Monster Submarine Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings
Shark videos 7 years ago 6,296,008 views
Megalodon Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings, Official CR 2.0 Video feature of the best evidence,videos, and proof fo the msonter submarine shark they call the megalodon shark. ➨ Most Recent UFO Sightings: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjMRDWcPlnt1GnrBtp4RC-g ➨ Science & Tech: https://www.CryptidResearch.com/ _ - SUBSCRIBE , FOLLOW & LIKE PLEASE, THANK YOU - _ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjMRDWcPlnt1GnrBtp4RC-g https://www.facebook.com/dmc.vids2 https://twitter.com/DMCVids The Megalodon shark caught on tape, slender man, alien sightings, ufo caught on tape, bigfoot sightings, extraterrestrial life on mars, aliens on the moon, iss ufo, nasa footage, and other topics such as ghosts, real dragons, new technology, new discovery , and other topics we will be discussing on DMCVids.
It was an ad-lib.
10. comment for Monster Submarine Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings
20. comment for Monster Submarine Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings
30. comment for Monster Submarine Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings
50. comment for Monster Submarine Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings
rola e maior
stuck in her teeth
Either way. Dude in kajak is fucked!
''they will kill it''
don't they always
100. comment for Monster Submarine Shark Caught on Tape - 2017 Documentary Collection of Best Sightings
The other large shark, before, was a Basking shark! HUGE, but harmless....unless you're a krill.
I do believe there are sharks, ranging from 20-28 feet. But they are rare Great Whites. Megaladons are simply.....extinct.
In my humble opinion.....
I'll be very happy if this monster is out there..
My favorite monster-pet of all time!
captain: were going to need a bigger boat!!!!
megalodon: ill EAT you for that!!!!!!!!!!
captain: yeah right
megalodon: big asshole
great white: can i join
megalodon and captain: NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great white: wah wah wah wah
megalodon: cry baby
captain: idiot
great white: im going to stay here
megalodon: after this ill eat you
great white: okay
megalodon: ill eat your boat
captain: WHY!!!!!
megalodon: you forgot
megalodon: im going home
IN MY DREAMS LOL
So your time is off just a little over 12 years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_shark
The Greenland shark is one of the largest living species of shark, with dimensions comparable to those of the great white shark. Greenland sharks grow to 6.4 m (21 ft) and 1,000 kg (2,200 lb),[6] and possibly up to 7.3 m (24 ft) and more than 1,400 kg (3,100 lb).[7][8] Most Greenland sharks observed have been around 2.44–4.8 m (8.0–15.7 ft) long and weigh up to 400 kg (880 lb).
as for the shadows swimming .... oceans are pretty clear and if u notice the ripples are a photoshop effect compare it to an actual shark or any fish swimming it breaks and levels of clarity should be visible ...it's not!
Megalabollocks more like.
I ask because I caught one too. I'm trying to make sure my world record is safe.
bishop polycarp who lived from 69 ad to 155 ad was a student of John the apostle who as you know was a disciple of jesus. polycarp's letter to the pillipians can be read online.
Ignatius of Antioch's who was a bishop and friends with polycarp wrote letters that can be read on the internet.
Evolution, as i said earlier, is not a theory anymore. it has weaknesses of course, but it will add up piece by piece, things will be proven, other assumpitons will be folded. That is the way of any science.. that is the way we know what we know about the world. Science evolvs due errors and mistakes, and therefor we konw things better every day.
Evolution is not a lie. it is inperfect consept of understanding our selves but it will improve every day. Religions.. well, they do not. Religions stop thinking, questoning and just about anything that make us wiser by the time. For example, with just religion, we would not have this conversation right now. Propaby we wouldn´t exist anymore as humans in this planet.
Maybe Science is kind of religon too. At least for us whom are not scientists. I can´t prove you anything i´ve said in this.. neiher can´t you :D
Since science has (yes, it has) evolved through the time, it has been able to proof 80% of the idea of original theory right.
In specific details, Darwin was wrong by many times about what he presented on "Origin of Speicies", Due the lack of means to prove them, but basic line was all correct, Evolution.
There for we call it today as Evolution with out that "theory" adding.
Allthou, there is some things that cannot be proven by science yet and on that part it has still lot of things to do. Science goes ahead and everyone will benefit results, and even you who do believe in bible and christian God.. or any other God.
Secret of life on earth will be revealled, not depressed.. wich is basicly job for a religions... people who search for knowledge are dangerous for those in power.
Talking about Father of lies.. have you ever thought what is biggest lie of all in this kind conversations all together?
It is a consept of Religions.
What is more to deviding people in this world than different religions?
And anyone wants to be right that this MY way and MY rites of believing is right, not yours. And everyone will swear on their holy book.. who is right?
other way around... what would be better way for devide and destruct people of god, than put different opinions out, how to worship God..
Religions, all of them, are from the down below. They devide us to believe that there is right way of believing. But god speaks in every book same way:
Fuck the rites, believe.. that´s it.
And back.. nowhere has said ever that evolution and bible has conflicted to each other. Nowhere. It is just interperation for a people who do not want, will or can´t see message out of words..
Maybe.. just maybe God created this world and all the spieces by Evolution..? Ever thought of that?
Opponent, Religion, is not even a theory. It is a fairytale someone invetend coulple of thousad years ago and it´s belived (Faith = Beliving something exist without anything to back it up) to be true. No facts either to prove it.
Besides, Sir.. You are not worthy enough to put Hell-sentence on me or any other.. it is not your or any humans post in this world. Read your bible and ask god if you not believe when I´m saying it.
The Cambrian Explosion is in the fossil record .Everything came to life fully form into their own species. Even Darwin could not explained that.
Are you not embarrassed by yourself? You should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html
Evidence from over a dozen different, independent,scientific disciplines all support the theory of evolution. Biology, Microbiology, Paleontology, DNA, Zoology, just to name a few. 1000s of transitional fossils have been discovered that almost entire lineages of various animals have been documented. Just research the evolution of the whale from a terrestrial animal to its current forms. Long extinct animals like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Durudon all indicate the gradual evolution of the whale from its prehistoric ancestors towards what they are today. Whales still have hind legs; very small and useless, a throwback to the days when its ancestors walked on land.
Sorry. There is an interesting statistic that 100% of people who deny the mountains of evidence supporting a well understood fact like evolution, are idiots.
Flat Earth Rules!
THEORY "BEST GUESS " Evolution was science, it would not be call a THEORY of Evolution . LUCY DNA tested -100 percent MONKEY - Blacker, I don't get my facts from U tube . So were can I get a picture of a fossil or bone that proves Evolution ?? You serve the father of lies, and you not believing, does change the temperature of HELL .things in secret....
Don you are so right, and hell no one really knows shit about earth. like you said stuff is being found everyday.
It would be wonderful if such creature still exists, but I rather go for to win a lottery.. Better chance in that :)
I know a few Neanderthals.
The sperm whale, albeit a mammal, is bigger, a very efficient killer and has even been known to sink ships back in the day. Herman Melville wrote a book about it although the name was changed to 'protect the innocent'. Perhaps, being one of the smartest creatures on the planet had something to do with it. Similarly, a pod of transient Orcas would rip the living shit out of a Megalodon, just like they do with Great White Sharks.
and we don't even really know what the hell is in the ocean so much more to explore we haven't even tried to scratch the surface when it comes to the ocean it's so big
of the water for krill.
Basking Sharks are great fun to snorkel with an about as dangerous as a wet fart !
Greater wish for a bigger fish ;)
The shark at 4:00 is NOT NO 40feet long.
The Shark at 5:00 is also NOT a Megladon. it is more like a Sleeper Shark. the Gills, the Fins and eyes all are Sleeper Shark.
The Megladon would be very similar to a Great White predisposing it was not more conformant to a Mako Shark or any of the sharks of that family. Honestly for what it was i would think the Megladon would be more like a Bull Shark.
For now this is ALL speculation but the video evidence is not convincing.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
They put out "like-science" type of writings for people to ensure that god exists and world is created by Him.
I+m not saying anything about Gods existance, but that "science" is full of holes and.. yes, Lies too.
Thanks for the breath of fresh air!
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Have they uncovered the odd soft tissue? Yes. Does this highly unusual and rare phenomena amount to many? Hardly. The condition of these bones can be compared to an insect found in amber, but I'm not saying it's similar conditions. What I'm saying is it is comparable, to give you an idea. Plus, they are minute parts of the fossil. The few very tiny sections of soft tissues they have found contained red blood cells and some sinew, but it was found INSIDE the bones, like the marrow. So, this meant it had been contained, comparable to an insect in amber. Are you shocked how an insect will still have soft tissue in amber after 65million years?
Granted, there have been some recent breakthroughs and I believe they have discovered soft tissue in about 6 or 8 different fossils. HOWEVER, the reason why has to do with new scientific techniques and testing methods that can detect it easier and extract it.
Now. What I have shared IS A scientific FACT. Not conjecture, not what "feels" right or what I read on some random site run by some inbred with a theory.
"The creatures we generalise to call dinosaurs died out 65 millions years
ago. No flesh or tissue remains on their fossils. Dinosaurs"
You've not done a lot of research have you? It's not mammoths they are finding the soft tissue on but dinosaurs one of which is the Terex. Are you going to continue to stick your head in the sand?
That fact alone makes them become accusatory and belligerent when someone even brings up the idea of soft tissue being found. Their leg's are being taken out from underneath them, they are scrambling now, no where to run.
Not true at all. Science is the opposite of faith. Conflating scientific conclusions with religious faith is a rather underhanded technique that has developed directly from religious thought in an attempt to level the laying field of ideas in the modern world. All ideas are not equal.
"Asking who created God is like asking if God can create a square circle."
Invoking god at the limits of understanding is on the table for dissection... always! If one claims that every thing that exists has to have a beginning, then surely God must have had a beginning too, you know, if it exists. THAT is the basic formula to the response you find so contentious. If one says, everything that exists, except God, has to have a beginning, we start to see the contrivance inherent in the idea. Defining God into existence in the grey areas of knowledge is fruitless argumentum because it is in perpetual recession as we gain more knowledge.
"the concept of God proposed by major monotheistic religions involves, as part of the definition, a being that had no beginning."
Which is dubious at best. If every other thing that exists has a finite past, then why not what created the Universe also? Why are you so reluctant to allow that channel of questioning to remain open?
"the leading theory of the Big Bang also posits that "before" the Big Bang, time did not exist."
The Lamda CDM model does not comment on anything prior to t= 10 -43 seconds. It cannot comment on anything prior. You might want to revise your description to reflect reality.
Theories are not to be "bought in to". They are to be assessed based upon the merits of the evidence. In this particular case, there are literal mountains of evidence overlapping from disparate fields of science showing conclusively that life has existed on this planet for more than a billion years.
Well, thank you. I try to be conscious of my own biases and argue based on more than sheer dogma. Honestly, I think it would be difficult to argue purely from science, purely from religion, or purely from philosophy; I find that all of them are closely connected and the response to one bleeds over into responses to everything else.
About what? I made quite a few points for the argument, coming from a lot of different angles. Which of those do you want me to continue with? I ask because, if you're looking for me to continue scientifically and I start off on epistemology or something like that, the result is not likely to benefit either of us. :)
The question was addressed to a person with a specific type of attitude and argument. To get to the root of the debate with you, I'd need to see more of your position than I've seen so far. So, for the sake of the argument, let's say we're talking about the God of one of the major monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Go for it; show me what you've got! I'm looking forward to a good discussion. (And it's nice that you consider the implications of different worldviews on your argument. That's an advanced skill that I don't see too often in Internet debates.)
Thanks, looking forward to reading that documentation (again, from credible sources).
First things first: your entire argument was full of a specific logical fallacy called the "straw man" fallacy. It means that you're criticizing things that I never said because they're easily refuted. It's like claiming someone who uses paper bags wants all the trees to die; they never said that at all. All they did was use a paper bag. Similarly, I never said A) that there is only belief, not reason, or B) that I do not trust modern science (in fact, I have repeatedly shown myself to be quite knowledgeable about modern science; I am pursuing a doctorate in a field composed primarily of understanding extremely delicate, complex, high-functioning chemical reactions).
You actually did not answer my questions, so let me see if I can, from what you've said:
1. You believe there is no God because you have not seen any evidence for His existence, and any sources which claim to have done so you do not consider credible.
2. You consider the tools of science, observation, and deductive/inductive reasoning to be the ONLY credible basis for believing anything. Am I correct so far?
3. This one, I can't determine the answer to from what you've said, and this is actually the primary source of contention. If you answer this question (and actually answer it this time), we may be able to have a rational discussion, and we may even find that on some points we agree (though we certainly will not agree on everything). However, for that to happen, you'll have to honestly tell my why, in your opinion, science and observation are the only credible basis for belief.
Now that being said, there's something that I feel needs to be addressed:
What I see, when I look at where you're coming from, is actually not an interest in debate or discussion, but a lot of anger. I don't know what happened to you to cause this, but I am sincerely sorry for whatever happened. Believe me, I've been there (clinical depression combined with anger over what happened to me for 9+ years and counting), so I know that getting into a debate with someone on the Internet is not going to fix it or make anything better. I've tried that, and I can tell you that it doesn't work. It does give a bit of a rush at first, and that makes things feel better for a bit, but it doesn't fix anything in the end. I know that to you I'm just a stranger on the internet, and one that you disagree with, but I would suggest that you look into getting help. There are quite a few reasons I could see for reacting this way, and none of them are good positions to be in. I know what it's like to feel like you have a sucking void at your feet trying to drag you in, and believe me, no one gets out of there alone.
I know you don't believe that this helps any, but I've been in that hole too long to sit by when anyone else shows the warning signs of being in there, so I will be praying for you.
But you apparently DO know for sure how the universe began...by a supernatural entity for which there hasn't been a shred of solid evidence or anything that comes close to it in all the centuries of human searching. Why? -- because it's a BELIEF. And for which God, since there are a whole bunch of them? Each believer believes his/her God is the only true God. Religion divides humanity, big time. It's quite a destructive institution, but I'm hoping you will not take this personally.
The bogey-man does not exist no matter how many BELIEVE or "KNOW" he does. You agree? Same holds true for all other myths, including the big one. You do not trust modern science but you wholeheartedly trust an ancient book that claims "Let there be light" before the sun, moon or stars existed? Really?
I'm not interested, as you presume, in invoking your anger. But feel free to get angry if you feel offended. Anger is not always a bad thing. It can be a motivator. I'm interested in an exchange of REASON which is unfortunately not possible against religious dogma and superstition, regardless of how many scholarly credentials a believer may have. You may deny this if you like.
Regarding your question(s): God did not invent man. Man invented God. He needed to...out of FEAR of death and the unknown. If there was no such thing as death there'd be no such thing as God. It's a pretty safe bet. Most major religions are based on fear and subservience to what calms that fear. It's a clever arrangement, don't you think? Sort of like a drug addiction...in the form of a huge but pleasant lie. "Religion is the opiate of the people." True words. Now you know where I'm coming from. And it ain't from superstition.
First off, the warning was for everyone, not just for you. I try to be patient when people rant and rage on the Internet, but this has gone on too long and it's time someone, anyone, started having a rational conversation with the other side. If you're able to do that, great! Looking forward to the conversation! (Also, the point of the warning was that there will not be any wrath, so trolling at me won't do anything. It was not my intention to threaten anyone; I only meant to warn any trolls who have no real intention of an actual debate and are only trying to make me angry that they'll be deeply disappointed.)
You're right, of course, that people's minds are unlikely to be changed by a debate on the internet, but that's not actually the point. The point is that, by having a rational and reasonable debate, people will start to calm down, stop having the Internet equivalent of a brain aneurysm, and think about and strengthen their positions. That is worth doing, even if no one is ever going to be convinced.
As to scientific fact versus religious belief, the truth is, at some point everyone must make a leap of faith to trust in whatever they believe in. Einstein's theory of relativity, long held as the standard for higher-level physics theories, is now showing enough inconsistencies with the data that several theorists are suggesting that it may need to be revised. Theories, on which most of science is based, especially in the fields that are worthwhile for this discussion, must be constantly revised and often discarded. There are very few things in the scientific community that can actually be considered fact; the vast majority of sciences, from evolutionary biology to geology to chemistry, are founded on hypotheses or, at best, theories. Even things regarded as scientific law, of which there are comparatively few, must be revised or discarded as new data comes in. For those things that qualify as fact, I would agree that they are more obviously true than any religious claim, but that does not necessarily mean that the claims of a religion are false. If we have no groundwork laid for the conversation and no basis set for our philosophies and worldviews, all we can say is that the means of determining the truth about scientific facts are more obvious and present than the means of determining the truth about religious claims. Without getting to the root of the disagreement, that's literally the only thing we can conclude.
As to your question at the end, you're assuming that God had to have a beginning. If we assume for a minute that God exists, and that the God that exists is the God of one of the major monotheistic religions, what, exactly, would dictate that He had to begin somewhere? The God of the major monotheistic religions is generally considered either infinite, having no beginning and no end, or eternal. The idea of an eternal God takes it one step further and posits that God is outside of time and therefore the concept of a beginning and an end simply makes no sense. Before you say this is absurd, the leading theory of the Big Bang also posits that "before" the Big Bang, time did not exist. Both sides are saying something equally bizarre to the general idea of the world, but one attributes the beginning of time to natural causes and one to supernatural ones.
Asking who created God is like asking if God can create a square circle. There is no such thing as a square circle; the definition of a circle and the definition of a square are mutually exclusive, and nonsense does not stop being nonsense if it references God. Similarly, the concept of God proposed by major monotheistic religions involves, as part of the definition, a being that had no beginning. As a result, asking who or what created God is asking about the square circle; it is impossible for something fitting those criteria to exist.
Now, in order to have a fruitful discussion, we need to get to the basis of our beliefs, so let me ask a few questions to establish where you're coming from:
Why do you believe that God does NOT exist?
What is your defining authority for claims of the truth of something? (I.e. what convinces you of the truth or lack thereof of a claim?)
Why do you trust that defining authority?
Once you answer these, we can start having a useful discussion and I can start trying to explain where I'm coming from in terms that make sense based on where you're coming from.
(Also, if you think this is bad, you should see my ACTUAL dissertation!) :)
And NO, in the final analysis scientific FACTS and religious BELIEFS do NOT mix. There is more accuracy and truth in a single scientific theory than in all the world's religious beliefs. You know who said that? Forgive me for asking, but what exactly was the point you were trying to make?
Hmm. Let's get right to it. Who or what created God?
The issue with all radioactive decay dating is that it assumes that the concentrations of the parent and daughter isotopes started out at more or less 100% parent isotope, and that the sample was completely isolated from any liquid seepage containing any amount of parent or daughter isotopes at all. At that point, having even a trace of daughter isotope in the initial rock or even a trace of seepage can throw off dating ideas by massive amounts. There are known examples of lava flows that were documented in the 1960s, leaving igneous rock over layers of sedimentary rock that have been on the surface for as long as we've known about the place, and the lava flows were dated at approximately 1 million years EARLIER than the rock underneath it. (This is probably due to the first issue; daughter isotope levels were likely very high in the igneous rock compared to the sedimentary layers.) With fossils, the primary issue with dating would be seepage contamination, since the very process by which fossils are formed involves mineral-rich water getting into the buried organism.
Also, there are several historical inaccuracies in your critique. First: As early as 2000 BC, the Greeks knew that the world was round. It was common knowledge by the time the Bible was written, even according to the earliest estimates. Second, did you know that the Bible is far more scientifically accurate than any religious text written before the advent of "modern" science? In contrast to most texts, which have the world on the back of a turtle or some other animal or being carried by something, the Bible talks about it being "hung in the sky". If you were explaining, without complex calculations or the codified theory of gravity, how the Earth stays in its orbit, it would likely be in similar terms. Third, about germs and diseases: the means to make functional glass lenses to make a microscope to see microbes did not exist yet. It wasn't that anyone was too "ignorant" or too "poisoned by religion" to discover them; glass formulas could not produce a form of glass clear enough, nor could glassblowers form a shape smooth enough, to have the slightest chance of seeing anything on a microscopic level. Furthermore, I fail to see how a lack of technological prowess should change anything regarding a religious or philosophical text. No one mocks Aristotle's philosophy because he didn't know about photons or sonar or the Internet.
Now, as to your final "point": silverhorder1969 has repeatedly disavowed being religious in any way, shape, or form. You do not have the right to continuously insist that they are actually something which they have said repeatedly that they are not. Now, that being said, I am religious, evangelical Christian to be exact. Astronomy fascinates me, and I can argue about it all day; other hobbies of mine include organic and higher-level inorganic chemistry, biochemistry, geological analysis, and quantum physics (as a little light reading if I get bored). I am also going into medicine and will be the second person in my family to get a doctorate. There is literally no reason why science and Christianity should be incompatible. Two things that are incompatible are Christianity and Secular Humanism, as they are both religions. One is open about its leaps of faith, the other is not. Truth be told, in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe everything that is currently taught to justify Secular Humanism than it does to believe that yes, there is a God.
To be honest, I suspect that you didn't read all the way through, but if you did, good for you! If you want to argue any of my points, feel free, but be warned: you will not be able to goad me into losing my temper. I will respond calmly, rationally, and exhaustively to any arguments, so if you plan to reply, make sure it's worthwhile. I'm sure you have good arguments; I'd like to see them, to be honest. Healthy debate is always a benefit.
However, if you do choose to argue in a derogatory style without any real arguments, as I have seen other people attempt to do, I will reply exhaustively, I will remain calm and rational, and you will look silly. Just a friendly warning. Good night!
Your mind has been poisoned by religion. You're afraid of the truth. All creationists are. You belittle the sciences of geology, evolutionary biology and astronomy, but you worship the science of medicine when you're sick. Hypocrites!
Answer yes or no -- is there such a thing as a million years ago?
All elements contain protons and neutrons, located in the atomic nucleus, and electrons that orbit around the nucleus (Figure 5a). In each element, the number of protons is constant while the number of neutrons and electrons can vary. Atoms of the same element but with different number of neutrons are called isotopes of that element. Each isotope is identified by its atomic mass, which is the number of protons plus neutrons. For example, the element carbon has six protons, but can have six, seven, or eight neutrons. Thus, carbon has three isotopes: carbon 12 (12C), carbon 13 (13C), and carbon 14 (14C) (Figure 5a). In other words c-14 isnt the only method. Hey i guess school taught me a lot. And yes it helps me win arguments over supersticious idiots.
you also keep avoiding the questions about your "profession" which also makes me call bullshit on your credibility
go get hard evidence instead of running on superstition
Oh wait that means we dont own shit.