Loch Ness monster

[lucky45]

We all know about the lock ness monster. Well I think it is a bunch of Bull S--

However The only thing I can come up with is It might be a Large Sturgeeon. I say this because I caught one about 4 foot long in the St. lawrance Seeway back in 1995,> It is a bottom feeder, and they look like a Carp, Sucker,A Taranasouras, and a Crocidile all in one. Other than that, Its folk loor. What do you think?

[insane_alien]

of course its folklore. its a frikkin legend.

 

people don't think dragons (of ye olde firebreathing type) are real because there are a bunch of stories about them.

 

is there a point to this besides stating the completely obvious.

[mooeypoo]

There's no proof of sighting at all. Any and all claim were shown to be either wishful thinking by tourists or outright hoaxes. If there was any evidence to analyze, we could delve into the "what could it be" hypothesizing, but there's NOTHING to analyze. It's rumor. Folklore.

[ajb]

Though was is true is that large common eels have been spotted when hunting the monster. (I hope one day to get a hook and line in there )

 

It is plausible that some of the sightings are of large eels. On large open water it is difficult to judge the distance and thus size of objects.

 

One fact that maybe goes against the idea is that eels tend not to show themselves. They are most active at night, in the warmer months. They tend not to leap or surface. They do feed higher in the water on full moons for example. I have also spotted eels in shallow clear water before. So, it is not impossible to spot eels, though it is difficult. (You cannot really go "eel spotting" like you can other fish like carp. Finding a good place to fish you need good "watercraft", local knowledge and determination.)

 

 

10lb 2oz giant banked by George Howie from Kidderminster’s Shatterford Lakes last year. Larger have been found dead or captured in traps in the UK. (I'd be very happy with a 3~5 pound eel)

[lucky45]

The one thing about this mystery is that 99.999% concerning this is folk loore. But there is that 1% of uncertainty Thats what makes a good mystery.And stirs the mind alittle bit

[John Cuthber]

The one thing about this mystery is that 99.999% concerning this is folk loore. But there is that 1% of uncertainty Thats what makes a good mystery.And stirs the mind alittle bit

 

Presumably there's another 1% bad maths.

[lucky45]

All I can say about me stateing the obveious, and my subject is pointless Dont read any more of my posts If you find me lacking anykind of intelligent input. I dont want to waste your time.

[ajb]

As for the idea the monster could be a sturgeon, it is possible.

 

The last report of a UK wild sturgeon that I am aware of is 1933. They are now considered extinct.

 

There has been some non-native species stocked into lakes for angling and now and again an "escaped pet" sturgeon get caught. Russian sturgeon are also thought to entering some British rivers, they could have been illegally placed there by anglers.

[mooeypoo]

The one thing about this mystery is that 99.999% concerning this is folk loore. But there is that 1% of uncertainty Thats what makes a good mystery.And stirs the mind alittle bit

lucky, where's the 1%? We would test the 1% if we knew what it was.. there is no mystery... the lake is not that big for us to continuously miss a huge monster. For years people have been waiting with cameras with the INTENTION of capturing even the tiniest glimpse -- and we have NOTHING.

 

In the past 5-10 years where almost everyone has a camera on their phone and a high quality portable camera they can take, and we would assume that with such an attention on that plce, we would be getting at least 1 good picture.

 

One.

 

 

 

 

There is none. NOTHING. There's no 1%, lucky. Unless we are shown otherwise, there is nothing to the "Loch Ness Monster" other than folklore.

 

Presumably there's another 1% bad maths.

omg, I didn't even notice. That's it, it's official, winter break makes my brain rot.

Edited January 17, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[lucky45]

I agree with you 100%. Its folkloore. just remember that the lock is about 950 feet at its deepest.Who the hell knows what is lurking down there. I know that there is no absolute evedince concerning this folkloore,but I think we have to keep an open mind ,along with other mysteries of our planet, Unless there is absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt,there will always be that bit of uncertantly: not just this but anything else that makes us say;I wonder if;

[mooeypoo]

I agree with you 100%. Its folkloore. just remember that the lock is about 950 feet at its deepest.Who the hell knows what is lurking down there.

Look, if we were talking about the deep ocean, maybe we'd have something to discuss. We've reached those depths, though.

 

I know that there is no absolute evedince concerning this folkloore,

No, you misunderstand my point: it's not that there's no definitive evidence, it's that there's absolutely no evidence to even suggest this is real, in light of overwhelming science to suggest it's an extremely unlikely idea.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the case of Loch Ness monster, there's not even a tiny evidence.

 

but I think we have to keep an open mind ,along with other mysteries of our planet, Unless there is absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt,there will always be that bit of uncertantly: not just this but anything else that makes us say;I wonder if;

We should always keep an open mind, but we should make sure our brains don't fall out.

 

I keep an opn mind as to the existence of the pink invisible unicorn, too; which means that when a valid evidence presents itself to get me to actually consider its existence, I will. But that doesn't mean I go around thinking that it *might*. Sure, it might. So might leprechauns. So might nessy. So might a lot of things. But to get people to actually consider the option and research what exactly is happening you first need to show evidence that something actually is happening.

 

There's no evidence of that at all. None.

 

 

~moo

[lucky45]

I know mooepoo, I cant help that Im a sceptic. We are all learning here, and if we didnt have the gift of :what if: then science,astronomy,and chemistry, We would have nothing to look forward to except reputition of what we have learned up till know.We all need to seek out the unknown,and try with our puny minds to make sence of it. And se if we can;t better ourselves in the process.

[mooeypoo]

lucky, I am a skeptic too, and I know what you mean. In life and in science, there has to be something that you're less skeptical about. I know that in some manner, everything is "only" 99.99999% true, which leaves a (tinsy tiny) margin for error, but at some point we all mark a little line in the sand where we keep the stuff that are "most probably true" and the stuff we keep a more open mind about.

 

I'm curious: can you think of something that you're less skeptical about? Like something that you are taking - more often than not - as true?

 

As an example, I'll give gravity for close-to-earth objects. When I drop an object I know it falls to the ground. There is always a chance that our equations are lacking, but overall, I feel confident in relying on this particular one until I'm shown that a problem with it exists. In the back of my head I might know that there's a slim chance of something to change, but it's not practical to *always* be skeptical, otherwise we won't be able to test for bigger and better theories out there.

 

So.. is there anything you can say you consider more or less as true?