Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

prehistoric eel shark found

S

stilleto

ELITE MENTOR
EF VIP
Is it a requirement to be out-right freakishly ugly and night mare scary to live that far down in the water or what? Anything pretty ever come out of that depth?
 
Rabid_Goose said:
Is it a requirement to be out-right freakishly ugly and night mare scary to live that far down in the water or what? Anything pretty ever come out of that depth?
Click to expand...


Good point.
 
where... I don't see no eel shark
 
I had gotten an email some time back on some of the creatures of the deep that came up to shore after that huge typhoon hit, some had never been discovered before. Lots of creepies there.
 
it doesn't look like a very sucessful species. it looks so akward and i can't imagine that being much of a threat to anything. and did they say why it's being considered a shark? looks like a sturgeon/mud puppy....
 
I saw that on the news the other night.

That is what I was about to say, Stilleto. If it came up from the depths, it was dying. They have only seen those sharks dead before. They surface sometimes when they die. I guess they were just in the right place at the right time this time when it was coming up to die.
 
How does anyone know it came up to die?????? Did it speak to you in a dream or something?? We don't know enough about it to know why it came up, especially not those speculating here on ef. We should of left her alone and maybe she would of lived; it's not for us to say because none of you know for sure.
 
youngguns said:
I love it..
"This is an extremely rare share eal almost never seen.....so we decided to kill it" lol
becasue that's what humans do..
Click to expand...
what I was thinking too
 
krishna said:
How does anyone know it came up to die?????? Did it speak to you in a dream or something?? We don't know enough about it to know why it came up, especially not those speculating here on ef. We should of left her alone and maybe she would of lived; it's not for us to say because none of you know for sure.
Click to expand...
Because their swim bladders fail them when they are dying and cause them to surface. They can no longer regulate their depth. They wouldn't just come up to the top. Their bodies are geared to the deep sea. The change in pressure alone would be very bad, if not fatal.
 
stilleto said:
because it's dead, genius.
Click to expand...

Ya it died while it was being transported from the ocean GENIOUS! Like I said, we should of left her alone and let nature decide her fate. Maybe she was dying, maybe she wasn't.
 
krishna said:
Ya it died while it was being transported from the ocean GENIOUS! Like I said, we should of left her alone and let nature decide her fate. Maybe she was dying, maybe she wasn't.
Click to expand...
She was, Krishna. I'm an animal lover as much as the next person, but that thing was a goner.
 
heatherrae said:
Because their swim bladders fail them when they are dying and cause them to surface. They can no longer regulate their depth. They wouldn't just come up to the top. Their bodies are geared to the deep sea. The change in pressure alone would be very bad, if not fatal.
Click to expand...


I thought you were a lawyer, not a marine biologist :p Anyhoo, seems like a reasonable answer, but by no means conclusive. There is much about nature we don't understand or know, even though we pretend to, especially about deep sea creatures.
 
krishna said:
I thought you were a lawyer, not a marine biologist :p Anyhoo, seems like a reasonable answer, but by no means conclusive. There is much about nature we don't understand or know, even though we pretend to, especially about deep sea creatures.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We are on the same page in heart and spirit about this. No need to sweat the details.
 
heatherrae said:
She was, Krishna. I'm an animal lover as much as the next person, but that thing was a goner.
Click to expand...

Ya, but only because it was inevitable that we'd take her out of the ocean to examine her. Other than that, there is no proof that she would of died. We should of followed her until she died and then took her from the ocean. Then it would of been ok with me.
 
krishna said:
Ya it died while it was being transported from the ocean GENIOUS! Like I said, we should of left her alone and let nature decide her fate. Maybe she was dying, maybe she wasn't.
Click to expand...

should HAVE.
and yes, it was already dying, that's why it was hundreds of feet above the level it's supposed to be.
:rolleyes:
 
Amazing! I love stuff like this! It really baffles the mind to think of all the species of creatures we have not yet discovered.
Didn't like seeing it dead....but you know me
 
stilleto said:
should HAVE.
and yes, it was already dying, that's why it was hundreds of feet above the level it's supposed to be.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So if I go hundreds of feet above the level I'm supposed to be, does that mean I'm dying everytime I get in an airplane? :p Again, no proof, and your logic is flawed.
 
krishna said:
So if I go hundreds of feet above the level I'm supposed to be, does that mean I'm dying everytime I get in an airplane? :p Again, no proof, and your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...
Your logic is flawed, Krishna. You are in a pressurized cabin, or yes you would die. Likewise with the shark.
 
heatherrae said:
Your logic is flawed, Krishna. You are in a pressurized cabin, or yes you would die. Likewise with the shark.
Click to expand...

Are the people that climb mountains a thousand feet above sea level in a pressurized cabin? Us humans, who aren't even designed for water, can go down pretty deep for short periods and still survive. Who are you to say what a sea creature that you know nothing about can and can't do? Maybe she could of survived for a short period and gone back down. Again, no proof. You can claim to know all you want, but it means nothing.
 
krishna said:
So if I go hundreds of feet above the level I'm supposed to be, does that mean I'm dying everytime I get in an airplane? :p Again, no proof, and your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...

are you a fish who lives hundreds of miles below sea level?

no? oh, then you're just stupid. the thing was dying. so say what you want about my logic, but you're still stupid.

and now you can read these quotes:
""We think it may have come close to the surface because it was sick, or else it was weakened because it was in shallow waters," Reuters quoted an official at the park as saying."

"This rare surface appearance of a frilled shark has been attributed to the animal being unwell and possibly disorientated.[4]"

""We believe moving pictures of a live specimen are extremely rare," said an official at the park. "They live between 1,968 and 3,280 feet (600 and 1,000 meters) under the water, which is deeper than humans can go." "
 
heatherrae said:
Your logic is flawed, Krishna. You are in a pressurized cabin, or yes you would die. Likewise with the shark.
Click to expand...

And no you wouldn't die or all the parachuters would be dead before they landed. You're slippin girl.
 
stilleto said:
are you a fish who lives hundreds of miles below sea level?

no? oh, then you're just stupid. the thing was dying. so say what you want about my logic, but you're still stupid.

and now you can read these quotes:
""We think it may have come close to the surface because it was sick, or else it was weakened because it was in shallow waters," Reuters quoted an official at the park as saying."

"This rare surface appearance of a frilled shark has been attributed to the animal being unwell and possibly disorientated.[4]"

""We believe moving pictures of a live specimen are extremely rare," said an official at the park. "They live between 1,968 and 3,280 feet (600 and 1,000 meters) under the water, which is deeper than humans can go." "
Click to expand...

Notice the words 'we think' or 'we believe'. Those are experts talking and they don't even know for sure. All I'm saying is you don't know, and you're the stupid one for claiming to. One of your quotes said it could of simply been disoriented, and who's to say once it got its whitts, it couldn't of went back down and survived? Don't get so defensive, it's a sign of being wrong. The experts don't know for sure, but you do right? Give me a break!
 
krishna said:
Are the people that climb mountains a thousand feet above sea level in a pressurized cabin? Us humans, who aren't even designed for water, can go down pretty deep for short periods and still survive. Who are you to say what a sea creature that you know nothing about can and can't do? Maybe she could of survived for a short period and gone back down. Again, no proof. You can claim to know all you want, but it means nothing.
Click to expand...
The difference Krishna in mountain climbing and your example is the gradual ascent. Also, many people do die every year mountain climbing because they can't take the altitude and are rendered unconscious.

the pressure differential in water is much greater than in air. That is why as you go down diving you can't just swim straight down. You have to stop and adjust your pressure. Likewise, if you come up faster than your air bubbles, nitrogen can be released into your bloodstream and you can die. It's called the bends.

At the depth that that particular shark lives, you can't even scuba dive. The pressure would be far too great to live. I don't think the shark whose body is designed to live in that sort of pressure could just swim to the top and back down.

I think you are kind to have wanted to not disturb the animal. I really do. I just think your worries about them "killing" her are unwarranted.

Deep sea animals often surface when they are dying. They don't do so otherwise.
 
heatherrae said:
The difference Krishna in mountain climbing and your example is the gradual ascent. Also, many people do die every year mountain climbing because they can't take the altitude and are rendered unconscious.

the pressure differential in water is much greater than in air. That is why as you go down diving you can't just swim straight down. You have to stop and adjust your pressure. Likewise, if you come up faster than your air bubbles, nitrogen can be released into your bloodstream and you can die. It's called the bends.

At the depth that that particular shark lives, you can't even scuba dive. The pressure would be far too great to live. I don't think the shark whose body is designed to live in that sort of pressure could just swim to the top and back down.

I think you are kind to have wanted to not disturb the animal. I really do. I just think your worries about them "killing" her are unwarranted.

Deep sea animals often surface when they are dying. They don't do so otherwise.
Click to expand...

My point was that we are not even designed for the sea and we can still manage to go down a good ways and survive. The water is this creature's home, and I'm sure it's capable of a great deal more of adjusting to certain depths than we are. Read stiletto's quotes. The experts don't even know for sure, so how can you? You don't know why it died. You didn't run tests on it's "swim bladder". You just don't know. Speculate all you want.
 
krishna said:
And no you wouldn't die or all the parachuters would be dead before they landed. You're slippin girl.
Click to expand...

Considering the difference in densities between water and air, and the fact that opposite ends of the specrum are being discussed, I don't think she is slipping.

Yes, people can parachute from 15,000ft up in the air and be fine, but if they were to dive to 15,000ft below the sea, they would be crushed well before they got anywhere close to that depth. The difference is the densities of air and water, and the pressure exerted by them.
 
krishna said:
My point was that we are not even designed for the sea and we can still manage to go down a good ways and survive. The water is this creature's home, and I'm sure it's capable of a great deal more of adjusting to certain depths than we are. Read stiletto's quotes. The experts don't even know for sure, so how can you? You don't know why it died. You didn't run tests on it's "swim bladder". You just don't know. Speculate all you want.
Click to expand...

What was your point anyway? How do you know the creature didn't gradually ascend? My point was that we do climb mountains and survive a majority of the time. Who cares if it's gradual ascent or that we die sometimes?? That doesn't tell me anything to justify that what you're saying about the creature is conclusive.
 
krishna said:
My point was that we are not even designed for the sea and we can still manage to go down a good ways and survive. The water is this creature's home, and I'm sure it's capable of a great deal more of adjusting to certain depths than we are. Read stiletto's quotes. The experts don't even know for sure, so how can you? You don't know why it died. You didn't run tests on it's "swim bladder". You just don't know. Speculate all you want.
Click to expand...

You accuse her of making assumptions about it's swim bladder, yet go on to make your very own assumption that: "I'm sure it's capable of a great deal more of adjusting to certain depths than we are."

To use your reasoning... How do you know that? Did you test it? Are you positive?

Yeah, didn't think so.

You are trying to disarm her logic, using the very same logic. That can't happen.
 
beefcake28 said:
Considering the difference in densities between water and air, and the fact that opposite ends of the specrum are being discussed, I don't think she is slipping.

Yes, people can parachute from 15,000ft up in the air and be fine, but if they were to dive to 15,000ft below the sea, they would be crushed well before they got anywhere close to that depth. The difference is the densities of air and water, and the pressure exerted by them.
Click to expand...

You're right, there is a difference. Maybe there's a difference in creatures designed for water also. Oh wait, there is a difference or that creature wouldn't live 3000 ft deep. That creature is designed differently, and in it's habitat, it's capable of far greater than we are. Same goes for us and our habitat.
 
beefcake28 said:
You accuse her of making assumptions about it's swim bladder, yet go on to make your very own assumption that: "I'm sure it's capable of a great deal more of adjusting to certain depths than we are."

To use your reasoning... How do you know that? Did you test it? Are you positive?

Yeah, didn't think so.

You are trying to disarm her logic, using the very same logic. That can't happen.
Click to expand...

BECAUSE it can live 3000 ft below sea level you moron! That's why it's capable. Didn't you watch the video? It was alive and swimming at the surface too. All my logic is trying to do is show that you can't say for sure one way or the other. If you claim to know for sure, then you're being irresponsible.
 
krishna said:
BECAUSE it can live 3000 ft below sea level you moron! That's why it's capable. Didn't you watch the video? It was alive and swimming at the surface too. All my logic is trying to do is show that you can't say for sure one way or the other. If you claim to know for sure, then you're being irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Ok, that went right over your head... but keep calling me a moron.
 
guys, don't bother trying to teach the uneducated. he's obviously going to believe he's smarter than all of us, and the marine biologists too.

his mommy prolly told him he is.
 
beefcake28 said:
Ok, that went right over your head... but keep calling me a moron.
Click to expand...


Ok this is my final argument and I'm pretty sure it's solid. How can anyone on EF be so sure it was dying, when all the experts could do is say 'we think' or 'we believe'? The experts are smart enough to realize that they don't have all the answers, and that nothing is conclusive. But hey, maybe EFers are smarter :chomp:
 
stilleto said:
guys, don't bother trying to teach the uneducated. he's obviously going to believe he's smarter than all of us, and the marine biologists too.

his mommy prolly told him he is.
Click to expand...

You're the one who thinks she's smarter than the marine biologists. I take it resorting to insults is what it means to be intelligent?
 
krishna said:
My point was that we are not even designed for the sea and we can still manage to go down a good ways and survive. The water is this creature's home, and I'm sure it's capable of a great deal more of adjusting to certain depths than we are. Read stiletto's quotes. The experts don't even know for sure, so how can you? You don't know why it died. You didn't run tests on it's "swim bladder". You just don't know. Speculate all you want.
Click to expand...
We don't really do down a good ways, Krishna. We go about 100 ft or so. This creature lives 2000-3000 feet down. Do you even understand the pressure at those depths? Furthermore, the moment that I heard the news story about a deep sea creature surfacing, the thought in my head was "oh, it must have been dying" even before ALL those scientists supposed the same thing. Why did I think that? Because of past reading that I have done about marine biology and specifically about animals such as giant squid, and the like, that we rarely see. We usually only see these things dead because the only reason they surface is because they are dying. I think several years back, they saw a deep sea giant squid alive, but like this shark, it died shortly thereafter. It was already sick.

So, I'm basing my opinion based upon what I have read about fish/animals that I have read about that live at similar depths.

Once again, I think you are nice for caring so much for the creature, but I just believe she was sick and dying. They said she was in terrible shape when they saw her. Did you see her gills? I will admit that I haven't seen a frilled shark before that one, but those gills looked bloody to me (not a good sign). I don't know if she always moved like that, either. Didn't look like a very effective locomotion. Not sure if that is how they always move or was just because she was sick.
 
stilleto said:
could HAVE, webster.
how are you going to try to have an intelligent conversation when you can't even speak?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Go ahead and nitpick, it's the only chance you have at being right about something.
 
stilleto said:
no, dork- i got my info FROM the reports, i didn't make up my own like you did.
Click to expand...

The reports that said 'we think' or 'we know'? If you have any reports that say they know for sure what happened then please share.
 
krishna said:
Go ahead and nitpick, it's the only chance you have at being right about something.
Click to expand...

apparently not...
lol
so far, you were wrong AND you presented your arguement in a childish, and unintelligent way.

but you keep on going, kid. you'll get it some day. go on, keep going.

good boy.
 
stilleto said:
apparently not...
lol
so far, you were wrong AND you presented your arguement in a childish, and unintelligent way.

but you keep on going, kid. you'll get it some day. go on, keep going.

good boy.
Click to expand...

Wrong about what? Not claiming to know for sure what happened? How can someone be wrong about that? It's when you do claim to know when you can't that you're wrong. That would be you my dear.
 
Krishna, ALL the MARINE BIOLOGISTS came to the same conclusion. Not one marine biologist said, "Hey, I think she was doing just fine and would have returned to the depths." They all said they thought she was sick and dying. I think I'm going to suppose that they know more about it than we do.
 
krishna said:
Wrong about what? Not claiming to know for sure what happened? How can someone be wrong about that? It's when you do claim to know when you can't that you're wrong. That would be you my dear.
Click to expand...

show me where i claim to know anything other than the FACT that it usually lives hundreds of feet below sea level, that scientists claim it was closer to the surface because it was dying, and the fact that it is, indeed, DEAD.

show me.
 
heatherrae said:
We don't really do down a good ways, Krishna. We go about 100 ft or so. This creature lives 2000-3000 feet down. Do you even understand the pressure at those depths? Furthermore, the moment that I heard the news story about a deep sea creature surfacing, the thought in my head was "oh, it must have been dying" even before ALL those scientists supposed the same thing. Why did I think that? Because of past reading that I have done about marine biology and specifically about animals such as giant squid, and the like, that we rarely see. We usually only see these things dead because the only reason they surface is because they are dying. I think several years back, they saw a deep sea giant squid alive, but like this shark, it died shortly thereafter. It was already sick.

So, I'm basing my opinion based upon what I have read about fish/animals that I have read about that live at similar depths.

Once again, I think you are nice for caring so much for the creature, but I just believe she was sick and dying. They said she was in terrible shape when they saw her. Did you see her gills? I will admit that I haven't seen a frilled shark before that one, but those gills looked bloody to me (not a good sign). I don't know if she always moved like that, either. Didn't look like a very effective locomotion. Not sure if that is how they always move or was just because she was sick.
Click to expand...

So that's what you base your "opinion" on. And why is it an opinion Heather? Because you're smart enough to admit you can't possibly know for sure. You're right and educated enough to form a well educated opinion on the matter, and I respect that. You're probably right too. I never said that the creature would of survived, I said we had no way of knowing for sure that it would HAVE died. That is all I was trying to say, and I'm not sure why anyone is arguing with that fact. Thank you for being rational and intelligent; it shines brilliantly among the ignorance and insults of your allies.
 
stilleto said:
show me where i claim to know anything other than the FACT that it usually lives hundreds of feet below sea level, that scientists claim it was closer to the surface because it was dying, and the fact that it is, indeed, DEAD.

show me.
Click to expand...

You claimed to know it was dying. Are you gonna deny this now?
 
heatherrae said:
Krishna, ALL the MARINE BIOLOGISTS came to the same conclusion. Not one marine biologist said, "Hey, I think she was doing just fine and would have returned to the depths." They all said they thought she was sick and dying. I think I'm going to suppose that they know more about it than we do.
Click to expand...

what's that you say?
you and I and everyone else in this thread except for krishna believe the marine biologists?

i mean... wtf do THEY know about sea creatures???

:)
thanks HR. for proving my point.
 
krishna said:
You claimed to know it was dying. Are you gonna deny this now?
Click to expand...

show me where *I* knew it was dying. I knew what i read in the paper, that's all.
it shouldn't be hard to find, its only 2 pages of posts and half of them are your idiocy.

show me where I claimed to be the expert.
 
heatherrae said:
Krishna, ALL the MARINE BIOLOGISTS came to the same conclusion. Not one marine biologist said, "Hey, I think she was doing just fine and would have returned to the depths." They all said they thought she was sick and dying. I think I'm going to suppose that they know more about it than we do.
Click to expand...

Do you have the reports? Nonetheless, when you say you think something, it's because you don't know something. If someone knew, they wouldn't have to theorize. I did read the word disoriented, which doesn't necessarily mean she was dying if that was the case.
 
Krishna, I respect the spirit of your argument. I honestly do. I know what you mean.
 
23 and 24. I asked how anyone knew it came up to die, and you insultingly said, "Because it's dead genious." So not only did you claim to know, you started the argument and the insults. Class act!
 
stilleto said:
krishna: Elitefitness's self appointed marine biologist expert.
Click to expand...

I agree with the biologists. They think it was sick and/or dying. They don't know, they think, and I am in agreement with them. It's when you claim to know is when you are going beyond the biologists' theory. Biologists would never make such a foolish error.
 
krishna said:
23 and 24. I asked how anyone knew it came up to die, and you insultingly said, "Because it's dead genious." So not only did you claim to know, you started the argument and the insults. Class act!
Click to expand...

fact: it IS dead. or are you going to claim that we don't really know that either?

also a fact: being a genius is not an insult. you took it as one, because you know you couldn't possibly be one and have such poor arguementative skills.
 
stilleto said:
fact: it IS dead. or are you going to claim that we don't really know that either?

also a fact: being a genius is not an insult. you took it as one, because you know you couldn't possibly be one and have such poor arguementative skills.
Click to expand...

Don't pussyfoot around your insults and try to deny them. And I know it's dead. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by pointing out the obvious. The issue was whether or not it was dying before we took it out of the water. From past knowledge and experience, one would assume that it was dying or it wouldn't have been near the surface. The only thing I was pointing out is that we can't be absolutely certain that is the case. Biologists would not hesitate to agree with me. It's a matter of science and scientific study not to claim theory and opinion as fact. I think the one with poor argumentative skills is the one who resorts to insults. If this was an actual facilitated debate (in which I've been in a few) you wouldn't have made it past the first round.
 
krishna said:
Poor thing, they killed her.
Click to expand...

ok, then please explain how YOU know this?

You're using one set of reasoning for me, but refuse to take them yourself.

how, exactly do you know they killed her??
 
stilleto said:
ok, then please explain how YOU know this?

You're using one set of reasoning for me, but refuse to take them yourself.

how, exactly do you know they killed her??
Click to expand...

Because they took her out of the water and she didn't die until they did. Even if she was dying, they made sure of it by removing her. Maybe that's why they say they think she was dying; gives them an excuse to examine her. But alas, you're right! I have no way of knowing they killed her. I have to admit that it was an initial reaction on my part to say that, and by no means did I intend it as fact. I don't know they killed her. I asked how anyone KNEW she would have died, and that's when you chimed in with your response. There's a difference, but I'll let it slide. BTW, when are we gonna have our make-up sex :p
 
krishna said:
Because they took her out of the water and she didn't die until they did. Even if she was dying, they made sure of it by removing her. Maybe that's why they say they think she was dying; gives them an excuse to examine her. But alas, you're right! I have no way of knowing they killed her. I have to admit that it was an initial reaction on my part to say that, and by no means did I intend it as fact. I don't know they killed her. I asked how anyone KNEW she would have died, and that's when you chimed in with your response. There's a difference, but I'll let it slide. BTW, when are we gonna have our make-up sex :p
Click to expand...

when you get your permission slip signed.
:)
 
Dang, no one ever wants makeup sex with me. Screw you guys. I'm going home.
 
heatherrae said:
Dang, no one ever wants makeup sex with me. Screw you guys. I'm going home.
Click to expand...

That's because you have a classy way of avoiding arguments. Sex with you wouldn't be make-up sex, it would be :heart: sex.
 
krishna said:
That's because you have a classy way of avoiding arguments. Sex with you wouldn't be make-up sex, it would be :heart: sex.
Click to expand...
Oh, good answer. :qt:
 
4everhung said:
and who was the underwater steve Irwin who took those photos?
Click to expand...

i don't know who took the pics, but an asian fisherman found it.
i THINK that on the gills- on the side of the face- its lined with more teeth. that's the way it looks. i swear i'm gonna dream about it.
 
i cant believe u guys were arguing for over 3 pages about an animal that looks like a giant peice of spooge with gills.
 
so did this thing die yet or what? somebody should have killed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UnclePoon
Approved Log Retatrutide Fat loss cycle Log
Replies
81
Views
2K
ZenithHealth
ZenithHealth
JasonPriest
DOMESTIC SUPPLY SALE: Winstrol time to cut!
Replies
4
Views
178
Ulter
Ulter
Dr_Strangelove
Approved Log TRT Training and Lifestyle Journal
Replies
18
Views
2K
the_alcatraz
the_alcatraz
Noah Wixx
Approved US-PHARMACIES TD/Review
Replies
11
Views
1K
ballin2504
ballin2504
T-RexAlpha
  • Locked
T-RexAlpha Cycle/TRT Log
Replies
3
Views
1K
the_alcatraz
the_alcatraz
Top Bottom