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?
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 And you really cannot say 5614, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is faulty logic. totaly agreed. re-reading my own posts its obvious i do not believe there is a monster dude down there. however i also stated, maybe it should be in bold:- "the only argument to disprove it is to say, prove it! from then on its really each individual person to make up his/her (/its!) own mind." again re-reading my posts i cannot see why Ophiolite said (top quote of this post). my main thing with this is that no one KNOWS. so i clearly stated that i dont believe and i also clearly stated there is no evidence either way, i also said its for everyone to make up their own mind. i didnt say its not there.... i said i didnt think it was there (keeping in mind that no one knows... hence the "i think that..." part. "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." nice sentence, but i really didnt mean to imply otherwise and re-reading my post (God, 3rd time now) cannot see why you said it!
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 And you really cannot say 5614, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is faulty logic. totaly agreed. re-reading my own posts its obvious i do not believe there is a monster dude down there. however i also stated, maybe it should be in bold:- "the only argument to disprove it is to say, prove it! from then on its really each individual person to make up his/her (/its!) own mind." again re-reading my posts i cannot see why Ophiolite said (top quote of this post). my main thing with this is that no one KNOWS. so i clearly stated that i dont believe and i also clearly stated there is no evidence either way, i also said its for everyone to make up their own mind. i didnt say its not there.... i said i didnt think it was there (keeping in mind that no one knows... hence the "i think that..." part. "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." nice sentence, but i really didnt mean to imply otherwise and re-reading my post (God, 3rd time now) cannot see why you said it!
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 actually, was it because of:- "why does everyone NOT believe in it until there is decent aka solid evidence?" well i spose that that was a bit out or order to say and i take it back, i was suggesting others took up my view and as there is not evidence i shouldnt have said that... i'll go and mod that post (cross out the line, leave it there so others can see, just with a cross)
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 actually, was it because of:- "why does everyone NOT believe in it until there is decent aka solid evidence?" well i spose that that was a bit out or order to say and i take it back, i was suggesting others took up my view and as there is not evidence i shouldnt have said that... i'll go and mod that post (cross out the line, leave it there so others can see, just with a cross)
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Submarines aren't a bad idea, but have they found anything in the past?From memory they have tried a small number of submersibles, both manned and unmanned in the past. The rhomboid flipper that started today's activity on the thread was captured by one of those. Otherwise it has been needle in the haystack.A book I read on the topic forty years ago and whose title escapes my memory at present still gave the best explanation I have yet seen. Taking a detailed look at the descriptions of the wake generated by the creature during alleged sitings, and the directional behaviour of said beast, the author compared it with the wakes of other swimming creatures, such as whales, porpoises, bears, otters. He concluded that the foam and spray produced were much in excess of what would be considered 'normal' or efficient. His conclusion was that witnesses had seen rafts of rotting vegetable matter that had been propelled to and along the surface by gases trapped within. This would explain the appearance of varying numbers of humps and the erratic behviour of the beast. To explain a handful of observations that did not match this theory (a handful of sightings have been made on land for example) he postulated a species of otter of larger than normal size, though I believe a normal otter, seen out of context at dusk could equally be misinterpreted.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Submarines aren't a bad idea, but have they found anything in the past?From memory they have tried a small number of submersibles, both manned and unmanned in the past. The rhomboid flipper that started today's activity on the thread was captured by one of those. Otherwise it has been needle in the haystack.A book I read on the topic forty years ago and whose title escapes my memory at present still gave the best explanation I have yet seen. Taking a detailed look at the descriptions of the wake generated by the creature during alleged sitings, and the directional behaviour of said beast, the author compared it with the wakes of other swimming creatures, such as whales, porpoises, bears, otters. He concluded that the foam and spray produced were much in excess of what would be considered 'normal' or efficient. His conclusion was that witnesses had seen rafts of rotting vegetable matter that had been propelled to and along the surface by gases trapped within. This would explain the appearance of varying numbers of humps and the erratic behviour of the beast. To explain a handful of observations that did not match this theory (a handful of sightings have been made on land for example) he postulated a species of otter of larger than normal size, though I believe a normal otter, seen out of context at dusk could equally be misinterpreted.
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 needle in the haystack. well the haystack yes, but its quite a big needle, infact a bloody big needle, maybe relatively that is needle in a haystack, but when you are using sonar scans and stuff, you gotta remember the size of this thing, it wouldnt easily avoid sonar!
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 needle in the haystack. well the haystack yes, but its quite a big needle, infact a bloody big needle, maybe relatively that is needle in a haystack, but when you are using sonar scans and stuff, you gotta remember the size of this thing, it wouldnt easily avoid sonar!
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 well the haystack yes, but its quite a big needle, infact a bloody big needle, maybe relatively that is needle in a haystack, but when you are using sonar scans and stuff, you gotta remember the size of this thing, it wouldnt easily avoid sonar!Temperature inversions. The loch is rife with them. Play havoc with the sonar.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 well the haystack yes, but its quite a big needle, infact a bloody big needle, maybe relatively that is needle in a haystack, but when you are using sonar scans and stuff, you gotta remember the size of this thing, it wouldnt easily avoid sonar!Temperature inversions. The loch is rife with them. Play havoc with the sonar.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 actually' date=' was it because of:-[i']"why does everyone NOT believe in it until there is decent aka solid evidence?"[/i] well i spose that that was a bit out or order to say and i take it back, i was suggesting others took up my view and as there is not evidence i shouldnt have said that... i'll go and mod that post (cross out the line, leave it there so others can see, just with a cross) Yep. Got it in one. That was what I was responding to. That seemed to be an evidence/absence plea. Of course while it can't be used as an argument it doesn't mean it might not apply.I think what molecularman was saying was that since there really wasn't any quality evidence then if one chose to believe in it, that choice was unscientific. Since I think there is just enough evidence to leave a lingering possibility then your view of 'everone make up their own mind till we get new data' can be a valid scientific position.
Ophiolite Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 actually' date=' was it because of:-[i']"why does everyone NOT believe in it until there is decent aka solid evidence?"[/i] well i spose that that was a bit out or order to say and i take it back, i was suggesting others took up my view and as there is not evidence i shouldnt have said that... i'll go and mod that post (cross out the line, leave it there so others can see, just with a cross) Yep. Got it in one. That was what I was responding to. That seemed to be an evidence/absence plea. Of course while it can't be used as an argument it doesn't mean it might not apply.I think what molecularman was saying was that since there really wasn't any quality evidence then if one chose to believe in it, that choice was unscientific. Since I think there is just enough evidence to leave a lingering possibility then your view of 'everone make up their own mind till we get new data' can be a valid scientific position.
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yub yub all agreed (refer to last post) scientists look for solid proof to prove something true. in this case there is no solid proof so i, as (i guess) the majority of people here do, do not believe in the loch ness monster. i was wrong to impose this view on others, but there you have it.
5614 Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yub yub all agreed (refer to last post) scientists look for solid proof to prove something true. in this case there is no solid proof so i, as (i guess) the majority of people here do, do not believe in the loch ness monster. i was wrong to impose this view on others, but there you have it.
JohnB Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 For me, the jury is still out, but a couple of thoughts. 1. References to a "monster" date from far earlier than 1900. The first reference I know of is from St. Adaman's "Life of Saint Columba" where the Holy man drives a monster from the River Ness in 565AD. The water monster or Kelpie has been around for a long time. 2. There can't be a Loch Ness Monster. Should such a creature exist, unless it has an rediculously long life span, there must be more than 1 of them. A family at least. ( Which could account for the differing appearences and sizes reported. )
JohnB Posted November 21, 2004 Posted November 21, 2004 For me, the jury is still out, but a couple of thoughts. 1. References to a "monster" date from far earlier than 1900. The first reference I know of is from St. Adaman's "Life of Saint Columba" where the Holy man drives a monster from the River Ness in 565AD. The water monster or Kelpie has been around for a long time. 2. There can't be a Loch Ness Monster. Should such a creature exist, unless it has an rediculously long life span, there must be more than 1 of them. A family at least. ( Which could account for the differing appearences and sizes reported. )
Artorius Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 How big is it like Ophiolite...you havent seen it have you!!! Besides looking for a creature whom itself and offspring have successfully avoided capture is by definition going to be hard.Dont sea creatures react to sonar,and instead of drawing attention to themselves by swimming off at speed dont some stay motionless or partly bury themselves.If all that sticks out from the floor is nessies humps wouldnt the sonar hit look just like a formation of boulders,i expect they've evolved some camoflage as well by now.As for the actual research and experiments on the lock they are pitifull,ive seen every documentary on the subject and i didnt even expect them to find a rusty asda trolley.
psi20 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Big creatures in water can exist unknown and unseen to people. Big creatures on land can exist unknown and unseen to people (it may just be the case that these animals are unknown to the "westernized/civilized people" who come there to colonize, explore, etc., but it may be well known to the "barbarians" who live there). There are other places in the world where there have been drawings, stories, etc. about underwater dragons, creatures, etc. The world is much bigger than our perspective of it. Personally, I don't see how it's possible that all the dinosaurs died out during the K-T extinction. I mean, there must've been mutations that allowed some species to adapt to climate changes, food shortages, atmosphere, etc.
LucidDreamer Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Personally' date=' I don't see how it's possible that all the dinosaurs died out during the K-T extinction. I mean, there must've been mutations that allowed some species to adapt to climate changes, food shortages, atmosphere, etc.[/quote'] This is true. I can see one flapping its wings outside my window right now. However, I think its unlikely that a family of extremely large aquatic dinosaurs are swimming around in a very big lake in Scotland. There are literally thousands and thousands of these mythical creatures and thousands of thousands of sightings. I don't think its any more likely that loch ness exists than Big Foot. I think it’s that we want to and to some degree need to believe in these mythical creatures. I believe they are nothing more than shadows of man's superstitious mind.
psi20 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 This is true. I can see one flapping its wings outside my window right now. Referring to a bird? or is it a living pteradactyl?!
Artorius Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Why would they evolve camoflauge? mmm why would a creature evolve camoflauge,i dont know really i see lots of animals that use it though.It may have something to do with making them blend in with the background or something so they can remain undetected.
Sayonara Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 mmm why would a creature evolve camoflauge,i dont know really i see lots of animals that use it though.It may have something to do with making them blend in with the background or something so they can remain undetected. No, I don't mean "any" creature, I mean that one specifically. Loch Ness is huge, allowing countless refuges even for large animals. The visibility is less than 2m due to the high level of organic matter in the water, and there are no large predators. You'd need highly significant (by which I mean "ridiculously unrealistic") selective pressure to drive the emergence of camoflauge under such circumstances.
YT2095 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 the Loch was once a forrest area, eventualy it got filled with water. water so deep that it`s well below freezing at the bottom but still liquid. these logs from the forrest rot down VERY slowly making pockets of methane gas inside them. when the boyancy is enough, they rise to the surface in an arc, release gasses due to the pressure difference, and dive back under again. sorry to spoil your fun
Recommended Posts