detected during that time period? Was it 3 months? one month?

Etc.

Then we measure the various locations it was found, during that time period. See if there was a general, but slight, pattern of movement.

Measure that against normal and abnormal behaviors that are specific to the baleen whales that pass through the area. Find any semblance. (I'm betting on it just being a really large blue whale. That's my guess.)




Originally posted by jaden101
The only thing you've proven is that your knowlege is wrong.

Do you really want to start doing a "nuh uhhhh!" "uhh huhh!"?



Originally posted by jaden101
Good for you. Best you don't try and tar others with the same brush you tar yourself with though. It's not appreciated.


Great job in saying the same thing back to me that I said to you, just in a different way.

You didn't even deny that you're another one of those "Wiki Warriors."



Originally posted by jaden101
You can keep repeating that line in some sad attempt to convince yourself you're winning this one but your astounding levels of ignorance and huge amounts of backtracking show otherwise.

Odd. I said something similar to you, earlier. And, you can keep pretending that your points were valid and not utterly destroyed.

"Astounding amounts of backtracking" is just absurd. It's more or less you getting caught with your pants done with rather ignorant skepticism. I called you on it, and you aren't dealing with it very well.





Originally posted by jaden101
Actually you're wrong...Extremely wrong...I suggest you look it up.

I did look it up.


And you can't find it on wiki, sir.

Go ahead and find it. When you do, post it here to prove me right.

"And, no, you're wrong. There is very little life, relative to the other areas, under the icecaps. Around the poles, there is life, yes. Nice try, though. That was very much already covered by myself. See why I say that you just recycle what I say and pretend it's new information?"







Originally posted by jaden101
So why say "There' EVEN life at the poles" (paraphrased) like there shouldn't be. As I said, anyone with basic knowledge of ocean life knows there is. Anyone with basic knowledge of ocean life also knows there are barren areas of the ocean. You seemingly didn't know either at the start of this thread and then got all offended when I tried to tell you that information.

Jaden Jaden Jaden.


We've been over this, already. Do you really want me to quote myself and yourself again?







Originally posted by jaden101
I remember being right...And I can see that I still am...All your "evidence" points to it remaining in an area of ocean where there is relatively little life. Far too little to sustain a species several times greater than the largest species ever seen on earth.

You are right, at times, but you're disgustingly wrong about this one.

Originally posted by jaden101
Of course, there's also the fact that it's never been seen or heard from again.

Indeed. Rather disappointing.



Originally posted by jaden101
You couldn't even remember 3 lines back...Never mind 3 posts.

Yes probably best if you do stop.

Uh....dude.


You need to try harder than to recycle that same things I've said to you about your problems. You have proven in multiple locations on this board that you don't follow conversations well. I assure you, that's not the reason I am attracted to discussions with you. In fact, that's the worse thing you have going against yourself. I like discussing things with you because you're very logical, you can read and understand new information and contribute to the conversation, and you're not an idiot.

Now, having said that, I followed this conversation with no problems. I've pointed out where you aren't keeping up, and I even gave you the chance to drop one of the points where you missed something again.

Originally posted by jaden101
I can give several more plausible explanations for the sound that still incorporate the animal theory.


Let's see what you've got.

Originally posted by jaden101
1: That it is either simply a larger member of a currently known specie.. As we can see from humans, great variation in size due to genetic mutations can occur. Robert Wadlow for example was 8ft 11in and the tallest man to have ever lived due to a problem with his pituitary gland. Gul Mohammed on the other hand was the shortest person ever at under 2ft. There's no reason to think this couldn't happen with other species.

Indeed. I've submitted this idea already, myself. Very plausible and what I personally think is the most likely of reasons.

Originally posted by jaden101
2: It was a normal sized whale but with enlarged sound apparatus.

It wouldn't have dissipated evenly as a sound wave in most circumstances. I thought about this already...I'm just having a hard time thinking of a "formation" that would allow this to happen. The same amount of energy would have been in this "call" as the others, so it would have dissipated, just as quickly if not more so, in other areas.

However, I digress. What if this whale was in a cave? Then we would see a harmonic at a specific frequency range with the amplification, and see a sharp drop off as the frequency rose above the optimal resonance state....then we would see another harmonic reached, and so forth. (These are called "beats" in acoustical physics...when you have something playing at say, 64Hz, then you have something playing at 68Hz, you would get a beat when the faster crest harmonizes with the slower 64Hz crest.) In other words, we would see this phenomenon. If myself, as a relative(lol, physics pun) newb to physics, can think of a way that a resonance chamber would be easy to pick out, the professionals with their' Ph.D.'s in acoustical physics, etc. would be able to do a MUCH better job.

That's why I threw that idea out as not plausible.

Originally posted by jaden101
3: Atmospheric focussing. A phenomena that means that sound waves can be channelled a focused for greater distances than normally possible because of pressure fluctuations in the surrounding atmosphere. Meaning that even a noise of a normal sized whale could be carried over longer distances and it's effects at the recording end amplified.

These sounds were detected underwater. I've never heard or read about this phenomenon being observed in liquids, though it probably exists, just not to the same extent.

I'd think that since water does not compress or expand nearly the same as the atmosphere, this would not apply. We would see affects to this in the perceived intensity of the sound. This would quickly be narrowed down with an amplification, and this relates to your second point. It should have an almost uniform dissipation rate, if there is no amplification occurring,.This would quickly be seen as an amplification and not an actual sound, if this were the case.

Scrolling to the bottom of this page takes a while. haha.

I can't even be bothered to read it, never mind reply just now because i'm just back home after a 14 hour shift at work and then out to watch Scotland get ****ed over at the football.

Ach bollocks...Might as well.



Nah. Hyperbole is exaggerating something. You didn't exaggerate. You fabricated something...That's lieing, not hyperbole.




Do you?

I'm sure a man of your intelligence knows how far a whale can migrate over the course of a month. Far greater the the area the sounds were detected.





You already know my level of education is beyond yours so why even try and argue that point.





And you're still wrong. Great "research" there, son. Well done.



You keep going on about wiki...So show me where i've used it.





My points haven't been destroyed because my points are FACTUAL and yours aren't. You don't truth with lies. That's how it works.



Again, i'm the one who's posted the factual information. You're the one that claims that whale migration patterns regularly pass through barren areas of the ocean. You kept repeating that point despite the fact that the maps show otherwise.



Don't bother. I'll do it myself.



I can only presume this information was aimed at me after I brought up the term "ocean deserts". I already knew they existed and where they were so who exactly was this nugget of information aimed at and why did you start it with "even" as if that information should somehow be a surprise to me.

You even went so far as to state my claim that the poles weren't just above average in terms of the amount of life but infact that they are one of the most abundant areas in all the oceans. The proof of it, again, is in the map of ocean life I posted already. You then went on to say



Thus massively contradicting yourself again.

The only thing you seem to be doing is attempting to patronise me. It's not working. Clearly.



Glad we have some points of agreement.



You could be right. I've never looked into the details of atmospheric focussing but if it relies on compression waves then it'd be ruled out. I do like the phenomena of atmospheric focussing though (yes I like bombs.... ) So i thought i'd throw it in there.

It's not Cthulhu, people. For the simple reason that it would be way too awesome to be true... among others.

Originally posted by jaden101
Nah. Hyperbole is exaggerating something. You didn't exaggerate. You fabricated something...That's lieing, not hyperbole.






Originally posted by jaden101
Do you?

I'm sure a man of your intelligence knows how far a whale can migrate over the course of a month. Far greater the the area the sounds were detected.

And I'm also sure a man of your knowledge knows that it isn't a straight shot, sometimes, because they stop sometimes and stay in an area for a while. I personally don't know why, but I'm sure you do or could figure it out.





Originally posted by jaden101
You already know my level of education is beyond yours so why even try and argue that point.

Wow. How entirely unrelated of you to say.

However, I will not deny this comment. I've gone to school for about 5 years, now, total. You've probably done at least 8. Am I right?





Originally posted by jaden101
And you're still wrong. Great "research" there, son. Well done.

Nuuhhh uuuhhh! dur

And, thanks dad. WEEE!



Originally posted by jaden101
You keep going on about wiki...So show me where i've used it.

You know you're using it for this whole thing, and I know it. But, of course, now you're doing "nuuuhhh uuuhh!" again.





Originally posted by jaden101
My points haven't been destroyed because my points are FACTUAL and yours aren't. You don't truth with lies. That's how it works.

Nuuuh uuuuh! It's clear for all to see that I've owned you, horrendously. It's a virtual slaughter, really. Saying you're right doesn't make you right. Me proving you wong makes you wrong, though.



Originally posted by jaden101
Again, i'm the one who's posted the factual information. You're the one that claims that whale migration patterns regularly pass through barren areas of the ocean. You kept repeating that point despite the fact that the maps show otherwise.

Nuuu uuuuhhh!

And, no, the map clearly shows the following:

"On top of that, both Whales swim through a relative desert portion in the southern pacific desert."


Originally posted by jaden101
Don't bother. I'll do it myself.

Good job. 'bout time.



Originally posted by jaden101
I can only presume this information was aimed at me after I brought up the term "ocean deserts." I already knew they existed and where they were so who exactly was this nugget of information aimed at and why did you start it with "even" as if that information should somehow be a surprise to me.

You mean to tell me you forgot already? Dude...seriously.



Originally posted by jaden101
You even went so far as to state my claim that the poles weren't just above average in terms of the amount of life but infact that they are one of the most abundant areas in all the oceans. The proof of it, again, is in the map of ocean life I posted already. You then went on to say


K. And this is you probbaly missing my point.




Originally posted by jaden101
Thus massively contradicting yourself again.

The only thing you seem to be doing is attempting to patronise me. It's not working. Clearly.

I was right. You did miss the point.

No, it's you failing to pay attention.

Do you know the difference, Jaden?

I'll tell you instead of quoting myself over and over.

The difference is


"around"

and

"under"


Think about it for a bit and it will click.

And, you started with the patronizing, from the very beginning. I am usually polite. I don't start the insulting or "haughty" talk ever, unless it's a sock troll I'm addressing.


If you'd like, we can stop using the patronizing tones in our posts. I'm perfectly okay with that and most of my conversations are like that. Besides, I think I'm all out of smartass comments.

Originally posted by jaden101
Glad we have some points of agreement.

Indeed. We rarely disagree, but when we do, it's a mess.



Originally posted by jaden101
You could be right. I've never looked into the details of atmospheric focussing but if it relies on compression waves then it'd be ruled out. I do like the phenomena of atmospheric focussing though (yes I like bombs.... ) So i thought i'd throw it in there.

I think it has to do with the ability for something to compress or decompress. Air is easier to do that to. Much easier than water.

As your obessesed ass probably knows, they did nuke tests underwater. I wonder if they "listened" for how far away the explosions were heard?

Very true...."You wanna throw hands?...Lets throw hands."




I may well have to look into that.




I think that's the best option.

Anyway...Without going into detail as we seem to be going around in circles anyway...is this.

You're a man of science. You should know that jumping to conclusions on extremely small amounts of evidence is silly.

I'm open to the idea that could be a massive and previously undiscovered species. I just think that, given the technology we have at our disposal now, that it'd be extremely likely we'd have more evidence than we do for a species that would need to be substantially bigger than a blue whale.

We know from previous science that it can't simply be a single creature as how would it have ever came into being. We also know that if a species is to survive then it needs a large enough gene pool so that recessive, detrimental traits don't become expressed as tends to happen in inbred species.

I don't believe the evidence is solid or abundant enough to have an opinion that the creature exists.

Originally posted by jaden101


Very true...."You wanna throw hands?...Lets throw hands."

Yeah right. Those big meaty hands would break my face.




Originally posted by jaden101
I think that's the best option.

Anyway...Without going into detail as we seem to be going around in circles anyway...is this.

You're a man of science. You should know that jumping to conclusions on extremely small amounts of evidence is silly.

I'm open to the idea that could be a massive and previously undiscovered species. I just think that, given the technology we have at our disposal now, that it'd be extremely likely we'd have more evidence than we do for a species that would need to be substantially bigger than a blue whale.

We know from previous science that it can't simply be a single creature as how would it have ever came into being. We also know that if a species is to survive then it needs a large enough gene pool so that recessive, detrimental traits don't become expressed as tends to happen in inbred species.

I don't believe the evidence is solid or abundant enough to have an opinion that the creature exists.

I would say that since we can quite readily identify sounds to animals or types of animals, it is almost a no-brainer to assume it was a large baleen whale. Could be a new species that survives in small numbers...but it is unlikely. As I said, it is most likely a large Blue Whale. A 150+ footer. Shouldn't be unusual for a baleen whale that is 50% larger than most blue whales, to exist, as that happens quite often in other mammal species.

The fact that it matches other animal profiles means its an animal without a doubt. Nothing in nature, other than those animals, produces that sound. No, plates rubbing against each other, volcanic activity, etc. None of those sound even remotely close, nor do they even look remotely close on the spectrogram. If I'm not mistaken, they have audio profiles that can be automatically matched to those definitions with software. Something this big, however, would be done both automatically and manually.

It's really solid evidence and there's really no way around it other than it being an animal...most likely a really large Baleen whale.

And, since so many recordings were taken, it expanded the sample pool in which to measure, further solidifying the case. If you spoke to one of these acoustical biologists, they'd probably say something like, "Well, who the hell are you?"

It'd be like them telling you that a benzodiazipine does not attach to and modulate the GABAA receptors. (I'm not sure where in chemsitry you are, but I figure something like this would be a good example of what I mean.)

They'd probably tear into you for basically belittling their entire profession by indirectly calling all of their results "dubious at best." You see what I mean?

I'm calling the body of evidence dubious. No other recordings before or since 1997, No other evidence besides those recordings.

Last week's New Scientist had a small part on the bloop. Saying that the theory gaining popularity among scientists is that it was polar ice breaking up.

Originally posted by jaden101
then out to watch Scotland get ****ed over at the football. Well at least this was the most entertaining campaign in a long while for us. Looked like we could actually beat the Netherlands until the second half came around. It was like in every game some thing went wrong and I can't help but laugh. Remember Iwelumo's miss in the Norway game, how is that even possible?