Monstruos marinos| Relatos del lado oscuro (podcast)

0:00 Very good night and all of you are welcome to tales of the dark side from very ancient times, practically since human beings made themselves to sea. I don' t know at what time there have been stories about wild monsters and terrible animals capable of devouring whole boats with all their crew members. Tales of the dark side, faults strange beings event is inexplicable stories that other minds prefer ignorant dors. For many of these products of ignorance, fear, superstition.

1:00 But those are the terms with which this kind of story has always been described. The result of ignorance, the result of fear of the sea, has a certain reason. Let' s understand that those people threw themselves into the open sea into those same seas that we have today only mounted on Nutshells. If today our gigantic oil ships and in general, the huge freighters we have sink in front of the storms, imagine what it would have been like to jump into the sea mounted in a wooden boat with a few candles that barely stood in the middle of a gale. Obviously, little would have remained of those sailors and their ships before anything. In addition to that, it required a very vast knowledge of the stars and the coasts to be able to be located, so it is often clear that those boats were lost in the sea, left, departed from the coast and were never seen again, so it was thought that they were devoured by gigantic sea monsters of ferocious appearances, even to be considered that this was more a diabolical matter, not so much because ancient civilizations spoke of the devil, but because they considered the gigantic sea monsters

2:32 as destructive evil beings that more than inhabited anything in their imagination. Of course, something had to have happened. Let me explain why. And this is a starting point for many cryptos zoologists, who argue well if they had never seen anything, would probably attribute the destruction of those vessels. Some kind of evil wind, some kind of sky fire, some kind of spirit more than flesh and blood animals, of course, they also knew whales, they knew sharks, and they might be influenced. But, anyway, why is it so specific in terms of their legends and, above all, why legends of similar sea monsters arise in totally different civilizations. Why appear biblical accounts of the Talmud’ s Old Testament where they spoke of literally sea monsters, when they had no contact with this, i e, in the Mediterranean there were no sea monsters and yet they were talked about. They hadn' t seen whales.

3:59 Maybe some of them were stranded, but they hadn' t seen them. How to explain that tales arose about these immense beasts if they were not there, unless they really had that and very old legends, or had contact with equally very old creatures that we do not know today, but which were seen at the time. That would explain why so many legends emerged. I don' t know if you' ve heard of creatures like Leviathan, which basically speaks of a kind of great sea snake, a kind of sea monster, and it' s a Hebrew legend, but it has some characteristics that make it very peculiar. It is an interesting subject in many respects. First understand that previous civilizations could have been very ignorant about some technical things. They could be ignored sooner in terms of medicine, in terms of mathematics, in many things. Finally, they were equal to you, to me, human beings, in the last eight thousand years have not changed much. Therefore, his imagination was very similar to ours. They had no Internet, of course not, computers, no global positioning systems, no iron boats, either.

5:26 And then that called them ignorant and luscious and fanciful. I' m not so sure. Finally, they were people who threw themselves into the sea in a shell. That required knowledge, required some kind of experience, otherwise all the sailors would have died. And that kind of experience and that kind of knowledge was not precisely the product of ignorance, but of experience and of having been in the seas for hundreds of years. Therefore, fantasizing so easily leaves a certain sense of doubt. Perhaps something more than what we imagine inhabits the oceans, something more than we have seen through the documentary programs or research of current marine biologists. There really is something down there that lives well below the surface of the water in places where we haven' t arrived, where we don' t know. It is ironic, but we know more about the surface of the moon than about the abysmal pits of the Earth' s oceans.

6:39 That' s how simple there is a good question. The Leviathan spoken of in the Bible is a very complex character. There are those who attribute it to the alligator of the Nile, There are those who attribute it to the sea serpent, And the fact is that in the ancient Hebrew text in the Talmud and in other equally very ancient texts the existence of the lebeathan is mentioned. It is even said, according to legend, that the Leviathan was created male and female, that is, there was a single couple who already sees decides to kill the female to prevent them from procreate and, consequently, to destroy the world. Since, according to legend, the Leviathan was such, so great, he was so strong that the human being could not stand in their way and would most likely end everything. The term used in these ancient texts is taninim basically could be translated or with the marine giant. The ancient legend also speaks of the reincarnation of the serpent, of the biblical account of Adam and Eve. That serpent would have been transformed into the Leviathan and hence considered extremely evil. On the other hand, it appears in numerous texts

8:15 of the Talmud and the Old Testament of the Bible, where it is mentioned as jave even controls Leviathan. On the one hand, he hates him and in fact kills him. In isaiah he mentions how with his heavy and firm sword he kills Leviathan. However, in the Talmud, in another text, which is perhaps much older, the hours of the day are mentioned and it is pointed out, for example, how at the end of the day God plays with the Leviathan, which is his creation and is not the only point at which this is mentioned. There is also another series of very old texts in which the existence of Leviathan is discussed. How they describe it. There is another text that mentions how it is. It is said that the Lebeathan was a monstrous fish that would have been created on the fifth day of creation.

9:20 Exactly more details are not given, but elsewhere it is mentioned that the lebeathan has a shell. Therefore, there were those who interpreted it as a giant turtle, which does indeed exist, but does not become a true monster. In general, turtles, even the largest, do not exceed 300 kilos and are not usually particularly ferocious or fearsome. They are simply animals, large, slow and very long- lived. Then, why should the legend arise of a monstrous fish created by Jabé himself, by God himself, and that he would even have had to kill the female to prevent it from reproducing and consequently destroy the creation. There is another text that comes in the Torah that mentions how Leviathan competed with the vehemot and there was a kind of combat, a kind of competition. However, it was said, for example, that the Leviathan could, at some point even compete with the land animal, so it is interpreted from the 18th century as the crocodile of the Nile or as a huge alligator of some kind that inhabited the region. Hence it was intuited that it came out of the water and climbed to the ground. But it

10:56 ' s not that precise in that sense either They talk about life. But perhaps the closest form to the general idea of lebeathan comes later when we talk about how God takes advantage of the lebeathan’ s skin, which is a marine animal, and how they eat Leviathan’ s flesh, thus feeding whole civilizations. Of course there are also other legends that speak of Leviathan in some way related to eva good question. There could have been many derivations from the myth. The big question that many cryptosology researchers continue to ask is where they got all this from. There are other Bible references in which it is mentioned in some way. There' s a text talking about a seven- headed sea monster. This could have been simply a recap or a copy of some Greek text or Sumerian mythology in which this was often referred to as gigantic monsters, but there would have been something really. That is a key question also in Hindu mythology is spoken of a seven- headed sea beast in the Middle East, on the Japanese coasts this was also talked about. There are a

12:28 lot of stories about the Leviathan or amazing monsters inside the water. Years later, much later, there were some legends compiled by Bernard Hubelmans, who was also a cryptosology researcher. In fact, he considered himself the father of cryptozoology, where he spoke of the hypothetical mosasaur, a monster that apparently would have been seen on numerous occasions and was described as a real horrifying thing, as a kind of creepy, large insect that inhabited the waters. All these can be simply fantasies, stories and so on, but in the 14th century, for example, a very interesting account of Spanish sailors who spoke of a fish bigger than a ship and who was able to destroy the keel of a boat appears. With the powerful fins in their tail, they were describing a whale.

13:35 Maybe it' s possible. It is possible since the boats that risked leaving the coastal strip were not larger than about thirteen or fourteen meters long and were built in wood, so they could have been attacked by a large whale with some ease. But there' s no history of this. Whales don ' t usually attack boats. This is not the case, for example, with a movedick trying to devour the captain a haup with his entire boat. Not that was not documented by the sailors. They simply recounted that they were capable of their enormous size. This led to plans and maps being filled with little drawings, frightening monsters devouring sailors. You may have seen something, yes, of course, but not those horrible monsters, and that has been casting doubt on the researchers. It could have been the legend growing up, but he could have seen something, too. Those people. At first, when the first stories of the 14th century of Spanish origin were analyzed, it was felt that they could have been whales and that they would have frightened the sailors.

14:52 Some time later, however, it was known that those people knew about whale exis were not confusing them, they were talking about another much larger creature. Then appear the Nordic accounts, which are located in the North Sea, in the regions of Ireland and all these eminently maritime areas. There was talk of whales and it was even an animal that was sometimes married to eat consequences. They were familiar with him. Why talk about giant monsters and I don ' t mean cracken, which was some kind of octopus, but giant fish capable of sinking boats. Years later, when sailing towards the new continent begins, these stories also appear. Again. We are talking again about the presence of sea giants terrorizing sailors, given their enormous mass and their voracious attack again breaks down, yet because the largest whale blue whales, for example, are incredibly peaceful sociable animals altogether. They form cardumens or herds, as you want to see them, since they are mammals of good number, but they feed on plankton and phytoplankton, of very small microorganisms that float in the water.

16:25 They don' t devour other animals. It was felt that they might be talking, for example, about the sperm whale, which is a whale of teeth, but it didn' t seem to answer that either. The difference is huge. There was also talk of this. They weren' t sea monsters. Orcas aren' t that big. Then there was a hole in what the hell they were talking about. On the other hand, it is not a constant mention. They don' t talk about this all the time. Thus, a hundred years may pass between one account and another. There are even some that separate much longer, which means that it was not a frequent animal, it was not a creature that walked around that was familiar to human beings, like dolphins, like otters, like many others that the human being already knew and that even used to eat. Nor, of course, was it a snake as such, because it was described as a fish.

17:23 So that' s where that insidious question of cryptozology comes in again. What the hell did you see now? The funny thing is that the stories did not always speak ignorant people in the sense that it was the sailor who barely understood what they were telling him and lived there in a hut. Do not be aware that, for example, the particular case of Holius Magnus was in the 16th century and the subject was a clear bishop. That doesn' t mean he was a very prepared man, more than in his religious affairs, but he was a guy who had read everything that was going on around him.

18:10 Understand me that those people in those years were the basis of knowledge, of knowledge was in the hands of the Church. So, anything that there were biology texts, medicine texts of whatever was in his hands, and Olaus Magnus was talking about a 60- meter- long animal. It could have been a slight exaggeration, black with sharp scales. Well, I considered it a spectacular beast typical of a little drawing of plans or maps of that time. After that another account appears. In a thousand seven hundred and thirty- four. It' s a modern time, a thousand seven hundred and thirty - four. The navigation had already taken place all over the world, there had already been trips of circ with navigation, already known the difference between the Indies, well, between what was believed to be one and America. There was already a lot of knowledge and there were also many publications in this regard.

19:07 And yet another kind of egre mentions having seen himself a monster on the coasts of Greenland. He described it as a sea monster, as an animal of impressive dimensions and, in fact, related it to the Leviathan, ensuring that Beathan existed, took it as a fantasy, as a myth of the time. After that, about twenty years later, another very rare text appears. It is a book that relates encounters with marine giants. This was written by a certain pont who could well, was also a clergyman and mentions in his text a series of accounts of encounters with these very varied creatures. Some of them describe them as great snakes with manes and very exotic things, but in general it was understood that the Leviathan was a kind of giant fish, able to attack a ship and sink it and then devour the sailors. Also, of course, the Eastern narratives appeared, for example, that spoke of the NAFA. NAFA was some kind of multi- headed monster. It' s all right, it may have been part of fantasy, part of myth, part of legend, religious beliefs, there among mixed, but finally there

20:41 was something and little by little stories of snakes and awesome monsters appear here and there. The fact is how real it could have been and well, that ' s where biology comes into play. What' s desert with this sea monsters, that there' s desert with current research. And, well, some very strange things are appearing. You know, some particularly exotic specimens are appearing. In fact, doubts begin about the truthfulness of these accounts or, at least, about the truthfulness of the official opinion. You' ve heard about the Arapaima. Well, an animal that' s about 200 kilos in weight is just an ordinary fish, a fish that' s three meters long.

21:41 He is known as the giant of Arapaiman. It was found in an area of Brazil and is currently held in captivity in a pond and is an extremely peaceful animal, but it is an impressive fish, it is gigantic. It is considered neither the largest nor the only one. The monster or giant of Arapaima is thought to be a relatively small specimen. Why do you think this is good, because remains have been found that exceed this animal in size and is fresh water. Therefore, it could have had some antecedent of a much larger animal, and there comes a very interesting speculation. The marine biologists who take care of both the aquarium of the paima in Manaus, Brazil, and in some other cases of research have concluded that the largest specimens that have existed of this particular species could have reached up to four tons of weight and have measured above the ten to twelve meters specimens of fresh water eminently herbivores.

23:00 It is known that throughout history, when a giant animal is found, it is thought to have been larger. There was a time when animals on planet earth were gigantic. As a result, this was a product of excess food. There was plenty of food. As times change. The great extinctions are presented. The sizes of potential food victims are reduced. As a result, animals reduce their size, but not everywhere. And that' s where the other speculation comes in. Speculation about good. What we know about the oceans is this surface layer. But down there, what' s there, how much there can really be giant creatures in there and then more recently some very curious facts begin to appear. For example, the fact that some of the larger animals that are layered last are inhabitants of the depths, which would mean that the big giants are still there in the great depths, where the specimens are very large, where the food would be abundant in every sense, while the surface or close to the surface, the animals would be small. Even though there are very abundant shoals in the depths, there would be large, perhaps large, solitary animals. It' s hard to know, but they

24:36 ' d be there adapted, they' d have survived thanks to the presence of the famous underwater chimneys. This is during the great extinction. Supposedly this asteroid colliding with the earth produces an impressive darkness and cold. But at the bottom, there is close to the great abysmal graves, where there is no light, where there is no contact with the surface. There temperatures are regulated in a different way and it is possible that conditions have remained practically the same there. Therefore, they would not have extinguished themselves, and not only that, but they would have survived and grown, because, while in the rest there would no longer be enough food, there the food would remain the same of ancient times, therefore they would not have had to have changed its size.

25:33 How much, you can support this in some true fact, in some document you have out there. Well, that' s a matter that' s still under discussion today. Since there is no reliable data. The expeditions to the bottom of the sea have actually been quite poor, but there are some very rare data out there. You will see in Brisbaine, Australia, a few years ago the fossil of a marine predator whose size was truly amazing was found. Yeah, it was a lot bigger than a tyrannosaurus rex.

26:15 He was marine, he was agile, he was very fast because of the size of the fins. It follows that he was an animal of incredible swimming power about fifteen meters long. Only the main teeth were about thirty centimeters. The specimen found in Brisbaine was not the only one. Suffice it to note that a similar remnant was also found in the Norwegian region. This specimen from Norway was dated about one hundred and forty- seven million years ago again, it was a gigantic animal. The possibility of bite of this creature exceeded ten times that of any living animal. Only there was a problem. The copy, supposedly one hundred and forty- seven million years old. On a second research expedition, it was found in a region where the fossils surrounding it were barely a couple of million years old. That immediately gave rise to tremendous doubt if it was actually not all the millions of years it was said to be, but two million years old. It was very close to the current specimens of living beings, but there was still a greater doubt, since some time later a similar tooth was found in shape and size in the remains in the

27:56 casing of a whale that had been partially devoured. At first it was thought to have been a megalodon, a giant shark, but the shape of the teeth was very different. Megalodon has a pointed, thin tooth typical of sharks, while sharks were more round looking, though incredibly pointed and large their appearance was not the same. There came a huge doubt. What the hell did they find? At first, I' m telling you, we talked about a megalodon, a white giant, a shark, but the shape wasn' t the same. They weren' t the same. When the palentologists of the Oslo Museum of Natural History in Norway began the research, they could not conclude to which animal that belonged. But something was clear. I hadn' t gotten there by mistake. It was found in this floating shell of a partially devoured animal. The partially devoured animal had been in life an animal about eight to our meters long, a giant also that had been devoured by another giant. What the hell was that? The only problem in interpreting this data is its age. In theory, humans were not in contact with these specimens.

29:19 They never saw them alive. Even if they were much more recent, they wouldn' t have seen them. But they are very close to what is described by the oldest texts in the history of mankind, where animals with similar characteristics are related. It is possible then that the found specimens have not been extinguished. They reveal animals of incredible dimensions. The only details that fossil remains were found in the highlands, which somehow gives us the idea that these lands, at some time they were the seabeds and ended up rising up because of the activities of the planet, because of the deformations of the crust, remaining on the surface of the water at high altitude, what happens to those animals that did not stay there trapped, with those that remained in the water.

30:23 They may have survived. The doubt is strong, but for some cryptozoologists it is possible there existed Vaya. Animals existed a long time ago, but by chance, at the same time as these marine giants, of which only fossil remains have been found, in theory they lived together with animals that currently do exist. Fossils have been found from other animals whose present existence is proven, so they may have seen about them. That' s the spearhead. What was most urgent, given the case for cryptozologists, was to show that mythical animals such as hebeathan had existed at some point, and that was clear from these remains, but it would not be the only one. It should not be noted that another copy was also found this time in Peru. Yes, the famous whale- eating monster, as he is known, was found in Peru. This was supposed to be an animal that inhabited about 12 million years ago and that was able to devour whales. He' s been catalogued as the greatest predator of all time. Interestingly, he was found on a

31:53 high land, yes, which showed that it was the sea floor or the sea floor at that height. Because of the cataclysmic activity of the planet itself, what they found to these people is something truly similar to mob Dick of Melville' s famous novel. By the size of the jaws the shape. It is evident that it was a whale- like animal, but an impressive ferocity. The animal could have been about 18 to about 30 meters long. The specimen found was a relatively small animal. Fossil evidence reveals that he was not a completely adult animal, but a young animal. The dentures as such were impressive, only it was not finally a sperm whale. The shape of both the head and the jaws were not the same. This was an animal that caught its victims literally sucked them out. It was a very rare thing after that the bites. Comparing this creature to a current blue whale would have been about ten to twelve times larger. If this acriaturo had lived, he

33:24 would have dispatched with great ease and tranquility any vessel that would put in his wake again the news as such when this appears, if I am correct, in two thousand ten was taken as a fossil specimen, as something that lived twelve or fourteen million years ago, Only if he continued to live this creature would have been exactly as described by the ancient navigators. With that incredible ferocity a whale of incredible conditions came nimble capable of devouring a boat with its hand at its waist. This could, therefore, be a new account. It was clear that these giants did exist. The only problem was temporality. Time is too much. The temporal difference is an abyss, but keep in mind that if only two or three skeletons have been found along many hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. It means they were very few animals with a very low reproduction rate. It is believed by the characteristics of the bones and others that they were deep animals, that is, that everything is set, it would seem that they could still be here and that does not contravene some more or

34:59 less recent accounts. A year of one thousand nine hundred and ninety- four, on the Chilean coasts there was an account of one of these animals. A fishing vessel secured on its return to the port after having virtually completely lost the gear of nets having been attacked by a gigantic marine animal. It was described as a whale. The boat, which by the way was a high sea fishing vessel, was not exactly a canoe. It was a relatively large boat, a boat of about twenty- eight meters long. Therefore, it was not a canoe, it was not a lanchita and, however, its crew had to cut ropes and lose gear. Since that thing started dragging them.

35:47 The account was taken very lightly. There was no investigation as such and it was considered that it was even possible that the boat had encountered a submarine on a secret mission, probably from NATO, and that it would have been entangled with the rigs, provoking the strange vision of those men. But it definitely had no resemblance. The animal jumped on the surface before sinking again and almost took it to the seabed or boat with it. The operation as such would have lasted about fifteen to twenty minutes, among which the sailors of that ship of Chilean origin would have suffered the madness to see how the boat was tilted dangerously and then dragged, despite all the power of its engines. That gives you an idea of the size of what they found. I' m telling you, the official explanation was a submarine. Of course, they would have seen that on the radar with some ease and would hardly have confused the bridge or the turret of a submarine with a gigantic whale. Another incident, which apparently had certain characteristics of reality, was documented in the year two thousand and two. This time on the peaceful side, on the Pacific Ocean side, it was documented at about the height of the Panama Canal area, about

37:17 six hundred kilometers from the coast, a very strange encounter in which a boat that was once again fishing for track had a risky situation. The Japanese flag vessel, as expected, was allegedly on a fact- finding mission in which it was allegedly because they usually do what they do is catch animals banned for supposed purposes of study to market them. The fact is that they reported being literally dragged for several kilometers by something they couldn' t see on radar screens, that it didn' t have an echo in the sonar system that they use to track, but whose dimensions must have been gigantic. The stories as such remained as simple press releases. There was no consistent investigation, there was no review of the testimonies, just like a press release. Curious, when in the year two thousand nine appears in the first cases of these fossil giants in Brisemaine and Norway, certain doubts begin to arise. You know, doubts begin to arise as to whether that was just fantasy or whether really, down there are giants capable of sinking modern boats. Imagine if that were true, what they could have done with a smaller vessel would have been chaos. That

38:51 really is an issue that should be taken up, not so much for security. Understand me that finally, ships sink every year for all sorts of things, many of them disappear by fire storms. It would not really be a risk to mankind to have one of these animals, but what would be surprising would be how they did to live for so long. How they did to survive glacial times, large extinctions, marine pollutions resulting from eruptions and impacts. How they could have survived. The information obtained from that would be incredibly valuable.

39:34 How they managed to reproduce over so many centuries and from very few specimens, without tearing apart their genetic code, in part for some a little more fanciful. This could shed valuable information, for example, to help the human species in making more long- lived, the species in improving living conditions. I don' t know. There would be a lot of possibilities. All I have to do is thank you for the favor of your company. Thank you so much. Very good evening follow us also on our YouTube channel accounts of the dark side