Megalodon probably exists

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

The wooly mammoth still exists, he and I were in Vegas last week.

Well, that's one of the nicer ways of saying DB's hairy and fat

meghead; way to bring us down and ruin it.

seriously, thanks for the science. I don't doubt there are undiscovered species down there but very unlikely any megafauna like that.

rickymouse, do you mean the megamouth shark? that came out of nowhere.

The Asians would have drug them up with their fishing fleet by now....they pillage the waters to feed the masses.

With all the plastic in the ocean, and all the other critters washing up on the beaches with bellies full of plastic garbage, a huge predatory shark would have probably been the first!!

Megalondon May exist but the shark was dead a long time ago.

Sorry.

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: drz400
My rant is simply this. A thought came to me. How can scientists say something like "The megalodon is extinct." More than eighty percent of our ocean is unmapped, unobserved, and unexplored. That's a hell of an area. This according to the US government. oceanservice.noaa.gov...


End of rant.

Since megalodon teeth are found in the shallow water rivers of South Carolina I venture to say it was an inshore shark and not the deep dweller some of you think. I believe that there is no evidence that they survive. What ever caused gigantism of fish and land animals of the past appears to have faded from our Earth.
Besides, isn’t the Great White monster enough?

Has it, though? Back when i was in high school, my whole family saw a gigantic turkey vulture, with a wingspan wider than the road we were on. On the ground, not in the air. That bird was tall enough standing to see into the car; way bigger than the rest that were gathered there by some road kill. I wish I'd taken a picture, but we just joked that things really were bigger in Texas, and since film was the camera option, I didn't want to "waste" a shot on a big ugly bird. Sometimes, an animal does get a lot bigger than average. All they have is teeth, too, which are basically identical to Great White teeth, save for the size.

I think they are possible. Look how recently science admitted the "kraken" was real' giant and colossal squid. They still discover "new" sharks, too -

New shark species discovered by research team led by Florida Tech professor

Ancient carpet shark discovered with 'spaceship-shaped' teeth

A strange deep-sea shark gets a name, almost 30 years after discovery

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
All they have is teeth, too, which are basically identical to Great White teeth, save for the size.

Shark teeth are some of the most abundant fossils we can find. Thousands of fossilized megalodon teeth have been found wordwide. One must wonder why there isn't a single fresh one amongst them all should megalodon still exist. Apart from that, we have several single fossilized vertebra, two incomplete vertebral columns and fossilized excrement (coprolites) attributed to megalodon and that's not counting the fossils from its extinct predecessors, which are often not considered in such discussions.

I think they are possible. Look how recently science admitted the "kraken" was real' giant and colossal squid.

Naturally, we will have problems discovering or observing highly specialized deep-sea creatures like giant squid in their habitat. The French Navy vessel Alecton encountered and tried to capture a floating giant squid in 1861, so there was no denying their existence scientifically anymore after that. We've known about the colossal squid for nigh on 100 years as well, so these aren't really "new" discoveries. Moreover, we found plenty of physical evidence for these creatures long before filming them in their natural habitat; we don't have any credible fresh evidence for megalodon or any other huge unknown predatory shark whatsoever to date though.

The fantastic Galleon-munching "Kraken" is also still myth to this day. Sailors and fishermen weren't considered the most reliable eyewitnesses at the best of times so it is easy to understand any scientific reservations about their accounts, even if some were based on real encounters with the more smaller giant squid.

Lastly, there is still plenty to discover out there (which is very exciting) but that doesn't mean we have a good chance of (re-)discovering an ~18m growing prehistoric whale-eating shark the likes of megalodon still roaming the ocean.

They still discover "new" sharks, too -

New shark species discovered by research team led by Florida Tech professor

This ~2m/6,5ft growing shark species was identified through DNA-testing. As the article states: "They look exactly like the other sixgill sharks except on the genetic level." Yes, their next of kin was discovered in 1962, which is relatively recent, but again we are dealing with a deep-sea shark species. What has that got to do with C. megalodon? We can't just lump all sharks together.

Ancient carpet shark discovered with 'spaceship-shaped' teeth

This article talks about an extinct shark species from the Cretaceous period that grew up to 45cm/1,5ft long. I don't quite understand how an article about an extinct shark can bolster the case for the possible survival of another.

A strange deep-sea shark gets a name, almost 30 years after discovery

Another small (~1m/3ft ) deep-sea shark - "Its main point of difference: A longer snout than other lantern sharks.". It really shouldn't come as a surprise that we are still discovering small deep-sea sharks as the technology to capture these sharks isn't that old either.

I think, these articles don't demonstrate the possibility of C. megalodon's existence very well because we are discovering new species of sharks - quite the contrary. C. megalodon isn't new so we have to at least consider what we already know about the shark before conveniently dumping it into the abyssal and hadopelagioc zones of the ocean in the hopes (or fears) of its survival.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the plankton-feeding megamouth shark that grows up to ~5-6m that was first discovered in 1976. Now, if anyone had credible evidence for some unknown 10m+ large predatory deep-sea shark or even a 40ft/12m+ white shark, which some scientists still believed in until recently, due to unreliable reports, then we can start discussing the existence of monster sharks, the likes of megalodon, in earnest....

originally posted by: MegHead

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

I think they are possible. Look how recently science admitted the "kraken" was real' giant and colossal squid.

Naturally, we will have problems discovering or observing highly specialized deep-sea creatures like giant squid in their habitat. The French Navy vessel Alecton encountered and tried to capture a floating giant squid in 1861, so there was no denying their existence scientifically anymore after that. We've known about the colossal squid for nigh on 100 years as well, so these aren't really "new" discoveries. Moreover, we found plenty of physical evidence for these creatures long before filming them in their natural habitat; we don't have any credible fresh evidence for megalodon or any other huge unknown predatory shark whatsoever to date though.

Yet less than ten years ago, I read lots of articles on scientific sites claiming they were a myth. Then, after Japanese fisherman filmed them, and ended up catching one, suddenly it was all, "Oh, we knew they were there...". Yes, they did deny it. Plenty of evidence, but many still denied they were real. You can't even locate those articles now. People discussed earlier sightings and photos, and speculated that they were "mistaken identity", or whatever. I am sure I am not the only person who remembers this.

Plus, the reason we still don't know a lot about them is that they swim very deep most of the time. Most, not all. If megalodon does the same thing, we could not see them the same way, save for sporadic and questioned reports. Teeth would be deep also, typically. Even with giant squid, we don't know how big they can get. I recall one account some people posted on a sailing blog (can't locate it now), telling of someone they knew who had issues with his boat. On a long trip alone, the fellow had intermittent problems, and ended up limping slowly back to port, I think in Hawaii. Upon arrival, someone dove doen to see what was wrong with the boat, and was shocked to see dozens opn dozens of overlapping tentacle marks all over the hull. The real kicker was, they were WAY bigger than even those of a giant squid should be, like twice the size. Apparently a massive squid, far larger than the "accepted" max size, was clinging to is boat for many long miles. Then there was the photo Monster Quest took, while looking for a "giant Humboldt" squid. Why that particular squid, I can't say, but they got a picture. If it was a Humboldt, it would be, they estimated, a good fifty feet. Yet no one reports giant specimens of those. If, on the other hand, it was simply a giant squid, estimates would be 100-120 feet long. That's HUGE, double what scientists think they can reach.

Scientists don't know everything, and the ocean is a big place.

The fantastic Galleon-munching "Kraken" is also still myth to this day. Sailors and fishermen weren't considered the most reliable eyewitnesses at the best of times so it is easy to understand any scientific reservations about their accounts, even if some were based on real encounters with the more smaller giant squid.

Scientists can be really arrogant at times. Dismissing those stories is as ridiculous as dismissing accounts from locals of elusive animals, and calling them "mistaken identity". For example, claiming people in PNG mistake fruit bats for "prehistoric" flying reptiles. The people know the local animals, and sailors know how to estimate size, and what they expect to see swimming.

Lastly, there is still plenty to discover out there (which is very exciting) but that doesn't mean we have a good chance of (re-)discovering an ~18m growing prehistoric whale-eating shark the likes of megalodon still roaming the ocean.

Why not? Because it flies in the face of the preferred theories?

They still discover "new" sharks, too -

New shark species discovered by research team led by Florida Tech professor

This ~2m/6,5ft growing shark species was identified through DNA-testing. As the article states: "They look exactly like the other sixgill sharks except on the genetic level." Yes, their next of kin was discovered in 1962, which is relatively recent, but again we are dealing with a deep-sea shark species. What has that got to do with C. megalodon? We can't just lump all sharks together.

Ancient carpet shark discovered with 'spaceship-shaped' teeth

This article talks about an extinct shark species from the Cretaceous period that grew up to 45cm/1,5ft long. I don't quite understand how an article about an extinct shark can bolster the case for the possible survival of another.

A strange deep-sea shark gets a name, almost 30 years after discovery

Another small (~1m/3ft ) deep-sea shark - "Its main point of difference: A longer snout than other lantern sharks.". It really shouldn't come as a surprise that we are still discovering small deep-sea sharks as the technology to capture these sharks isn't that old either.

I think, these articles don't demonstrate the possibility of C. megalodon's existence very well because we are discovering new species of sharks - quite the contrary. C. megalodon isn't new so we have to at least consider what we already know about the shark before conveniently dumping it into the abyssal and hadopelagioc zones of the ocean in the hopes (or fears) of its survival.

I'm surprised you didn't mention the plankton-feeding megamouth shark that grows up to ~5-6m that was first discovered in 1976. Now, if anyone had credible evidence for some unknown 10m+ large predatory deep-sea shark or even a 40ft/12m+ white shark, which some scientists still believed in until recently, due to unreliable reports, then we can start discussing the existence of monster sharks, the likes of megalodon, in earnest....

I missed that one, distracted I suppose. Intended to include it, and just forgot. Those are HUGE, and were undscovered for ages. As for larger great whites, yes, there are tons of reports of those.

Yo can't just assume mainstream science knows all. The vulture we saw was much larger than they are every supposed to get, larger than condors I've seen from a couple of feet away in zoos. He was just ginormous. Scientists would claim we didn't estimate the size properly, or were exaggerating, or whatever. We did, and we weren't. When you see something like that, it's a lot easier to believe someone else might have as well. Keep in mind, it's "estimated" largest size, and that just means they haven't personally measured one bigger.

As for them not being "new", that doesn't mean much. None of them are "new"; they just weren't officially discovered before. I think that's possible in this case as well. How probable, I can't say, but possible.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Dear LadyGreenEyes, Thanks for your time and lenghthy response.

Yet less than ten years ago, I read lots of articles on scientific sites claiming they were a myth.

Which animal are you referring to here with „they“? Richard Ellis wrote a whole book about giant squid back in 1998, even mentioning the colossal squid in it. That's twenty years ago. The giant squid was first photographed in its natural habitat in 2004 and the largest colossal squid to date was caught in 2007. Moreover, there are plenty of scientific papers on both Architeuthis dux and Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni written well before 1990. How do I reconcile such facts with your claim, especially as you haven't provided a single source?

You can't even locate those articles now.

Are you implying there's big science conspiracy? Have scientists covered up their scientific disbelief and made up numerous scientific papers that predate your scientific articles?

People discussed earlier sightings and photos, and speculated that they were "mistaken identity", or whatever. I am sure I am not the only person who remembers this.

With all due respect, a person's memory isn't the most reliable source. Without the actual sources, I have a hard time simply taking a person's word for it. People are easily mistaken, even when they are totally sincere. Apart from that, comparing the giant squid to megalodon just doesn't work for a number of reasons anyway:

...they swim very deep most of the time...If megalodon does the same thing, we could not see them the same way, save for sporadic and questioned reports.

As far as we know, giant squid mainly swim at depths around 300 to 1000m. Why should we expect C. megalodon to swim and remain at such depths the giant squid reside in? Even white shark swim to those depths and back again.

Teeth would be deep also, typically.

Yes, it would be logical to assume if a deep-sea animal were to die or lose its tooth, it is highly unlikely it would wash up on the shore someplace. Then again, we also dredge for fossilized sharks teeth and even fish at such depths as you propose. In my opinion, the whole megalodon-possibly-exists-assumption rests solely upon total denial of the scientific findings and the idea that this particular shark adapted to be a super-deep-sea-shark against all odds.

Scientists don't know everything, and the ocean is a big place.

I didn't argue that scientists know everything (and no scientists claim they do). I am arguing that many megalodon-possibly-lives-advocates totally ignore what scientists are saying about megalodon (sharks in general, the deep sea, extinction, etc.) though to argue their case. That the ocean is a big place, doesn't mean prehistoric sharks the likes of megalodon have a good chance of existing in it unobserved.

Scientists can be really arrogant at times. Dismissing those stories....

Imagine I told you I saw a dragon fly past my window the other day. Would you, (as a scientist), just believe that claim at face value? Basically, that is all such accounts are at first glance – 'stories“. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously problematical. Take your giant squid blog story, which is highly intriguing. Here you are presenting it to bolster your argument, yet haven't provided the source. Why should anyone come to the conclusion that it is evidence or even a worthwhile anecdote in a world where people are constantly mistaken and all previous knowledge questions the claim's reliability?

...is as ridiculous as dismissing accounts from locals of elusive animals, and calling them "mistaken identity".

I beg to differ. We could assume locals may know their wildlife better than a tourist but that doesn't mean they cannot be mistaken from time to time or they are always truthful, they are still fallible humans after all. Hell, it may be the village idiot who claims he has witnessed something, for all we know. Same goes for sailors (and anyone else one wants to appeal to authority to under such circumstances). We cannot just assume they all know the sea under every condition are not prone to mistakes or pranks, or impervious to the mind playing tricks on them. Nor can we assume they are always correct with their measurements, especially if there is nothing to compare an animal with and when under stress.

Why not? Because it flies in the face of the preferred theories?

Well, probably because the source isn't the most reliable to start with. Again, eyewitness accounts are notoriously difficult to deal with. Now if someone were to present a fresh shark tooth, 4 inches or more long, then we can start talking...(If I claimed I owned such a tooth but lost it, it is not the scientists fault or arrogance to blame for questioning my claim and disbelieving me.) As to preferred scientific "theories", these are highly detailed explanations of facts, not mere ideas.

I missed that one, distracted I suppose....Those are HUGE, and were undscovered for ages.

I assume you are referring to my prior megamouth shark reference here. It is perfectly reasonable that these animals were undiscovered for ages. They're slow-moving, deepwater nocturnal plankton feeders. It shouldn't come as such a big surprise we didn't come across one sooner. They are not comparable to the whale-munching megalodon but it does go to show there is still plenty to discover.

As for larger great whites, yes, there are tons of reports of those.

There are a few reports, yet no evidence or credible sources. The few cases we can check due to alleged remains turn out to be much smaller sharks than previously claimed. Often or not, people cannot even tell the difference between a basking shark and a white shark. If we cannot even be sure of huge white sharks exceeding the 7m mark, why even bother speculating on larger megalodon? People may just as well make up a new predatory shark and speculate on that, after all they don't acknowledge what we do know or can reasonably infer from the fossil evidence anyway.

Yo can't just assume mainstream science knows all.

I am not assuming that here at all. The scientific method is still the most reliable way to gain knowledge to date, so it does no good to demean science and replace that with pure speculation and appeals to ignorance instead.

Again, what I am criticizing about many megalodon-possibly-lives advocates is the total ignorance on the subject, whilst passionately arguing for meg's (possible) existence at the same time. The same old arguments are relentlessly brought up in favor of its existence, adding nothing of real value to the ongoing (scientific) debate on this shark, sad to say.

As for them not being "new", that doesn't mean much. None of them are "new"; they just weren't officially discovered before...

The point I was making is this: It is one thing to discover a previously unknown species – it is another to ignore everything we know to date about an already discovered species of the past, in the hopes of having meaningful discussions about it, let alone (re-)discovering it alive. I cannot share your optimism as to its possible existence.

originally posted by: MegHead
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yet less than ten years ago, I read lots of articles on scientific sites claiming they were a myth.

Which animal are you referring to here with „they“? Richard Ellis wrote a whole book about giant squid back in 1998, even mentioning the colossal squid in it. That's twenty years ago. The giant squid was first photographed in its natural habitat in 2004 and the largest colossal squid to date was caught in 2007. Moreover, there are plenty of scientific papers on both Architeuthis dux and Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni written well before 1990. How do I reconcile such facts with your claim, especially as you haven't provided a single source?

Vaious online "scientific" sites spoke of them as "mythological", even though there was evidence. As I stated, you can't see those articles now, because they were removed. You can claim whatever you want, if you remove all data to the contrary. That's what they've done. This is as close as you can get now. The one that washed ashore, too, was debated, and many denied what it really was, till much later.

Are you implying there's big science conspiracy? Have scientists covered up their scientific disbelief and made up numerous scientific papers that predate your scientific articles?

No, I am stating that is what was done.

As far as we know, giant squid mainly swim at depths around 300 to 1000m. Why should we expect C. megalodon to swim and remain at such depths the giant squid reside in? Even white shark swim to those depths and back again.

Why shouldn't we?

I didn't argue that scientists know everything (and no scientists claim they do). I am arguing that many megalodon-possibly-lives-advocates totally ignore what scientists are saying about megalodon (sharks in general, the deep sea, extinction, etc.) though to argue their case. That the ocean is a big place, doesn't mean prehistoric sharks the likes of megalodon have a good chance of existing in it unobserved.

They have teeth. That's about it, and they make a lot of assumptions based on those teeth. When other animals can swim around "undiscovered" for ages, why not those? That phrase just means no scientist has admitted people see something, anyway. You know, like the orangutan. Or the coelacanth.

Imagine I told you I saw a dragon fly past my window the other day. Would you, (as a scientist), just believe that claim at face value? Basically, that is all such accounts are at first glance – 'stories“. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously problematical. Take your giant squid blog story, which is highly intriguing. Here you are presenting it to bolster your argument, yet haven't provided the source. Why should anyone come to the conclusion that it is evidence or even a worthwhile anecdote in a world where people are constantly mistaken and all previous knowledge questions the claim's reliability?

Don't be facetious. One person reporting something like that is a far cry from lots of people reporting something all the time. When people native to an area state there is an animal living there, that they see regularly, and scientists pretend these people are too stupid to not be mistaking "known" animals, yes, that's arrogant. That happens a lot, too.

I beg to differ. We could assume locals may know their wildlife better than a tourist but that doesn't mean they cannot be mistaken from time to time or they are always truthful, they are still fallible humans after all.

So are scientists who claim all those people are "mistaken". Recall the old Monster Quest episode, about big cats in the United States. They had video/pics of a large black cat, and one "expert" automatically claimed it was a house cat. Another stated he didn't think so, and he was correct. The cat was more than two feet long; far larger than a house cat. Another case, there was a Bigfoot video, of something dark running on a mountain slope. I watched a show about it, and they had a runner try to go along the same route. The guy could barely manage, and though tall and fast, was shorter and slower than the figure in the video. Some years later, I watched what I thought was the same show; same people testing it, same runner, but they altered the ending, and claimed the runner was taller and faster, this time. Deliberate deception there!

Now if someone were to present a fresh shark tooth, 4 inches or more long, then we can start talking...

When that happens, I'm going to be laughing.

I assume you are referring to my prior megamouth shark reference here. It is perfectly reasonable that these animals were undiscovered for ages.

Yes, I was. They are HUGE, and were undiscovered for a very long time. It's perfectly reasonable to assume something else huge could be as well, that we actually know is real.

There are a few reports, yet no evidence or credible sources. The few cases we can check due to alleged remains turn out to be much smaller sharks than previously claimed. Often or not, people cannot even tell the difference between a basking shark and a white shark. If we cannot even be sure of huge white sharks exceeding the 7m mark, why even bother speculating on larger megalodon? People may just as well make up a new predatory shark and speculate on that, after all they don't acknowledge what we do know or can reasonably infer from the fossil evidence anyway.

Sorry, but "the witness isn't credible" is too overused to mean much. It's used any time someone wants to not believe a story, regardless of the actual credibility of the person.

I am not assuming that here at all. The scientific method is still the most reliable way to gain knowledge to date, so it does no good to demean science and replace that with pure speculation and appeals to ignorance instead.

The scientific method has little to nothing to do with the speculation in which scientists engage, when it comes to animals they claim are extinct. Most of the discussion of very ancient animals is speculative.

The point I was making is this: It is one thing to discover a previously unknown species – it is another to ignore everything we know to date about an already discovered species of the past, in the hopes of having meaningful discussions about it, let alone (re-)discovering it alive. I cannot share your optimism as to its possible existence.

Yet they actually don't know much. Assuming anyone who holds a different opinion is the arrogance I have pointed out, and thanks for proving my point there so well. Do we know they are still around? No, we don't. Some believe they could be, and others disagree, but to pretend those who believe the former are ignorant is arrogant in the extreme.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Vaious online "scientific" sites spoke of them as "mythological", even though there was evidence. As I stated, you can't see those articles now, because they were removed.

I'm sure you sincerely believe that. I'm simply trying to understand your claim in light of my personal experience and data at hand. The „scientific“ articles I recall reading online these last few years indeed sometimes mentioned that giant squid were once believed to be myth (which they were), yet certainly not up until „less than ten years ago“, as you claim to recall.

You can claim whatever you want, if you remove all data to the contrary. That's what they've done. This is as close as you can get now.

With all due respect, a person can also claim whatever they want by claiming all data to the contrary has been removed. Please put yourself in my shoes if only to understand my predicament in believing such an extraordinary claim at face value.

I have known about the existence of giant squid ever since childhood, well before your recent „science articles“ all denying the creature's existence were allegedly posted and later deleted online. I look at my book collection and wonder why so many recent scientific articles would have claimed this creature to be a complete myth in these mere last few years when I even own children's books discussing this creature's existence dating back to the 1970s and even one as recent as 2003 with a full blown autopsy of the giant squid, photos and all. And that is not counting the specialized literature aimed at the adult audience and scientific articles, some written well before your allotted time period. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

It is far more rational for me to come to the conclusion a person is sincerely mistaken or there's some other kind of misunderstanding here than to believe so many recent scientific articles on giant squid all denounced this creature's existence for some unknown reason these last few years and had to be deleted to cover up the claim, especially as no evidence whatsoever can be provided to back up the claim. I do hope you can understand that.

The one that washed ashore, too, was debated, and many denied what it really was, till much later. 

I think it would he helpful to be as precise as possible in this matter. Which „one“ that washed ashore are you referring to here? Numerous giant squid remains and carcasses have been washed ashore and documented over the centuries.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

As far as we know, giant squid mainly swim at depths around 300 to 1000m. Why should we expect C. megalodon to swim and remain at such depths the giant squid reside in? Even white shark swim to those depths and back again.

Why shouldn't we?

I already gave numerous reasons in my prior comments. I was hoping to understand your reasoning more. There's no apparent reason that would keep these shark at such depths indefinitely. Quite the contrary, their primary food source is mammilian, so we would expect them to be at least just as visible from time to time, either hunting some hapless elephant seal or whale, happily munching on some bloated whale carcass, attracted to some fishing or whaling boat or the chum of some sharkcage diving attraction, etc.

They have teeth. That's about it, and they make a lot of assumptions based on those teeth.

We've also been through this argument before. For one thing, we have thousands of fossilized teeth, not only of megalodon but also its possible predecessors. Teeth alone can tell us a lot, for example, what species of animal it belonged to, its preferrred food, the size of the species, evolutionary dental changes and so forth. Of course, the location the fossil was found at, is also of importance as it can help pinpoint the geological time and distribution of the species, etc.

We not only have teeth though.as we also have a few fossilized vertebrae and two incomplete vertebrae colomns attributed to meg as well as feces. We also have found the fossilized remains of various small to medium sized marine mammals with bite marks or even tooth remains in them, in the vicinity of meg teeth, clearly showing a predator-prey relationship,so it is quite misleading to claim „all scientists have are some teeth“ or words to that effect...

Add to this the knowledge we have already gained from oceanography, zoology, paleontology, geology, etc. over the last 150 years or so, one can see that scientists are not merely looking at a tooth and shooting in the dark, simply dreaming up wild ideas out of the blue here.

When other animals can swim around "undiscovered" for ages, why not those?

As I have also argued before, we cannot simply lump all animals together in such a fashion. For instance, the most popular proposed candidate is the 2m large growing, drift-hunting, nocturnally active fish-eating coelacanth that resides in caves most of the daytime. Why some expect that animal to be even remotely comparable to C. megalodon is beyond me.

That phrase just means no scientist has admitted people see something, anyway.

Which „phrase“ are you referring to here?

You know, like the orangutan. Or the coelacanth.

No, I don't really know what you are trying to convey here.

Don't be facetious. One person reporting something like that is a far cry from lots of people reporting something all the time.

I wasn't attempting to be facetious and frown upon such accusations in a debate intended to shed light on a subject. I consider reports on megalodon just as fantastical as reports on dragons, Bigfoot and Nessie. According to your reaction to my question, a single report of a dragon is quite unbelievable (and understandably dismissed.) Yet if there are numerous reports we can suddenly dispense with the skepticism. Why? Just because many people believe in or report something similar, does not make the reports true. For starters, where are all these reports from „lots of people“ reporting sightings of megalodon „all the time“? Surely it would make sense to at least introduce one or two of the most promising reports to help understand your arguments better.

a reply to: MegHead

When people native to an area state there is an animal living there, that they see regularly, and scientists pretend these people are too stupid to not be mistaking "known" animals, yes, that's arrogant. That happens a lot, too. 

I already addressed that argument in my prior comment. Well-meaning, sincere people from all walks of life see or claim to see all sorts of things all the time. THAT doesn't mean what they are seeing is necessarily real or even the same phenomena in every single case. Moreover, why do you assume scientists are „pretending“? You see, you are expecting me to believe in some grand scientific conspiracy going on (denouncing numerous scientists without batting an eyelid) with nothing to show for it but your word, some superficial claims and apparent personal distrust for science to date. That is not a lot to work with.

„So are scientists who claim all those people are "mistaken".

Of course they are. All humans are fallible. Your prior argumentation seemed to suggest the locals/eye witnesses are immune to mistakes though which is simply not the case.

Recall the old Monster Quest episode,...

 Just for the record, I don't find sensational TV series to be reliable sources of information. For instance, experts can easily be edited out of context, (thus misrepresenting their stance) I have watched the episode „Lions In The Backyard“, Monsterquest: Series 1, Episode 7) to see what you are referring to.

„...about big cats in the United States. They had video/pics of a large black cat, and one "expert" automatically claimed it was a house cat. Another stated he didn't think so, and he was correct. “

You mean Scott Lope, the director of Big Cat Rescue, a person who deals with large cats daily. He not only claims the specific cat sighting in Hugo from 1999 was a house cat in the photos he looked at either! He also argued why he thought it was a housecat! You make no mention of that, which I find misleading and dishonest. The next expert, Heidi Bailey, also came to the same conclusion as Mr. Lope. Then a new case was introduced. This is the reason i do not trust "memory" as a source of information. Too much is easily either lost or added unintentionally...

Another case, there was a Bigfoot video...Some years later, I watched what I thought was the same show; same people testing it, same runner, but they altered the ending, and claimed the runner was taller and faster, this time. Deliberate deception there!“

According to you there's deception front line and center. How do you discern which sources to trust and which to distrust?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Now if someone were to present a fresh shark tooth, 4 inches or more long, then we can start talking...

When that happens, I'm going to be laughing. 

Well, hope dies last so they say.

Yes, I was. They are HUGE, and were undiscovered for a very long time. It's perfectly reasonable to assume something else huge could be as well, that we actually know is real. 

Reaching around 5 ½ meters, these slow-moving, nocturnal plankton-feeding sharks are still no comparison to megalodon, another point you simply ignore.

There are a few reports, yet no evidence or credible sources. The few cases we can check due to alleged remains turn out to be much smaller sharks than previously claimed. Often or not, people cannot even tell the difference between a basking shark and a white shark. If we cannot even be sure of huge white sharks exceeding the 7m mark, why even bother speculating on larger megalodon? People may just as well make up a new predatory shark and speculate on that, after all they don't acknowledge what we do know or can reasonably infer from the fossil evidence anyway.

Sorry, but "the witness isn't credible" is too overused to mean much. It's used any time someone wants to not believe a story, regardless of the actual credibility of the person.

What credibility are you talking about here? How about some specific case to make your point? I even go on to argue that the remains of the alleged sharks have been examined or that people have difficulties identifying known shark species. You keep reducing all that down to scientific arrogance of dismissing eyewitness accounts which I find ridiculous and superficial as a response to what I have previously argued.

The scientific method has little to nothing to do with the speculation in which scientists engage, when it comes to animals they claim are extinct. Most of the discussion of very ancient animals is speculative. 

Well, if the scientific discussions are that speculative for you, how the more so are the discussions of laypeople who often don't know the first thing about prehistoric animals? Yet, according your line of reasoning, it appears those are the sources we should rather be turning to for expertise.

Yet they actually don't know much.

Yet how much do you know they know to make such an assertion?

Assuming anyone who holds a different opinion is the arrogance I have pointed out, and thanks for proving my point there so well.

I don't understand where I have proven your point so well, here, (especially as the sentence doesn't really make sense.) Quite the contrary, actually. Numerous times I have criticized the ignorance on the subject matter (in this thread), the total ignorance of what scientists are arguing about megalodons often displayed- no wonder as most meg-lives-advocates haven't even bothered to consult a single scientific paper on the subject! Yet that doesn't stop people from ardently advocating the survival of this shark, whilst criticizing the scientists. Now THAT I personally find the height of arrogance and conceit, actually. Again, even if scientists don't know much, as you keep merely claming they don't, why turn to even less knowledgable people instead and why ignore even the little scientists do know? That, you don't explain.

Why expect to be taken seriously on any scientific subject if one isn't willing to take into account what scientists are actually discussing? Would you trust a book review if the reviewer hasn't read the book? is it arrogant to call out book reviewers who haven't read the books in question? Ignoring what scientists have to say will not help ascertain the worth of their claims/arguments, that's for sure..