'Monster Shark' attacks another shark

antijoke · 27 Oct 2009 at 17:28

scorza said:
Main reason is that sharks without dorsal fins can't swim, and so sink to the bottom of the sea straight away. If it sank how did the fisherman catch it? According to the article it was caught on a baited hook attached to a buoy, can you honestly see a shark in that state, that cannot swim deciding to have a wee snack?

There are other reasons too - the shape of the bite is different, the fact that the shark was still alive and not eaten by whatever "monster" did that to it.

Maybe it happened after it had been for a 'wee snack' and whilst it was caught on the baited buoy is when it was 'attacked'?

The shapes of the bites aren't that different, the smaller bite on the dorsal fin could have been a more tentative bite and the main one was on the underside.

p4radox · 27 Oct 2009 at 17:35

Happy · 27 Oct 2009 at 17:36

Naamiko_O said:
Megalodon

Oh yeah!

+

peterattheboro said:
Poor shark

doodah · 27 Oct 2009 at 17:59

How on earth was it still alive with that much of its body torn out!?

philstanbridge · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:03

Looks to me like a prop has taken chunks out of that and the peeps on the boat have hauled it up. Those bites look too clean (and way too big) to be shark bites in my opinion, not that I'm an expert or anything, but to cut away that amount of flesh in a single bite must mean the thing that did that was ridiculously massive. Surely nothing exists on the planet - otherwise we would know about it.

G-MAN2004 · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:11

philstanbridge said:
Surely nothing exists on the planet - otherwise we would know about it.

Why's that?

philstanbridge · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:19

G-MAN2004 said:
Why's that?

Because scientists and the like would have discovered it by now? Just my take on it.

buy_my_cookies · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:20

just when you throught it was save to go back in the water

^TANK^ · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:20

I reckon that was done by killer whales tbh, graphic bites graphic.

Hellsmk2 · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:21

philstanbridge said:
Because scientists and the like would have discovered it by now? Just my take on it.

You do realise that we know more about space than we do about the oceans?

G-MAN2004 · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:21

philstanbridge said:
Because scientists and the like would have discovered it by now? Just my take on it.

Have we explored every part of the ocean, every crevice and cave down there? I bet there's thousands of species not yet discovered, including huge things like the one apparently in this story.

Weebull · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:26

philstanbridge said:
Because scientists and the like would have discovered it by now? Just my take on it.

But scientists are telling us what did it on that video link. :confused:

jamief · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:39

scorza said:
Main reason is that sharks without dorsal fins can't swim, and so sink to the bottom of the sea straight away. If it sank how did the fisherman catch it? According to the article it was caught on a baited hook attached to a buoy, can you honestly see a shark in that state, that cannot swim deciding to have a wee snack?

There are other reasons too - the shape of the bite is different, the fact that the shark was still alive and not eaten by whatever "monster" did that to it.

The shark was caught on the hook before it was attacked.

james.miller · 27 Oct 2009 at 18:44

it's also an extremely narrow bite for something large enough to chomp through a shark, surely.

diverse180 · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:00

philstanbridge · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:02

G-MAN2004 said:
Have we explored every part of the ocean, every crevice and cave down there? I bet there's thousands of species not yet discovered, including huge things like the one apparently in this story.

You're right I know. We know more about the moon than we do our own oceans, but the species that are undiscovered, or species that we a finding are generally small - this would be like finding the loch ness monster

We have been down to the bottom of some of the oceans too, and new creatures are being discovered all the time but nothing on this scale surely? I'm curious now to see what they are finding.. I think we need to get this in perspective. Something with a bite radius that large would be the size of a blue whale..

Mobius 1 · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:08

here's my theory.... its possible.

Biohazard · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:09

yeah I can see that hapenning.

dangerstat · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:17

damn it why has no one posted

OM NOM NOM
Yet?

MarcLister · 27 Oct 2009 at 19:38

You just did.