How Megalodon possibly looked like

[GuateGojira]

(06-22-2022, 12:34 PM)Semyon Wrote: You don't know what you're talking about, do you ?

Which people investigating this do you refer ? Pimiento ? Shimada ? Cooper ? Kent ? Godfrey ? Ferrón ? Perez ? Greenfield ? Siversson ?...


Because those are the people actually actively working as academics on this genus since two decades, and none of them are claiming about a new body plan. The sculpture at the Smithsonian is based on mako (following Brett Kent and Hans Sue suggestions) but is still cruisiform very much like a great white shark. From what I've seen, the people you refer are deviant users, comments sections and tweets filled with wishful thinking, no data, no review, no actual work.




You don't even check the links and data provided so you're clearly not serious nor an academic and certainly less interesting to talk with than investigating about this fascinating genus.

You can't even properly list the actual updated status about phylogeny (Greenfield 2022), body size (Perez 2021), metabolism (Ferrón 2017)... so please either you check the actual data or don't argue there is a new form to be accepted because this is simply wrong.

The last time that I accessed to this topic was in June 21 of 2022, I believed than that will be all, although I suspected that this guy will probably continue his debate. I decided to ignore it.

However, today I was talking with other poster and I decided to check the old post of this topic and for my surprise I found this same post with different words, modified and with direct attacks to me. Check the image, showing the date of the modification and the part that was added:

*This image is copyright of its original author

It is really contradictory that this guy, who says it is a "professional", use this type of words and this attacks that looks more like a fan-boy than a real scientists. I had many debates to know how to identified when a "passionate professional" actually wrote and when an "animal fan-boy" do the same.

So, I will blow his/her mind saying this, but all this thing about megalodon size and apperiance is pure speculation bassed in assumptions that change every new document, so how can we take it seriously? We have many fragmentary prehistoric animals with more backup that this overrated creature. So, again, I repeat what I said, I am not interested in this animal because is like study an air baloon, few facts and a lot or air.

Greetings. Reply