 |
| Credit: Pure Land Buddhism/YouTube |
Baserad snubbe, eller vad? Han har alltså levande hajar i vardagsrummet?!
If they even exist, that is. Which they most certainly do not. Some tall tales from China, Chile and Argentina.
Bizarre. Not sure why Breitbart published this. Maybe they defend sharks against narco-Communists?
Yes, oarfish. That´s the new apocalyptic sign, apparently. From a channel which previously promoted the idea that 3I/ATLAS is alien tech and that the Blood Moon was some kind of doomsday event. And yet, here we are. And how many stranded oarfish are we talking about, anyway? Two? Three??
Here is ChatGPT.
Yes — the fish you’re thinking of is the Oarfish, and it is often called a “doomsday fish.” But the reputation is mostly folklore rather than science.
In parts of East Asia, especially Japan, oarfish are traditionally believed to predict earthquakes or tsunamis. In Japanese folklore they are called Ryūgū-no-tsukai, meaning “Messenger from the Sea God’s Palace.”
The idea is that when these deep-sea fish appear near the surface or wash ashore, it signals that something is wrong beneath the ocean floor.
This belief gained attention after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, because several oarfish had washed up on Japanese beaches in the preceding years.
There are a few speculative reasons people propose:
Deep-sea disturbance theory – If tectonic activity changes pressure or releases chemicals, deep-sea animals might become disoriented and rise toward the surface.
Rare sightings – Oarfish normally live hundreds of meters deep, so when one appears it seems mysterious or ominous.
Sea-serpent appearance – Their long ribbon-like body (sometimes over 10 m long) historically inspired myths about sea monsters.
Scientists have actually tested the idea.
A statistical study in 2019 concluded that the link between oarfish sightings and earthquakes is an “illusory correlation.”
In other words:
Earthquakes happen all the time, so coincidences occur.
Oarfish occasionally wash up because they are sick, dying, or injured, not because of seismic events.
Folklore: Oarfish = omen of earthquakes or tsunamis.
Science: No reliable evidence of any predictive relationship.
Interestingly, because of their strange appearance and deep-sea habitat, oarfish are also one of the animals often proposed as a historical source for sea-serpent legends.
If you want, I can also show you:
why deep-sea fish sometimes suddenly appear near the surface, or
some other animals that people historically believed could predict earthquakes (there are several fascinating ones).
Here we go...
Yes—many interpreters (especially in mystical, symbolic, or Pythagorean-influenced traditions) have thought that the miracle of the fishes contains hidden numerical symbolism. The key passage usually discussed is John 21:11, where the disciples catch 153 fish. That oddly precise number has fascinated readers since antiquity.
Below are the main ways people have interpreted it.
The most famous numerical interpretation is that 153 is a triangular number.
A triangular number is the sum of consecutive integers:
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 17 = 153
This was well known in ancient Greek mathematics associated with the Pythagorean tradition.
Because 153 = T₁₇ (the 17th triangular number), some interpreters argue the number was deliberately symbolic.
One early Christian who mentioned the number’s significance was:
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine suggested the number reflects spiritual completeness.
He noted:
10 represents the Law (Ten Commandments)
7 represents the Spirit or divine gifts
10 + 7 = 17
Then the triangular number of 17 gives 153, symbolizing the fullness of divine law and grace gathered together.
Another early interpretation comes from:
Jerome
Jerome reported a tradition that ancient naturalists believed there were 153 species of fish in the world.
Thus the miracle symbolized:
The apostles gathering people from all nations.
Whether that zoological claim was true or not, the symbolism of universal evangelization became common in Christian exegesis.
Some modern esoteric interpreters point out that:
153 has interesting mathematical properties.
For example:
153 = 3 × 3 × 17
And it also appears in certain vesica piscis geometries.
The vesica piscis (“fish bladder”) is a geometric figure formed by the intersection of two circles. It became a Christian symbol because its shape resembles a fish.
In some geometrical constructions, ratios related to 153 appear when measuring lengths in that figure.
This has led some writers to suggest hidden sacred geometry symbolism.
However, historians debate how intentional this was.
Later mystical traditions sometimes assign symbolic meanings to the digits:
1 → unity or God
5 → the human being (five senses, five wounds of Christ)
3 → divine trinity
Thus:
153 represents the union of God, humanity, and the Trinity.
This type of numerology is less historically grounded but appears in mystical commentaries.
Some scholars think the number is simply meant to emphasize extraordinary abundance.
Ancient storytellers often used precise numbers to create vivid realism.
But even if that was the original intention, later readers quickly began interpreting it symbolically.
It’s plausible that educated readers in the Greek-speaking world would have recognized triangular numbers.
The Gospel of John was written in a cultural environment where:
Greek mathematics
symbolic numbers
philosophical allegory
were widely known.
So the use of 153 might have been intended to invite deeper reflection.
Several layers of interpretation exist:
Historical / literal
a precise count of fish
Early Christian symbolism
fullness of divine law and grace (17 → 153)
Universal mission
all kinds of people gathered into the Church
Pythagorean mathematical symbolism
triangular number and sacred geometry
None of these explanations is universally accepted, but the triangular-number interpretation is the most widely discussed among historians.
If you're interested, there is also a fascinating theory that the 153 fish miracle and the “fishers of men” motif connect to ancient Mediterranean fish symbolism and mystery traditions. Some scholars think the symbolism goes much deeper than most modern readers realize.
OK, the dog-fox hybrids are strange. Sure of that one? And why would conservationists "condemn" big cat hybrids? I mean, I assumed everyone loves ligers! Note also that polar bears are moving further south and hybridize with grizzlies as they go along. Are these hybrids fertile? If so, it seems the polar bear doesn´t need "saving", after all. Life will find a way. Finally, what´s up with those strange fish accidentally "created" by some crazy scientists in Hungary (I mean, where else)?
10 of the strangest hybrid animals
Scientists accidentally create "impossible" hybrid fish
Five animals only seen once. OK, quite interesting! Note the implication for cryptozoology: if even species that are extremely rare can become known to science, why can´t we find cryptids which supposedly live in our very backyards? Cuz they´re not real, obviously.
Unless they´re fairies. As per usual!
I actually assumed that marine cryptids are almost as implausible as terrestrial ones, but ChatGPT disagrees and thinks that at least in principle they are more likely.
Explain why marine cryptids are more plausible than terrestrial ones.
Marine cryptids are more plausible than terrestrial ones not because the ocean is magical, but because physics, ecology, and sampling bias work very differently in water than on land. When scientists say this, they’re making a sober inference about where ignorance can realistically persist.
Here’s the reasoning, step by step.
This is the single biggest factor.
~71% of Earth’s surface is ocean
>80% of the ocean is unexplored at fine resolution
Most of the deep sea has:
Never been directly observed
Never been biologically sampled
Never been filmed continuously
By contrast:
Virtually all terrestrial biomes have been repeatedly surveyed
Large land animals are constantly encountered
Ignorance is plausible where observation is sparse.
On land:
Bodies persist as bones and teeth
Scavengers scatter remains slowly
Skeletons are often found decades later
In the ocean:
Bodies sink
Pressure, scavengers, and microbes destroy remains rapidly
Bones dissolve faster in deep, cold, acidic water
Carcasses are consumed within days to weeks
This means:
A large marine animal can die without leaving recoverable remains.
That alone changes the evidential calculus.
The ocean supports:
Enormous biomass at lower trophic levels
Wide-ranging predators with very low population densities
Long-distance migratory behavior
Examples:
Blue whales: global range, rarely seen
Giant squid: known almost entirely from fragments until recently
Beaked whales: multiple species discovered in the last few decades
On land:
Large mammals require:
Dense, localized populations
Stable territories
Predictable feeding zones
Which are easy to detect.
Water fundamentally changes biomechanics:
Buoyancy supports mass
No need for load-bearing limbs
Gigantism is energetically cheaper
This is why:
The largest animals in Earth’s history are marine
Many deep-sea species are much larger than their shallow-water relatives
A “giant unknown thing” is biomechanically plausible in water, not on land.
Marine detection relies on:
Sonar (low resolution for biology)
Trawls (sparse, destructive, biased)
Remote cameras (tiny windows of time)
Most ocean animals:
Are never caught
Are never photographed
Are known from indirect traces
Terrestrial detection:
Trail cams
Roads
Satellites
Human density
Hunters
If a large land animal exists, we will get a clear photo or body.
Real examples once considered “cryptids”:
Giant squid (Architeuthis): known from myths → beaks → carcasses → video
Megamouth shark (1976): large, slow, near surface
Living coelacanth (1938)
Beaked whales: new species discovered via bones/DNA
These follow a consistent pattern:
physical evidence first, live observation later.
Marine cryptids sometimes meet this standard. Terrestrial ones don’t.
More plausible
Deep-sea invertebrates
Rare sharks or rays
Elusive cetaceans
Large gelatinous organisms
Deep pelagic animals with wide ranges
Much less plausible
Humanoid sea beings
Intelligent, tool-using marine species hiding from humanity
Enormous surface-dwelling animals near coasts
Plausibility ≠ license for fantasy.
Even water has limits.
Lakes:
Are small
Have limited biomass
Are heavily monitored
This is why:
Loch Ness monster fails ecological tests
Lake cryptids are generally implausible
The open ocean is the real ignorance zone.
Marine cryptids are more plausible because the ocean erases evidence, limits observation, supports sparse large animals, and has a proven history of surprises.
Terrestrial ecosystems do not.
This doesn’t mean famous cryptids are real — it means where uncertainty legitimately remains.
If you want, I can:
Rank famous cryptids by ecological plausibility
Explain why humanoid cryptids are almost certainly mythic
Compare cryptids to legitimate “unknown unknowns” in biology
Tie this into philosophy of scientific ignorance (what kinds of unknowns are allowed)
Just say the direction.
A video entitled "The Most Mysterious Cryptids in the World". Somewhat ironically, many of them seem more plausible than the regular cryptids?! Perhaps because we are dealing with actual physical evidence. Or even strange species theorized to exist, which were later actually discovered.
Of course, there are some exceptions. I mean, "Strange Creatures Seldom Seen" is obviously a collection of folklore or even talltales, so don´t worry, no super-sized woodpecker larger than an eagle will corner you in the Canadian outback! Well, I hope...
Could be of some passing interest.
Some scary tales (or tall tales) about unknown monsters in the deep blue sea. One of them is nicknamed "The Underwater Abominable Snowman"! Other "cryptids" mentioned are more trivial to the sensation-hungry layperson, such as fish in the Mariana trench (although that too is actually very strange). And yes, I suppose I have to mention Cthulhu again...
 |
| - Hybrid? Me? Nah, I´m just an inplanted species! |
A somewhat esoteric blog essay on "hybrid non-bird dinosaurs". Eh? Don´t tell the creationists and, whatever you do, don´t tell Eugene McCarthy!
This is a scientific paper, so I frankly only skimmed it, but it´s still fascinating. I didn´t even know you *could* make research like this! As in: did the meteorite impact that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs happen in spring, summer or what? The answer, apparently based on a thorough analysis of fish fossils showing their life cycle, is...spring. Or "boreal spring", as the paper puts it. As in March to May.
What a pity we can´t narrow it down even further, I mean, I would love to know the weekday! Don´t tell me, Monday?
So I re-watched “Jaws”. I never grokked this production the first couple
of times I saw it. It hardly scared me and I found it boring! Today, I rather
consider it very, very strange. Indeed, it comes across as two entirely
different films. The first half is a rather (stereo)typical horror flick with
all the usual ingredients. The monster attacks a wholesome all-American resort,
munching on stoned hippies, children and stupid hillbillies. There is an idiot
mayor, a scientific genius and a stable police officer just trying to do his
job. OK, maybe it´s a *bit* original. Like the tiger shark who turns out to be
a rare guest from Louisiana!
The second half is the real “Jaws”. The three main characters Brody,
Hooper and Quint confront the super-sized shark in a boat that´s obviously too
small and fragile (rather than calling the coast guard or navy). Quint turns
out to be half-mad and personally obsessed with killing great white sharks. He
is the “Captain Ahab” of the story. The whole thing makes zero sense, except as
a bizarre male rite of passage. The shark is too large and too intelligent to
be a normal animal. Indeed, it seems to be intrinsically *evil*.
Speculations about allegorical meaning are difficult to fend off. The three men on the worthless barge represent different kinds of Americans, perhaps different generations: the old and crazy war veteran Quint (who is presumably working class), the middle-aged and middle-class police officer, and the young well-educated scientist (implied to be upper class). Is this a vision of an America united against its external enemies? (“Jaws” was released in 1975.) Or is the shark a symbol of Nature showing its fangs?
It´s intriguing to note that the irrational
sailor Quint and the “rational” scientist Hooper turn out to be equally crazy
(at least after a fashion). It´s also interesting that the person who
eventually kills the shark is Brody, the stable White middle-class guy with an
official police badge. He does so in the old fashioned way – with a rifle and some
explosives – while Quint and Hooper tried various alternative techniques which
completely failed. Order has been restored on Amity Island (note the 4th
July parade – Amity is of course a symbol for America and its proverbial way of
life). At least it´s been temporarily restored until the sequels, but Steven
Spielberg had nothing to do with those.
So I suppose “Jaws” is at least somewhat interesting…
Fake "scientists" are flooding the internet with fake AI-generated "research papers". Ichtyologists in particular better beware! Sabine Hossenfelder has the reciepts...
OK, this was funny. Who would have thought that there are *cryptid* coelecanths? If an unknown animal is discovered, guess what, people suddenly see it everywhere and at all times...including half a planet away from where it was discovered?! But sure, the idea that people at Mallorca were catching and eating primordial lobe-finned fish until fairly recently does have a certain romantic appeal.
Besides, two species of coelecanth has been discovered - not just one - the second one as late as 1998 (in Indonesia). So I suppose it´s possible that a few new species of this strange and wonderful fish (a *very* distant evolutionary cousin of...ourselves) might still be lurking out there...
 |
| AI´s fantasy picture of a basking shark |
"Sveriges hav - Nordsjöns giganter" is a somewhat peculiar nature documentary, probably German in provenance, but I haven´t been able to locate the original version. The Swedish title means "The Seas of Sweden - Giants of the North Sea".
Ahem, the North Sea is *not* Swedish...
Indeed, most of the docu seems to be taped on or around the Shetland Islands, which are (of course) British?! Not sure who came up with the idea to call this a "Swedish" documentary. Some old Viking romantic? Dude!
But sure, if you like dramatic vistas, this might be for you. Killer whales, basking sharks, grey seals, sea otters, dolphins, skuas attacking and eating puffins, the invasive red king crab...you get the picture. Shetland sure looks pretty dangerous, LOL.
"The best cryptid evidence" doesn´t strike me as very "cryptid". Note that the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot fame isn´t included in this survey. All animals featured (except maybe Marvin) seem to belong to known and currently extant taxa. So-called cryptozoologists don´t really care - they want to find a giant ape-man, a surviving dinosaur, or something to that effect.
So it seems the Patterson-Gimlin film is unique, being the only good footage of an *actual* cryptid (i.e. a monster). But it´s precisely it´s singular character that makes it so hard to believe...
