Skip to comments.U.S. Government: No Evidence of Aquatic Humanoids (i.e., "Mermaids") Has Ever Been Found.
Posted on 07/03/2012 8:51:47 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.
Mermaids those half-human, half-fish sirens of the sea are legendary sea creatures chronicled in maritime cultures since time immemorial. The ancient Greek epic poet Homer wrote of them in The Odyssey. In the ancient Far East, mermaids were the wives of powerful sea-dragons, and served as trusted messengers between their spouses and the emperors on land. The aboriginal people of Australia call mermaids yawkyawks a name that may refer to their mesmerizing songs.
The belief in mermaids may have arisen at the very dawn of our species. Magical female figures first appear in cave paintings in the late Paleolithic (Stone Age) period some 30,000 years ago, when modern humans gained dominion over the land and, presumably, began to sail the seas. Half-human creatures, called chimeras, also abound in mythology in addition to mermaids, there were wise centaurs, wild satyrs, and frightful minotaurs, to name but a few.
But are mermaids real? No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? Thats a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists.
WTF?!? I could have sworn I saw mermaids throughout Neptunis Rex's domain during my Navy WestPac cruises back in the day. Must have been those hangovers ...
More references ...
“U.S. Government insists that mermaids do not exist”
“NOAA Denies Existence of Mermaids”
Anyone care to wager a guess as to how much was spent on this?
But we cut government to the bone!
Did you buy that at Wall Drug, South Dakota?
Did they look in New Jersey?
Where did the idea come from?
Um, lonely sailors? They’re all reported as beautiful women.
Please tell me they aren’t spending money on this.
It would seem that the NOAA wuld have more important things to do than report on mermaids.
But as far as the question of the existence of "aquatic humans" is concerned, the phrase brings up the question of why humans, alone among all types of primates, possess a subcutaneous fat layer (like seals), narrow fin like connections between our fingers and toes, are not covered in fur, and have extraordinarily large brains (like dolphins and whales).
IMHO, paleontologists who dig up the bones of proto-chimps, gorillas, and baboons are looking in all the wrong places. What is with the seemingly instinctive affinity of Dolphins for humans (and vice versa - Japanese excepted)? If they could figure out where coastlines were a couple hundred thousand years ago, unfortunately now probably many miles offshore from the existing coast, they might at least be looking in the right spots.
Oh, baby. The rum goggles must have been pretty thick during the Age of Sail.
Whew! Well, now we can stop worrying about THAT! What a relief!
“Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples?”
What a stupid question. Seriously.
“Peoples” historically see mermaids because the “people” send the men to the sea.
So you tell me...why would a bunch of lonely seafaring guys wish there were hot women in the ocean?
Guess I’ll have to fund a study to find out.
But as far as the question of the existence of “aquatic humans” is concerned, the phrase brings up the question of why humans, alone among all types of primates, possess a subcutaneous fat layer (like seals), narrow fin like connections between our fingers and toes, are not covered in fur, and have extraordinarily large brains (like dolphins and whales).
It is called the “Aquatic Ape Theory” and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the “Savannah Walking evolution model”
It basically posulates that human ancestors settled around the rivers and streams and spent a lot of their time wading through and swimming through water to gather food etc...
Yep. Read the book many years ago while I was in college. But I do understand why it never became mainstream. Too many established reputations in academia would get blown out of the water (pun intended). Grant money and personal pride always trump all, but it’s still amazing that the scientific profession is the last to grasp that the rubble of reputations is what scientific progress is built upon.
Which one of those are you ? ;-D
NOAA missed this ABC news report ...
“Splash! Real-Life Mermaids Seek Beauty of Deep”
“Real-Life Mermaids: New Adventure in the Deep”
I smell a government cover-up!
There are a lot of holes and flat out misrepresentations in that theory:
It's the Good People I'm worried about!
But juxtaposed to the alternative and accepted evolutionist theory that a primate living on the dry savannahs of Africa for no apparent reason grew a huge brain, lost its fur, started developing webs twixt its digits, and a layer of fat under its skin, this one has always seemed to me more logical and reasonable. But hey, it's just a theory.
If you're going at it from a creationist viewpoint then that's a different argument entirely. Personally, I have more respect for that idea than I do for what passes for accepted wisdom among afro-centric paleo-anthropologists. The latter simply refuse to debate or look at evidence which doesn't fit what they wrote in their last paper.
Well, you’re still arguing based on misconceptions from that theory. Primates have the same fat layers that we do. Primates have the same slight webbing between their fingers that we do. We do have “fur” on our bodies, though obviously not as much of it as most other mammals. Primates can walk upright, and some of them do so just as easily as they walk on all fours. So what are you left with? That we have bigger brains? That’s not evidence of an aquatic origin at all.
Personally, I think all the Darwinian evolutionists are wrong, but the “aquatic ape” theory isn’t just wrong, it’s based on “facts” that are not really facts.
Some of the points made, though, do seem to be straw man arguments. The word "hairless" is used as if it implies completely bare skinned. Even the skin of dolphins and whales, which are universally accepted as mammals fully adapted to an aquatic environment, contains hair follicles. But it did blow holes through a number of things I assumed were true.
No problem, I’m glad I could clear a few things up for you. Was “blow holes” an intentional aquatic mammal pun? :)
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Problem is,the Biblical accounts describe the increasing complexity of life on Earth, culminating in man.
Nothing about evolution contradict that.
And I have NEVER read any scientific speculation that life did not start in the oceans or at least the tidal pools.
Genesis, Ch. 1, V 20.
“And God said, let the moving waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life...”
I get the same feeling when I think about what would happen if you had a disease or something and went to a doctor. He would give you a prescription, and tell you to do X,Y, and Z.
But if instead, you went to some kind of witch doctor, or holy man or shaman in a primitive society, they would wave a chicken bone over you and tell you to do something.
In a weird way, it’s like they are telling you the same thing, but are simply speaking a different language.
Just my opinion!
Mr. Limpet lead the US to victory in WW2.
Now who should I believe - the government or the combined myths of ancient civilizations? That’s easy ;)
I heard in the time of Noah there were various human-animal cross breeding and DNA splicing experiments going on, resulting in many of these creatures' existence. Of course these would've all been wiped out in the flood, but maybe a few mermaids could've survived, water being their natural environment and all.
I heard in the time of Noah there were various human-animal cross breeding and DNA splicing experiments going on, resulting in many of these creatures’ existence. Of course these would’ve all been wiped out in the flood, but maybe a few mermaids could’ve survived, water being their natural environment and all.
Nah...when God smites you, you’re toast!
Or sometimes salt.
I just watched a fascinating piece on Discovery Channel called “Mermaids: The Body Found” that I highly recommend to everyone. The supposed documentary was made in 2011 and it is thought-provoking.
The program discusses the mass killings of whales due to some kind of sonar experiment by the U.S. Navy in 2004, but there was allegedly something else that washed up on the beach in Washington state after that event. They also discuss the remains of something interesting found in a Great White caught off South Africa.
One thing they mentioned that I had never heard before was that fish caught in nets, in the Baltic and other areas, occasionally are found with broken-off spears in their sides. Say what?
My skepticism gene kicked in while watching this, especially when they said the Navy is conducting a huge cover-up of their discovery, but I have to admit I enjoyed watching this.
And yeah, I share the same doubts — when the government denies something you can pretty much assume they’re lying.
Whoops! Guess I shoulda read the links first.
Still, “Mermaids: The Body Found” was a pretty good documentary, or mock-umentary, as the case may be. I do recommend it for amusing TV viewing.