Latest on the Loch Ness Monster... (1 Viewer)

[Max Leung]

Jason, consider that Tibet and Vietnam are a wee little bit hard to get into, y'know? With the war, political problems, and all that! And where were the "eastern" scientists? Obviously, they didn't care.

It's been estimated that tens of thousands of species along the Amazon river have not been discovered yet either...plants, insects, monkeys, the whole works. Who's gonna lobby for the mythical purple-winged blood-sucking swallow-tailed rhino fly? No one...because it isn't sexy. And scientists can't be everywhere.

Unlike the rainforest, it should be be a little easier to find the monster in the loch...a creature that weighs at least a ton or more, in a 100 square mile area. We haven't. Whereas a scientist can go into a tropical rainforest ranging in the 1000s of square miles, and be able to discover a new species of tropical bird, or a new insect the size of pea.

And scientists have found baby giant squid already in the pacific ocean (plus a few new species of squid!), in an area spanning thousands of square miles and hundreds of meters deep. And all they did was use a modified fishing net, and trolled for one week.

How long have people been trolling Loch Ness? 50 years right? If Nessie exists, it is probably dead and lying at the bottom of the lake. Or perhaps found a way to the sea if these underground tunnels exist (and is Loch Ness the same level as the sea, as Lew suggested?).

The point is, searching for Loch Ness is becoming a waste of scientific resources -- it's a joke! A naturalist, with probably $10,000 in funding, somehow finds a blight-resistant potato -- now THAT is an impressive discovery worthy of media attention.

 

[MarkHastings]

An even bigger joke is the Loch Ness Monster Web Cam.

The monster would pretty much have to come completely out of the water and pose for the camera if we are to get a decent picture

WAIT!!! I think I just saw something!...oh no, it's just compression artifacts :frowning:

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Once again this is a rather isolated area and....you get the point...if nessie existed the law of averages would have had it photographed or captured years ago,

So you're saying that the bottom of the Loch is a well-populated area? I thought it was a rather sparsely populated, hard to get to, hard to navigate area. Otherwise they'd just go down there and open their eyes and they'd either see it or not see it, right?

I'm not saying that I believe that there's a monster in Loch Ness, but I'm also not going to rule out the possibility of something being in there just because I feel it is "silly" and then try to justify my non-belief with arguments that only make it unlikely, not impossible.

Max: your film needs a cameo appearance by Christopher Walken as Frankenpogo's dad or something.

Glenn: how do you know there's not already a Nessie in Lake Ontario?

 

[Micheal]

WAIT!!! I think I just saw something!...oh no, it's just compression artifacts :frowning:

 

[Kevin M]

So you're saying that the bottom of the Loch is a well-populated area? I thought it was a rather sparsely populated, hard to get to, hard to navigate area. Otherwise they'd just go down there and open their eyes and they'd either see it or not see it, right?

If Nessie was a bottom feeder and never came to the surface this line of logic would make sense but even the myths surrounding Nessie describe it generally as having nostrils so I would assume it was an air breather,
if there were tons of food in Lock Ness to support a family of Plesiosaur or Plesiosaur-like creatures this would make sense,
however the lock is a popular tourist attraction so with that many cameras snapping off photos in one area for that many years the law of averages (as I postulated) would have caught the damn thing getting a breath at least in a better pose than simply murky out of focus inconclusive water ripples.
As far as the Lock being sparsely populated, it is not exactly the boon docks for a 100 mile water edge area as far as local population is concerned. People live right off the shore in many areas and there is a major road that travels the entire length of the Lock. HERE IS A MAP OF THE LOCK, it is hardly sparse as far as population goes.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

As far as the Lock being sparsely populated

I wrote "So you're saying that the bottom of the Loch is a well-populated area?", meaning the bottom of the Loch -- however many hundred feet down in the water, where it's murky and impossible to see anything.

I agree that if the creature exists, it's probably not an air-breather.

 

[Cam S]

Why do people keep on thinking that this thing lives on or near the surface of the water? The odds of seeing a giant squid from the surface of the water or non existent, so why would people be trying to see Nessie from the surface? it just doesn't make sense. I highly doubt it's an air breathing creature, and if it is, who's to say it has to stick it's entire body out of the water, or even it's neck if it has one, in order to get a breathe of air. Turtles get air by just sticking their nostrils out, same with crocodiles and alligators, so I think it's safe to say that Nessie would do something similar.

 

[Kevin M]

I highly doubt it's an air breathing creature, and if it is, who's to say it has to stick it's entire body out of the water, or even it's neck if it has one. Turtles get air by just sticking their nostrils out, same with crocodiles and alligators, so I think it's safe to say that Nessie would do something similar.

Well because most of the supposed sightings throughout the years have it doing that exact thing, coming to the surface, sticking it's head & neck well above the water...are we now changing the details to better support a theory? (kidding...it's all theory after all)

But let's get back to size, the reports of it's size suggest a creature about 1 to 2 tons there aren't enough fish in the lock to support it to begin with and since we can assume it isn't immortal where are the rest of it's family?
A mysterious underground channel to the sea? Geologic reports (at least according to some show I saw on Discovery...anyone with a link supporting or to the contrary would be welcome) don't bear this out but I suppose it is possible...except that Lock Ness is a freshwater lake and there are no reports of seawater being found at all, if there were a channel you would think the simple pressure would force at least some seawater up at a few points or visa versa...none. At least none that I have read...I could be missing something.
In a 100 years when they still don't find Nessie I'm sure that people will say "well...it did exist but now they are all dead..." IMO the more likely answer is that they didn't exist at all in the Lock and we humans perpetuated the myth partly because we like to believe in the unbelievable as it helps some keep their sense of wonder and it certainly didn't hurt Scotland's tourist economy either.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Geez, Kevin, your life sounds like not much fun.

It isn't probable, so it's not possible. Bleah.

I prefer to live in a world where a man flew into the sky by attaching balloons to his lawn chair.

 

[Kevin M]

Oh, I have loved science fiction as long as I can remember and as a child I always read books about Bigfoot, Nessie, The Abominable Snowman etc. etc. I am an non-professional artist so I tend to keep a strong sense of imagination but as you mature there comes a time when...you don't necessarily have to give up having an active imagination, but you do stop willfully giving in to naivete.

Carl Sagan was a hero of mine and inspired me on many levels & I tend to play doubting Thomas when we truly talk strait facts about things like U.F.O.'s and Mothmen and ESP and ghosts...I try to keep an open mind but always with a cocked eyebrow until I hear all the facts...having done so over the years with Nessie I can only come to the conclusion that it was nice to believe as a child but I'm not a child anymore and the facts don't bare it out for me anymore.

Now pardon me while I ask my magic 8-Ball what I should have for dinner tonight...

 

[Kevin M]

...it says.....chicken pot pie!! Ala'Nessie!

 

[DaveGTP]

Carl Sagan has a pretty good skeptical science book I picked up at a Church rummage sale, of all places, for a quarter. Good read. I think he is a little more skeptical than I am. I am always willing to admit the possibility. Evidence on Nessie points towards highly unlikely. I am always willing to believe, though. You could prove that magic or Santa Claus existed to me. It would take some good frickin' proof, though. With Nessie, I would admit that it is POSSIBLE, but not likely, that it exists.

It's very very hard to really prove a negative like "There is no life besides us in the galaxy" or "The Loch Ness Monster does not exist".

 

[Cam S]

Kevin, you seem like the type that's going to try and convince me that Santa Claus doesn't exist :frowning:

 

[Micheal]

Kevin, you seem like the type that's going to try and convince me that Santa Claus doesn't exist

He doesn't.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

It's very very hard to really prove a negative like "There is no life besides us in the galaxy" or "The Loch Ness Monster does not exist".

I agree, and I will often argue against the "impossibility" of such things just for the heck of it. Personally, I don't believe that there is a monster in Loch Ness, but I will not say that it is impossible.

Here's one to try with your friends: prove to me that there are really black holes. Does science accept that there are black holes? Yes. Is there evidence to support the existence of black holes? Well, sorta -- there's evidence of things happening that black holes would explain quite neatly. Can you bring a black hole into the room and let me touch it? Uh, no. So what's the difference between a black hole and Nessie? Science accepts that black holes exist.

Am I saying that either I believe in the Loch Ness monster or that I don't believe in black holes? No. But I am saying that what we do and do not believe is more related to what we think of as "silly" or "fantastical" than we'd really like to think, no matter how much we rationalize.

And yeah, there are about eight million holes you can poke in my black hole argument, but it's a fun example.

 

[MarkHastings]

He doesn't.

Of course he doesn't exist...The Easter Bunny killed him.

 

[Micheal]

And yeah, there are about eight million holes you can poke in my black hole argument, but it's a fun example.

More like 8 trillion, but I get your point.

 

[Max Leung]

Actually, the reason why black holes are accepted and Loch Ness is not is because there are plenty of observations that were made that are more easily explained by the presence of black holes than anything else. Simplicity (aka Occam's Razor) helps too...which is simpler: a natural object with incredible mass is sucking in a matter, or a giant Cthulhu-like being is sucking down a big pitcher of star systems for a nice light snack?

Ditto for the Loch Ness monster: is it more likely that people are just seeing things (given that it is notoriously difficult to guess distance and size for objects in the water), or that there is a 1 or 2 ton air-breathing reptilian monster that miraculously no one has hit with their boats? (And hey that reminds me of that great X-files episode...y'know, the one with the alligator that ate Scully's little doggie-thing?)

Hey guys, a friend of mine swears he has a dragon in his garage! However, it is invisible to everyone except him. And if you can't see it, you can't touch it either. And it has no effect on the physical world whatsoever! Only my friend can see it though. Should I believe him?

 

[Max Leung]

Not one to be upstaged, China wants a big bad lake monster too!

Chinese monster rivals Nessie

This time, a group of soldiers reckon they saw a blackish green animal swimming about for a couple of minutes.

They said the creature had scales on its back and horns on its round, black head.

I bet it's a water buffalo with some kelp on its back.

Man I love Google News:

Loch Ness Sea Monster Fossil a Hoax, Say Scientists

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Actually, the reason why black holes are accepted and Loch Ness is not is because there are plenty of observations that were made that are more easily explained by the presence of black holes than anything else. Simplicity (aka Occam's Razor) helps too...which is simpler: a natural object with incredible mass is sucking in a matter, or a giant Cthulhu-like being is sucking down a big pitcher of star systems for a nice light snack?

But wait...why is that a "simpler" explanation? It's a less fanciful explanation, but it is not "simpler".

Black Hole does what it does because of its set of properties. Giant matter sucking squid does what it does because of its set of properties.

And remember, the black hole was not something that was already around with a pre-listed set of properties: it was an object whose properties were made up to explain a phenomenon that was observed and did not have an easy explanation. It's a little like me saying that gravity is an invisible glue that holds you down, and when you fall on the grass you get green stains on your pants because the glue is actually green when it comes into contact with cotton. It's a stupid theory I made up to fit a given set of facts. Now, we have much, much better explanations of both the green stains and gravity, and have learned that they are unrelated. But until we have more corroborating evidence of the black hole that disproves the giant matter-eating squid theory, it remains valid, however stupid or fanciful we think it is.