How the last dinosaur survived extinction

Myth about inbreeding. If you inbreed for a while, you get a few duds at first, but after a while you create a new stronger strain. You breed all the bad stuff out.

A lot of the time, people say but look xyz they have defects. What they are neglecting is that they all probably had shit DNA to begin with.

Take a healthy set of brother and sister horses and breed them together for a while, and see what you get. throw away a the initial batch of duds and you get where you will need to be.


Otherwise small tribes, which is how humans use to live for millions of years, would not work. As they are all related and interrelated.

I think your having a misconeption about how many fish you get in lakes and the sea.

Right you ever see minows spawning at the side of a river?

You know what caviar is? those tiny fish eggs. one female salmon lays between 2000 and 5000 eggs in one go.

Trust me there are more then enough fish for a few swimming elephants to eat on. No problem.

In fact the salmon are probably grateful to the monsters for eating them, otherwise there would be no room left in the lack at all.

 

No, there is no myth, that’s scientific fact. Inbreeding doesn’t magically weed out the bad stuff, it in fact concentrates it. Genetics 101. What keeps a population healthy, genetically speaking, is enough copies of good genes that overpower the bad ones. When you start inbreeding those bad genes begin to pile up and cause all sorts of problems. That’s why rural areas have swap meets for chickens, you need an influx of new genes to prevent the issues with inbreeding. Unless you have some actual science that proves that wrong.

The way smaller tribes do it is they swap people with other tribes, either peacefully or violently. Lots of gene mixing going on from other tribes.

Yes salmon lay a lot of eggs, most die off before they become full sized fish. But you’re missing the larger point that the amount of fish in Ness is no different than the surrounding lochs. A stable population of plesiosaurs would decimate an area that size easily and there’s no evidence of that.

 

In general, plesiosaurians varied in adult length from between 1.5 metres (5 ft) to about 15 metres (49 ft). The group thus contained some of the largest marine apex predators in the fossil record, roughly equalling the longest ichthyosaurs, mosasaurids, sharks and toothed whales in size.


The thing is, fish tend to grow to the size of the tank they are in. They might be all 1.5 meters big. Which is not very big at all.

Also the genetics is false, because you get tribes that were completely isolated, that have only just been found in the amazon. They certainly were not doing any swap meets, at least not for the last few hundred years.

Science is good.

Modern day science is bad, because unfortunately many simple people want to contort it to fit their understanding of how things should be. Much like religious idiots.

There is a political agenda to say inbreeding is bad, because they want to create a one world system where there are no borders.

How many scientists do you think are going to give up their 50-100 + grand a year job for their principles?

very few is the answer, so they will just conduct studies in such away, to give a favourable result to the person paying them.

Inbreeding works, says all the tribes that lived on remote islands.

And at some point, if we go back far enough, there must have only been 2 copies of each animal, that all the millions of animals today come from. So they must have interbred to create the millions you see today.

 

Wow. The amount of nonsense in there is staggering. So many misconceptions, so much misinformation, and so much conspiracy thinking that I'm not even going to try to unpack any of that.

 

Although plesiosaurs are undoubtedly mostly marine, they can be found in freshwater and brackish habitats throughout much of their history. Indeed, it seems that plesiosaurs invaded near-shore and freshwater habits on multiple occasions, although the catalyst of these invasions remains unknown.14 Oct 2013

So how is that possible? if they needed 2 millions square miles of fresh ocean every day to eat from?

Loch ness is a huge fresh water lake. Most fresh water lakes are tiny in comparison.



Personally I will hang my hat on this. The Loch ness monster is probably one of the 15 meter in length ones.

Quite a lot of people have seen it. I don't really see it as a big deal or not if it exists.

Only a few years ago, people said giant squid didn't exsist. Now we know its the main diet of the sperm whale.

Moby dick eathing the giant squid. A famous tall tale from 200 years ago. Turned out it was not such a tall tale after all.

 

"An isolated Amazon tribe was discovered by a drone flying over the Brazilian jungle, according to the country's National Indian Foundation.

It's likely the tribespeople in the Javary River valley, near the Peru border, have never seen the outside world."


https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-tribe-brazil-jungle-drone-video/1082527002/

 

I haven't posted on this website in months but I just came in to say this thread has just brought me unspeakable joy.

I knew when I saw it a posted a few hours ago it would become something great

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49495145

 

So this is an early photo. This looks fake, with the crude photo manipulation they had at the time.
I can't explain why, but to me the waves look to big, tho if you look at it long enough, you start to see interesting patterns in the photo.



This is just the wake of a boat

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-maps-satellite-image-of-loch-ness-boat.3474/





This video to that one looks very convincing. Unless someone that day was driving a submarine. Which is unlikely.


However this is proof that something is down there. Not sure if it's a dinosaur, may very well be just a gigantic eel the size of a huge dinosaur.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9957303/real-loch-ness-monster-giant-eel/

But that is pretty much 100% solid proof, captured by scientists. So that huge eel must need to eat a lot fish to survive.

But hang on a minute, I thought any fish larger then a sea trout needed 2 quadrillion nautical square miles of ocean to feed itself for lunch?


Well that's not how these things work, I am afraid. There are so many fish in lakes and rivers like you would not believe.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9957303/real-loch-ness-monster-giant-eel/

So what I am guessing is that is the food source of the plesiosaurs.

They probably only need to eat maybe one of those every few days I would guess.

Those eel's look like they they are about 10 meters long.


So why are the scientists lying about there being no dinosaur down there?

Well there are a lot of religious idiots who don't want to know the world is older then 6000 years.

Nessise raises a lot of painful questions for a lot of people. So they just want to push him to the back seat where he is out of the way.

There is nothing to gain from admitting that there are a community of plesiosaurs still about, and a lot to loose.


Its hard to explain. I am finely attuned to the ways of the sea. When I was on that tiny jetty standing above those deep dark waters that night, I felt a deep strong presence. Like you have these special receptors in your brain you don't know about, for survival.

Your subconscious alerts you way before your conscience mind has made sense of the situation. I deduce it's subtle smells of things like unfamilar hormones or something.

When I was standing on the jetty, I was sure there was some kind of huge ominous presence, just right there.

Obviously I think its evolved a lot over the millions of years, and now has some kind of intelligence, and also some sort of telepathic or physic atunement.

Makes sense,that's why they were doing all those rituals on those hills.

I can't say weather it's a good entity or an evil entity. But its certainly not stupid.

 

And to add, scientists have only just caught up with what that man on the boat told me 20 years ago.

He was about 40 at the time. I asked him what did they eat. And he said giant eels. There are giant eels down there 6 meters long.

And look here we are.

Basically, that man worked on the lake for 15 years everyday. Went out with a radar on all the time. He adamantly believe there was whole community of them.

I also felt strong powerful presence/experience.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9957303/real-loch-ness-monster-giant-eel/

I would say that the trout you see near to the camera is about the size of the trout here.

Maybe a bit smaller. The scale of the eel is gigantic in comparison, baring in mind it is quite far away from the camera.



The main reason we know the loch ness monster exsists, is because the first time it was mentioned was in Ad 565.

In those days, they didn't even know dinosaurs exsisted. How would they invent the shape of the monster. Most people probably had never even seen many pictures, or didn't even know what different animals would have looked like, as they couldn't see them on tv.


In Scottish folklore, the Loch Ness Monster or Nessie is said to be a creature that inhabits Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. It is often described as large in size with a long neck and one or more humps protruding from the water. Wikipedia

First Mentioned: 565
First reported: 565 (retrospectively); 1802 (chronologically); 1933 (popularly)
Mythological Origin: Scotland
Based on: Plesiosauria
Introduced by: Adomnán
Similar Creatures: Ogopogo, Mokele-mbembe, Champ
Area of Occurrence: Loch Ness, Scotland



Saint Columba (565)
The earliest report of a monster in the vicinity of Loch Ness appears in the Life of St. Columba by Adomnán, written in the sixth century AD.[22] According to Adomnán, writing about a century after the events described, Irish monk Saint Columba was staying in the land of the Picts with his companions when he encountered local residents burying a man by the River Ness. They explained that the man was swimming in the river when he was attacked by a "water beast" which mauled him and dragged him underwater. They had tried to rescue him in a boat, he was killed. Columba sent a follower, Luigne moccu Min, to swim across the river. The beast approached him, but Columba made the sign of the cross and said: "Go no further. Do not touch the man. Go back at once."[23] The creature stopped as if it had been "pulled back with ropes" and fled, and Columba's men and the Picts gave thanks for what they perceived as a miracle.[23]

Believers in the monster point to this story, set in the River Ness rather than the loch itself, as evidence for the creature's existence as early as the sixth century.[24] Sceptics question the narrative's reliability, noting that water-beast stories were extremely common in medieval hagiographies and Adomnán's tale probably recycles a common motif attached to a local landmark.[25] According to sceptics, Adomnán's story may be independent of the modern Loch Ness Monster legend and became attached to it by believers seeking to bolster their claims.[24] Ronald Binns considers that this is the most serious of various alleged early sightings of the monster, but all other claimed sightings before 1933 are dubious and do not prove a monster tradition before that date.[12] Christopher Cairney uses a specific historical and cultural analysis of Adomnán to separate Adomnán's story about St. Columba from the modern myth of the Loch Ness Monster, but finds an earlier and culturally significant use of Celtic "water beast" folklore along the way. In doing so he also discredits any strong connection between kelpies or water-horses and the modern "media-augmented" creation of the Loch Ness Monster.[26]

 

That's amazing! I didn't know about the earliest sighting.

But it actually ties into my own observations on the monster in he 2000's.

The beast is probably evil, and is probably the reason the rituals take place on the loch. Also it appears to have some kind of super natural power.

Hence why the beast is able to hide so well. It only shows itself on specific occastions to individual people.

But I also believe the people doing the rituals can probably lure it out of hiding as well.

 

An interesting topic. I've always loved the idea of Nessie. However, again, I don't think this belongs in the Seraphon discussion. Maybe fluff or general conversations?

 

1. If it does/ever has existed, it's an animal, not a "beast" and not "evil",
2. The first "siting" was a monk, they aren't known for being very honest people when it comes to accurately portraying historical events,
3. There's a very obvious motive for faking a "river monster", tourism and merch,
4. If there are people leaving markings around The area why do you jump to The conclusion of "satanism?" how do you know it isn't shamanism or druidry? Or norse given The fact that scotland has a strong historical connection to both The celts and vikings,
5. If you saw rams heads all over the place why has no one else ever reported it? We have animal protection laws in the UK,
6. Marine reptiles are far from stupid but for one to evade being positively and undeniably proven to exist for such a long period of time when people are actively looking for it with ever increasing amounts of technology would require it to have an inteligence level of someone like Edward Snowden, If Nessie really is that inteligent then it should be considered a God, or.... Maybe it isn't a prehistoric Marine reptile but a miniature version of jormungandr

 

While I agree with most of your points here, just wanted to clarify this.

Modern Druidry doesn't involve sacrifice. Just as Christians don't burn people at the stake anymore because it's been discovered to be morally wrong, modern Druids don't perform sacrifices anymore, again because it is now known to be morally wrong. Norse Paganism was never that big on sacrifice, and again modern practitioners don't perform it because of moral reasons.

If there were some religious maniacs around decapitating rams, it would be far more likely they were Satanists or something, because such depraved souls have lost all sense of moral reason.

In any case, even if the decapitating rams thing was true, as you say,

 

As a Pagan myself I'm aware that sacrifices are very uncommon and even historically a large part of the stories about sacrifices were just slander from the church, but, the part about druids ect was in reference to the markings he claimed he saw, it annoys me that everything is still labelled as satanism by the church when as far as I'm concerned satanism is a christian product, Pagans regardless of denomination cannot be satanists because in order to worship satan you first have to beleive in the existence of satan, and by extension, the christian god, yet whenever people follow a pre christian religion or lifestyle ect it gets labelled as satanism, most of the markings he saw, if he did actually see any, were probably Pagan symbols, i cant even count the amount of times (certain) christians have accused me of satanism for listening to metal for example

 

Hooray! I think you're the third Pagan after @tom ndege and me to arrive here! We're spreading!



Which pantheon do you worship?

 

Norse mainly although i've been looking into slavic and celtic mythologies a bit aswell, i think theres a fairly large overlap with alot of the tribes who were geographically close and came into contact, like the Norse and Slavs and early Brittons and Saxons, and as i'm half Irish i find alot of the celtic stuff quite interesting aswell, what about you?