Does /x/ think there are giant undiscovered creatures in the oceans?
I would like to think so but what would they eat?
>>17528036
>but what would they eat?
Other giant sea creatures, duh.
>>17528036
There are ginat squid but they are frankly disappointing.
>>17528077
How so? Because they figured out that ships don't taste very good or provide nourishment?
>>17528087
They're not even that big. When they say "13 metres long" or whatever it's just long spindly tentacles.
>>17528036
I imagine giant creatures being really sluggish bottom-feeders that conserve as much energy as possible while feeding on filtered Marine Snow.
>>17528036
There are certainly undiscovered sea creatures, and large ones at that. But no Kraken, leviathan or Jörmungandr lurks below.
>>17531181
The Colossal Squid sounds a lot like the Kraken of myth.
>>17531568
Not even slightly.
Hell yeah. We know nothing about are oceans really.
Nothing creeps me out mores
>>17528036
Yes maybe they filter feed like whales
>>17528036
>>17530322
Yeah I imagine if they did exist they would most likely save their energy for feeding and would be inactive when not hungry to conserve their energy.
>>17532277
You're fucking stupid
I'm 99.999% certain that all of the powerful sonar that our military vessels and subs use is killing them or at the least injuring them.
>>17528036
They'd probably filter marine snow or feed on the dead corpses of other marine animals.
>>17533482
*You are
>>17533599
You are and You're are basically the same thing
>>17533490
Like some kind of gigantic amoeba colony in the muck at the bottom, kind of like the Blob.
>>17533599
>>17533599
>You're - contraction of you are
>Your - possessive
Drives me fucking nuts people don't get this right. Using loose in place of lose is another pet peeve.
>>17533630
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophyophore
If only these things didn't collapse if you sneeze at them wrong, I'd love to put one in a tank and energetically introduce it to visitors to my home much as others do for their dogs or children.
>>17533633
Don't loose you're cool m8
>>17528036
it's logically improbable that anything extremely large exists in the ocean. the larger you are, the more you need to eat and food at the bottom of the ocean we assume is scarce. however, there is still the possibility that the abyss goes deeper than we think, as in there are oceanic tunnels underneath the ocean's sea floor that are accessed via trenches. the ocean is not very deep until you come across trenches, but the trenches we know of don't exactly span far enough to host an abundance of both larger than pic related + the many normal sized foods for it. the theory that there are Naboo-esque honeycomb tunnels connected to these trenches that go deeper into the Earth comes into play and promotes the possibility that an abundance of plankton, normal sized creatures, and sea monster creatures exist in them. think Gears of War basically.
whales rely on plankton, anything larger than them would need a serious abundance of creatures to feast on or plankton themselves and there would have to be an entirely new food chain economy in these tunnels that we have no idea about. for the theory we have to know literally 0% about it because what we know right now about the food chain hierarchy instantly disproves it.
No food supply, too much pressure, there is no biological feasibility for anything larger than the blue whale to exist.
>>17533748
>No food supply
>what is marine snow
>too much pressure
>what is abyssal gigantism
>there is no biological feasibility for anything larger than the blue whale to exist.
When my grandfather was in school he was told there was no biological feasibility for intelligence in non-human animals, and now we have octopus villages, tool-using crows, and self-medicating fruitflies. Fruitflies for fuck's sake.
>>17533900
Also, pressure's not as big a deal when you're basically just water to begin with, like an amoeba or an octopus.
