dinosaurs still live underwater!

They hide deep in the oceans and when we donīt expect them, they will come for us and eat our flesh!

Just keep on with them meds, mate. Trust me, they'll do you good.

Which raises a conundrum that's much on my mind. How come nobody has managed to name a new genus of theropod Godzillosaurus?

ya see what evolution do to you?

dinosaurs only come out in Japan, the locals call her Gojira

Yeah, it produced you, Jabbers. There oughtta be a law.

well of course in monterybay in cali only in 2007 569 dissaperaces!!! read my ad called "this is really scary"

May there are Plesiosaurs still living in our deep oceans.
Look at the Coelocanth,prime example!!!
Explain all the Lake Monster sightings,mmmm
some cant be explained!!!
Big foot,Mokele Mbembe,Sailors myths and legends of Giant Squid,Sea serpents etc.
The list goes endlessly on into legend itself.
Yes I believe there are still monsters in our oceans that still havent been dicovered.

Kenobi, you're suggesting cryptozoology. True the Coelocanth was found alive, but remember that Plesiosaurs needed a lot more food and space. The Oceans today couldn't support something that size. The condtions have ot be perfect for organisms to live, you can't just assume that a fish, for example, can live in a certain body of water because it's a fish.

The Loch Ness is too small to support something the size of Nessie. Mokele Mmembe...or whatever, can't possibly survive in the Congo. Conditions in the Quaternary are very different than the Jurassic period and the rest of the Mesozoic for that matter.


Sorry, Kenobi. What you've suggested isn't plausible. Just because the Coelocanth survived, doesn't mean others can do the same. Organisms adapt and evolve at different rates and conditions have to be just right so it favors the particular gene. Hence Natural Selection. The Coelocanth was in an ecosystem that suited it's traits perfectly and enabled it to survive.


Again, I'm sorry, but Cryptozoology undermines the basics of Natural Selection and Darwin's work.

I'm with you kenobi if the sperm whales can survive on giant and colossal squid then anything is possible that's why we seek to know.

Thanx wallsend,
Yes allthough science seems to have an answer to most things these days,I like you still believe that there are still creatures in places on this planet of ours that exist.
Take for instance Champ from lake Champlain ,
and The Ogo Pogo lake monster that even the native indians have seen this monster over hundreds of centuries.
There is no reason why these creatures could not exist,the lakes that they live in are like small oceans and there would certainly be enough fish in these lakes to sustain a small population.
Okay like Raptor Lewis said in an earlier discussion that the Loch Ness monster could not possibly exist ,as the population of fish could not sustain such a large creature and Loch Ness being such a small body of water compared to its Canadian equivilents.
Until one of these creatures is caught,or remains are found they will always be the illusive monsters of Legend.

Did you hear the news about the kamoto dragon. they found poison glands on a dead one, so that throws out the bacteria theory.I always wondered about that fork tongue.Do you think some dino's were poisonous?

I agree with Raptor Lewis theory here!

Thank you Copper. At least some people do (Joking here).

Hi Whalesend,
Komodo Dragons have sarated teeth and are carnivorous,the pieces of meat acumulate on the serations on the teeth and this inturn fester inside the mouth of the Komodo Dragon this is what makes the saliva toxic.
T Rex had sarated teeth,was carnivorous he must of had toxic saliva musnt he like other predatory dinosaurs that had serated teeth????
Just imagine what that could do to the dino world ,an early form of chemical warfare against the herbivorous dinos that existed.
Long before snakes ever became poisonous.
Imagine T Rex in the forest waiting to ambush a Triceratops ,rather than figting the Triceratops and risk being impaled by the lethal horns on the Triceratops,could it not be plausable that the T Rex may have hunted like the modern day Komodo Dragon and rushed in on the Triceratops from behind and took one bite and then backed away and waited until the toxic saliva took effect and and the Triceratops died from loss of blood and poisoning from toxic T Rex saliva.
Also to add to the infection T Rex had such a powerful bite.
This toxic saliva may have also infected the bone marrow that T Rexs bone crushing bite may have inflicted on his victim.

Kenobi and Whalesend- WHy don't you take that elsewhere on another thread?

whalesend wrote:

Hi Kenobi,
On may- 19- 09 there was a news report that scientist had discovered glands inside the Komodo's mouth that held toxin like venomous snakes. So that puts them in the category of the Gila monster which also has a fork tongue. I think dinosaurs and today's reptiles had the same characteristics in hunting,breeding and territorial disputes. I love watching animals, our ancestors learned a lot from watching wildlife. The tiny warps that mixed water,saliva,and wood to make paper. I watched a horse fight the other day, he picked a clump of grass and dirt then throw it at another horse on the other side of the fence. I would have loved to have seen what dinosaurs did with their time.

This is why users on this site have the ability to create new threads. I'm not saying that whalesend didn't have an interesting thought, but it just seems out of place.

Hi Raptor Lewis ,I know what you are saying but am I right in saying that,you can quote me wrong,Paleontologists today use modern animal behavior as comparisons to what dinosaur behavior may have been like.

Kenobi wrote:

Hi Raptor Lewis ,I know what you are saying but am I right in saying that,you can quote me wrong,Paleontologists today use modern animal behavior as comparisons to what dinosaur behavior may have been like.

You are, in fact, correct with Paleontologists speculate on Dinosaur behavior with comparisons to modern animals.

Many thanks again Raptor Lewis

Raptor Lewis wrote:

Kenobi, you're suggesting cryptozoology. True the Coelocanth was found alive, but remember that Plesiosaurs needed a lot more food and space. The Oceans today couldn't support something that size. The condtions have ot be perfect for organisms to live, you can't just assume that a fish, for example, can live in a certain body of water because it's a fish.

The Loch Ness is too small to support something the size of Nessie. Mokele Mmembe...or whatever, can't possibly survive in the Congo. Conditions in the Quaternary are very different than the Jurassic period and the rest of the Mesozoic for that matter.


Sorry, Kenobi. What you've suggested isn't plausible. Just because the Coelocanth survived, doesn't mean others can do the same. Organisms adapt and evolve at different rates and conditions have to be just right so it favors the particular gene. Hence Natural Selection. The Coelocanth was in an ecosystem that suited it's traits perfectly and enabled it to survive.


Again, I'm sorry, but Cryptozoology undermines the basics of Natural Selection and Darwin's work.

This, above, was quoted by raptor lewis. This, above, is also wrong and false. THE OCEANS ARE NOT TOO SMALL!There might not be alot left, but most certainly, are there.

Well said Dino I totally agree,
Yes there may well be plesiosaurs etc living in our oceans,and we have yet to discover them.

yeay but if you think about it they will problebly be renamed and moved to the top of the food chain haha. plus if they have survived this long. they had to evolved. so wounder what they look like now

hey stop arguing be happy::

D!NO wrote:

This, above, was quoted by raptor lewis. This, above, is also wrong and false. THE OCEANS ARE NOT TOO SMALL!There might not be alot left, but most certainly, are there.

D!no- I was hoping you would get my point, but I'm afraid you missed it. I thought i was clear. Was I not clear? The point was on Cryptozoology not being a true or credible science. Does that help?

Ah!, but you missed MY point. we have only explored 1% of the sea floor. there could be enough fish in an unexplored area to feed a small amount of plesios.

D!NO wrote:

Ah!, but you missed MY point. we have only explored 1% of the sea floor. there could be enough fish in an unexplored area to feed a small amount of plesios.

Ah! So I did. I think we both missed our points, didn't we? . Anywho, Good Job!!! You actually proved me wrong, I think (Not completely, though). Not bad, Not bad at all!

i deffinetly think there are underwater dinosaurs still!

Well, everything is possible...