Mokele Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 Ok, I'm guessing this would be the best place for this thread. Let's start off by saying that I, personally, don't believe in it. This is one of those "speculation as entertainment" things. If there was something in there, what would it be? A case of mistaken identity with a known species? an unknown species? a plesiosaur? an alien? What justification can you offer for your pseudo-theory? Happy speculating! Mokele
LucidDreamer Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I think Mr. Mallory created a mechanical plesiosaur to scare off the landowners nearby so he could buy their land cheaply and sell it to the big land developers. Unfortunately a group of meddling kids and their dog arrived in a mystery van and messed up his plan. I have no proof of this because they couldn't get Scooby to go into Mr. Mallory’s haunted house because they ran out of Scooby snacks.
WaR Posted November 9, 2004 Posted November 9, 2004 I think it's Godzilla. Or maybe is this dude's relative. Click Me Link from scifi.com
Mokele Posted November 9, 2004 Author Posted November 9, 2004 Dog? Hey, what about those four teenagers and their shark friend, Jabberjaw? C'mon, show the shark some love.
drz Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 One thing that I've always wondered, is why isn't the myth like, thousands of years old? I mean, people have lived in that area for quite some time, right? You'd think the myth would be quite old, but seems it started coming about earlier in the 1900's. I once used to think it possible a few sea dino's survived deep in the ocean and perhaps in various lakes around the world. Maybe it is, but, with sonar technology, I can't understand why this hasn't been proven one way or the other.
Sayonara Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 There have been co-ordinated sonar detection efforts in the past, but Loch Ness is actually quite big.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Recall that in 1972 +/- a group led by an American called Rhines(?) captured blurry photogrpahs underwater, allegedly of a rhomboid flipper. Sir Peter Scott the naturalist was involved with evaluating the evidence and assigned the formal name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx to the creature. I don't recall how much later it was that some one spotted that an anagram of the name is Monster hoax Sir Peter
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Recall that in 1972 +/- a group led by an American called Rhines(?) captured blurry photogrpahs underwater, allegedly of a rhomboid flipper. Sir Peter Scott the naturalist was involved with evaluating the evidence and assigned the formal name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx to the creature. I don't recall how much later it was that some one spotted that an anagram of the name is Monster hoax Sir Peter
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Ok, so here's what im wondering...when was the last time this thing was supposedly seen? If recently, how often does "it" appear? And why in the hell does no one dive down w/ a camera after it? Af if they have...why havnt they found it if it's so damned big ?
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Ok, so here's what im wondering...when was the last time this thing was supposedly seen? If recently, how often does "it" appear? And why in the hell does no one dive down w/ a camera after it? Af if they have...why havnt they found it if it's so damned big ?
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yeah i know the loch ness dude, hes really shy but quite a friendly chap.... oh no wait, i dont believe in it!!!!! seriosuly though, no solid proof other than dodgy photos which always 'coincidently' seem to be blurred and stuff. as sayo said there have been sonar scans and many other things too, nothing has found anything which counts as solid proof.
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yeah i know the loch ness dude, hes really shy but quite a friendly chap.... oh no wait, i dont believe in it!!!!! seriosuly though, no solid proof other than dodgy photos which always 'coincidently' seem to be blurred and stuff. as sayo said there have been sonar scans and many other things too, nothing has found anything which counts as solid proof.
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 In 1962 The Loch Ness Investigation Bureau was formed to act as a research organization and clearing house for information about the creature. In the beginning it only conducted research for a few week in the year, but by 1964 they established a more permanent presence around the Loch. Eventually the Bureau established camera stations with both still and cinema cameras with telephoto lenses. They had vans which served as mobile camera stations, and underwater listening devises. Searches were conducted using hot-air-balloons and infrared night time cameras, sonar scanners and submarines. http://www.qsl.net/w5www/nessie.html Oh wait...somebody really is that involved...but yet, they dont have any permanent submerged cams to see anything under the water?? -whats that?? could that heat source be the loch ness?! YES YES IT MUST BE!!! -No wait, thats just bigfoot going for a swim, no need to get excited -dammit, we should really think of a better way of doing this rather than from the sky -why?! -yea you're right, how could i be so stupid
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 In 1962 The Loch Ness Investigation Bureau was formed to act as a research organization and clearing house for information about the creature. In the beginning it only conducted research for a few week in the year, but by 1964 they established a more permanent presence around the Loch. Eventually the Bureau established camera stations with both still and cinema cameras with telephoto lenses. They had vans which served as mobile camera stations, and underwater listening devises. Searches were conducted using hot-air-balloons and infrared night time cameras, sonar scanners and submarines. http://www.qsl.net/w5www/nessie.html Oh wait...somebody really is that involved...but yet, they dont have any permanent submerged cams to see anything under the water?? -whats that?? could that heat source be the loch ness?! YES YES IT MUST BE!!! -No wait, thats just bigfoot going for a swim, no need to get excited -dammit, we should really think of a better way of doing this rather than from the sky -why?! -yea you're right, how could i be so stupid
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yeah thats him, i'll send him a card from you guys! i'll tell you what, why does everyone NOT believe in it until there is decent aka solid evidence? (not right, keep reading!)
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yeah thats him, i'll send him a card from you guys! i'll tell you what, why does everyone NOT believe in it until there is decent aka solid evidence? (not right, keep reading!)
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 b/c with solid evidence, or even a convincing arguement you may be able to win a debate about it...at least its unable to be disproved
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 b/c with solid evidence, or even a convincing arguement you may be able to win a debate about it...at least its unable to be disproved
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Molecular Man, check out these three things (well I'm cheating there are really only two.) The length of the loch The depth of the loch (Remember its glaciated) The visibility of the loch Combine the first two (36km and up to 250m) and you have a volume of over 260 billion cubic feet. It's not Lake Superior, but its the largest volume of fresh water in the UK. The loch has tons of fine particulates from the peat on the surrounding hills. Visibility is at best only a few metres. How many cameras do you need to have on a twenty three mile long one and a half mile wide, 750 deep loch in order to spot something? There could be something there, but if there is it isn't a pleisiosaur. Remember the loch was glaciated. An earlier poster queried why the first sightings began in the early 1900's. That one is easy. That's when the road was built.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Molecular Man, check out these three things (well I'm cheating there are really only two.) The length of the loch The depth of the loch (Remember its glaciated) The visibility of the loch Combine the first two (36km and up to 250m) and you have a volume of over 260 billion cubic feet. It's not Lake Superior, but its the largest volume of fresh water in the UK. The loch has tons of fine particulates from the peat on the surrounding hills. Visibility is at best only a few metres. How many cameras do you need to have on a twenty three mile long one and a half mile wide, 750 deep loch in order to spot something? There could be something there, but if there is it isn't a pleisiosaur. Remember the loch was glaciated. An earlier poster queried why the first sightings began in the early 1900's. That one is easy. That's when the road was built.
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 look at that pic i linked into again, thats the tub in my back garden (just done tell anyone, i dont wanna be famous and neither does he she well it! the only argument to disprove it is to say, prove it! and thats serious, its quite a good argument and when neither side has any proof except for the other side not having proof we end up like this. from then on its really each individual person to make up his/her (/its!) own mind.
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 look at that pic i linked into again, thats the tub in my back garden (just done tell anyone, i dont wanna be famous and neither does he she well it! the only argument to disprove it is to say, prove it! and thats serious, its quite a good argument and when neither side has any proof except for the other side not having proof we end up like this. from then on its really each individual person to make up his/her (/its!) own mind.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Much as I would like to think there is something there the odds are against it. After forty years of moderate to intense observation we have nothing conclusive. The two best pieces of evidence I am aware of are the famous London surgeon's photo, now known to have been a hoax. And the rhomboid flipper of Rhines (Rines?), that Peter Scott seems to have suspected was a hoax. And you really cannot say 5614, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is faulty logic. Personally I think there was a monster there, but the last of them was killed several thousand years ago when Yeti and Bigfoot got together for a jamboree in the highlands!
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Much as I would like to think there is something there the odds are against it. After forty years of moderate to intense observation we have nothing conclusive. The two best pieces of evidence I am aware of are the famous London surgeon's photo, now known to have been a hoax. And the rhomboid flipper of Rhines (Rines?), that Peter Scott seems to have suspected was a hoax. And you really cannot say 5614, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is faulty logic. Personally I think there was a monster there, but the last of them was killed several thousand years ago when Yeti and Bigfoot got together for a jamboree in the highlands!
MolecularMan14 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 the only argument to disprove it is to say' date=' prove it! and thats serious, its quite a good argument and when neither side has any proof except for the other side not having proof we end up like this. [/quote'] exactly, no one has any proof that it exists, and no one has any proof that it doesnt, but it's a basic law just like "innocent until proven guilty", "false until proven true". then again I suppose the converse could be used in mathmatical postulates "True until proven false", but thats just an assumption. As for how large the loch is, if someone is really willing to have thermograms aimed at it all the time, well i think they would have then determination to look underwater. (I wasnt suggesting cameras all over-and if I was it's b/c I have a cold, and im not thinking quite right ) Submarines aren't a bad idea, but have they found anything in the past?
Recommended Posts