herpguy Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 I was just wondering if anyone has heard anything about bessie, the lake monster in Lake Erie. Do you think it exists? Why or why not? Personally, I don't see how a serpent that is 30 to 40 feet in length could get into Lake Erie. It would have had to come from the ocean, but the only way you can get to Lake Erie from the ocean is by going upstream, through a man-made river, and over many large waterfalls. If bessie does exist, it would have had to get there a different way which I fail to recognise. Last, there is no physical evidence that I am aware of. On the other hand, there have been numerous sightings, including a report of bessie capsising a boat and killing three people. So what do you think, does bessie exist?
JustStuit Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 People like attention. They hear of a myth and then make up a story to try to get attention. I think this is how many myths gain popularity.
ydoaPs Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 No evidence = no lack of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary.
bascule Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 An absence of evidence leaves you with no reason to believe
insane_alien Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 Thats a rip off of the Loch Ness Monster. Damn americans copying everybody else. WE HAD THE MONSTERS FIRST!
herpguy Posted March 6, 2006 Author Posted March 6, 2006 Thats a rip off of the Loch Ness Monster. Damn americans copying everybody else. WE HAD THE MONSTERS FIRST! The idea of lake/sea monsters has been around for a very long time. Besides' date=' I think the myth was thought up by the Canadians. No evidence = no Bascule, I believe there is evidence, just not the kind that first comes to your mind. Photographs have been taken, and there are dozens of eye-witnesses. Just because no dead bodies have been found, or another thing like that doesn't mean something exists. I've never seen you, but it doesn't mean you don't exist.
AzurePhoenix Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 Indeed, while eye-witness accounts aren't the most reliable of source, they shouldn't be entirely dismissed for it. Is the creature real? Highly unlikely, the lack of physical evidence suggests that it isn't. But the fact that witnesses claim to have seen it means at least that there is a possibility it exists, no matter how slight that chance, and no matter whether or not you or me or whoever believes in it.
ydoaPs Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 An absence of evidence leaves you with no reason to believeyes, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. yeah, i havn't heard of lake erie's monster yet.
herpguy Posted March 6, 2006 Author Posted March 6, 2006 yeah' date=' i havn't heard of lake erie's monster yet.[/quote'] If you mean you don't know what it is, then here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessie_%28lake_monster%29
ydoaPs Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 i live in indiana and have not heard a word about it.
entwined Posted March 6, 2006 Posted March 6, 2006 Personally, I don't see how a serpent that is 30 to 40 feet in length could get into Lake Erie. It would have had to come from the ocean, but the only way you can get to Lake Erie from the ocean is by going upstream, through a man-made river, and over many large waterfalls. There is a system of navigation locks that allow ocean going vessels to go all through the Great Lakes system, clear out to the western tip of Lake Superior. This animal could have gotten into any of the lakes that way, but it would have probably been a lot smaller when it did so and was unnoticed. Personally, I doubt that there is any such animal in Lake Erie because it is heavily fished and quite shallow (about 30 ft. deep). Someone would have seen it or been eaten by it.
d1220 Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 The only one I've heard of is Champ in Lake Champlain. I grew up in upstate NY, and this is a very old legend. Theres even a spot they did on good morning america, on the wikipedia site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_%28legend%29
gcol Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 I believe in myths. Evidence? They've eaten holes in my clothing. That's why mythballs were invented.
herpguy Posted March 10, 2006 Author Posted March 10, 2006 The only one I've heard of is Champ in Lake Champlain. I grew up in upstate NY' date=' and this is a very old legend. Theres even a spot they did on good morning america, on the wikipedia site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_%28legend%29[/quote'] I watched something on Champ last night. IMO, there is definetly enough evidence to say there is a species not known to science, possibly a beluga whale-like species. I wonder what all of these cryptids actually are...
herpguy Posted March 11, 2006 Author Posted March 11, 2006 Well, a boat with sensors picked up clicks very similar to echolocation from the boluga whale, but not exactly that. So either we don't know as much as we think we do about whales, or there is an entirely new species. Note: boluga whales have never been spotted in Lake Champlain, but they have been spotted in rivers near the lake. More evidence for the "new species" is this famous photo of Champ: As stated bye photo experts, this is definitely not a fake photo. However, it could be a log, a duck, or a large sturgeon. We can almost immediately rule out the sturgeon. If it was one, the sturgeon would be abnormally large. Also, the sturgeon would have to be very slim. If the photo was of a duck, then the duck would have to be extremely large, about three feet long . Of the three, the log is the most likely candidate. The problem is that the log would have to be very thick, because most of it would be underwater. So the possibility of the log is probably about as high as the chance that it is a photo of Champ, but before you decide think about this: What is the chance that a log would be shaped in this way. It would have to be very smooth, and would be grayish-brownish-green.
Sisyphus Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 It actually kind of looks like a log, so I don't know why you think the possibility of it being a log and some kind of bizarre sea monster are equal. I'd say the log is a few million times more likely! Also keep in mind that it doesn't have to be a doctored photo in order to be a fake. The most famous picture of Nessie was just a model that somebody made and put in the water.
AzurePhoenix Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 It actually kind of looks like a log, so I don't know why you think the possibility of it being a log and some kind of bizarre sea monster are equal. lake monster It certainly isn't a duck or a waterfowl, and though sturgeon get plenty large to account for it, it does't even come close to resembling one. In general, the picture just doesn't look like it has the "cut" of a well formed animal. It would have to be very smooth, and would be grayish-brownish-green. Mosses and algaes could easily account for that, especially on a waterlogged.... log.
herpguy Posted March 11, 2006 Author Posted March 11, 2006 Mosses and algaes could easily account for that, especially on a waterlogged.... log. I thought about that, but then I decided that if there was algae on the log, wouldn't some of it be hanging off of the log ruining the shape? That's just from my own observations so I'm expecting some people to roll their eyes at me. Also keep in mind that it doesn't have to be a doctored photo in order to be a fake. The most famous picture of Nessie was just a model that somebody made and put in the water. Skeptics even say that, if the photo is just a model, the model would have to be about five feet high, about eight feet long, and slim. For this to be possible to float stably, a large portion of it would have to be underwater. If a large portion of it was underwater, there would be a huge dark spot.
Sisyphus Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 I thought about that, but then I decided that if there was algae on the log, wouldn't some of it be hanging off of the log ruining the shape? That's just from my own observations so I'm expecting some people to roll their eyes at me. Driftwood that's been floating around in fresh water tends to be dark brownish-green and mostly underwater as it becomes waterlogged, often with only rounded-off limbs protruding from the water. Skeptics even say that, if the photo is just a model, the model would have to be about five feet high, about eight feet long, and slim. For this to be possible to float stably, a large portion of it would have to be underwater. If a large portion of it was underwater, there would be a huge dark spot. Ha, says who? And if that were true, wouldn't there have to be a large portion of the animal underwater, too, and hence an even huger dark spot?
herpguy Posted March 11, 2006 Author Posted March 11, 2006 Ha, says who? And if that were true, wouldn't there have to be a large portion of the animal underwater, too, and hence an even huger dark spot? I'm not sure what their names were... We do not know how fast the animal was moving, and think about this: When you move your hand on top of water very fast, it seems to float even though very little of it is underwater. However, when you rest your hand on the water a lot of it is submerged, kind of like [if it is] the log. So if the animal was moving fast, it could be in that position without most of it being underwater.
AzurePhoenix Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 I thought about that, but then I decided that if there was algae on the log, wouldn't some of it be hanging off of the log ruining the shape? That's just from my own observations so I'm expecting some people to roll their eyes at me. You'd think so, but in my experience alga tends to be weighed down and runs against something making a fairly smooth surface. Not all the time mind you, but often enough.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now