Jump to content

Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

balance

I had found this to be a pretty good balanced article to read and I would like to see more dyanmic and constructive argument that is laid out for and against the existence of Nessie Bernie 01:48 AM, 28th July 2006 (UTC)

Why ? Even if Nessie turned out to be real it still wouldn't be paranormal. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The photo at the top

Should it be removed? It could be misleading, even though the article says it's fake.a thing 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, it's the Loch Ness Monster. By most reasonable yardsticks, all photographs are fakes. But I think it's widely known enough for us to not worry about this. It's an interesting point that you raise though. Could we change the caption to note that it's a fake, or alter "famous" to "infamous" to imply that? --Plumbago 09:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw it - or did I?

I saw the "monster" in 1967 in company with several other people. The theory which best fits the facts that I saw is the passage of a small boat or boats in still early morning weather conditions conducive to mirage formation. The monster certainly left a large wake behind it -- fully as large as the fishing trawlers which passed along the loch later that day, so I think that seals can be ruled out. So although I have seen the "monster", I don't believe in it. However the rest of the party are still convinced that it was an animal or group of animals. -- Derek Ross

Tourism

People visit Loch Ness for many other reasons apart from the monster. Inverness is the fastest growing city in the UK and that's not because of the monster. And after all Loch Ness is one of the biggest Scottish lochs and part of the Caledonian Canal and very scenic/atmospheric in its own right. If you compare the number of hotels, boating operators, etc. to the number which can be found at other scenic Scottish lochs without monsters, such as Loch Lomond or Loch Tay, you will find that they have similar numbers of hotels, museums on noteworthy local subjects, etc., so I'm toning down that paragraph. -- Derek Ross

It must be true, it says so in The Sun

Plesiosaur vertebrae found at the edge of Loch Ness - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003321970,00.html -- Jim Regan 03:15 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article:

However, many other photographs were taken by others, and some have been authenticated by independent sources as untampered-with images (Wilson's famous photo was also not tampered with). All show a similar image of what appears to be a large creature with a long neck, usually photographed from a considerable distance. (Video 'evidence' has also been produced, though as much of it is out of focus, its reliability is questioned.) A film crew in August 1997 recorded some sort of 'fast object' moving rapidly across the loch.
A television documentary in the 1990s broadcast in Britain sought to find 'Nessie'. Though the film crew recorded for a number of weeks, no 'monster' was found. However, sonar equipment brought by the film makers and scientists and which was used to scan every inch of the loch to 'disprove' Nessie's existence, did show some movement of a large body at the lowest depths of the lake. Scientists admitted themselves puzzled as to the sonar readings, which suggested that something was in the lake. But what that something was remains a mystery, though one scientist involved in the programme indicated that, having started off believing there was nothing in the loch and that the 'monster' was just a 'tourist gimmick', he left believing that something is there, and that it seems to be some form of exceptionally large mammal able to swim at surprisingly low levels.

Blech. Wikipedia is not a yellow press publication. Provide sources and exact citations, please. --Eloquence 12:59 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nessiteras Rhombopteryx

What, nothing about Nessiteras Rhombopteryx????????????

Added. Andy G 18:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
But failed to note that it's an anagram of monster hoax by Sir Peter S

Not sure I see any benefit of the link to http://www.lochness.co.uk/nessie2000/netwarning.html as the addition of Nessiteras Rhombopteryx was retrospective ... --VampWillow 18:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are we sure Nessiteras Rhombopteryx was ever added to any official list? I suspect not (and changed the phrasing to leave that point open - evidence anyone?). The link to http://www.lochness.co.uk/nessie2000/netwarning.html is because it says that around 2000 ”the authorites” said that Nessie would be protected under 1912 and 1966 legislation - not anything dating from the time of Scott and Rhines. Andy G 18:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

...Although I suppose a name could have been added to a list that the earlier legislation referred to. I guess that was your pont, sorry. I still doubt whether it is really on any oficial list. Andy G 18:23, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Edit history

(moved from previous section) Most of this article's edit history as been lost because of a "cut'n'paste" move from "Loch Ness monster" in July 2003. Can anyone put it back together again ? -- Derek Ross 01:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Viral marketing?

Are we sure about the link to truthaboutlochness.com? I looked at the site and suspect it's a bit of viral marketing and/or an amateur "blair witch". Ian 15:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's not directly about the monster or Loch Ness, is it ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:45, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
It doesn't promote either the exists/not-exists POV, nor does it shed any further light on the issue: it just confuses everything, and I think it does so deliberately. I'll pull the link - if anyone disagrees then revert it. Ian 15:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Flipper Photo

I thought the peter scott flipper was proved to be false. Can't remember the exact details but I'm sure I read something about somebody discovering something about the photograph

The "flipper photo" has very heavily retouched from the original photograph. The original photo looks nothing like the retouched one, and doesn't show a flipper. I added a little bit about it, plus some links. At the "Museum of Hoaxes" external link, you can see the original unretouched photo, and compare. Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted Bubba73! I was under the impression that the photo was less, well, "retouched", but that it was actually a photograph of a model of the monster which had sunk during a film shoot. Of course, it might be both, but the retouching story is pretty damning. I particularly liked the way that NASA were (mis)used by the "monster hunters" to give a veneer of respectability to their efforts. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Also interesting is the fact that the photo was taken more than 30 years ago, and image enhancement software and hardware has improved, yet it can't get anything looking like a flipper out of the original image. Bubba73 (talk), 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I can still see a flipper(the "bone" at least) in the original shot though it's very faint. The model from The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes cannot explain sonar movements. Also, there is a picture of what seems to be a plesiosaur and I can even see the head, eye, and mouth of it.Frankyboy5 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

American Scientist claims to locate Nessie Carcass

Did anyone here catch on American Cable TV 'The History Channel's Deep Sea Mysteries where two accomplished deep sea divers using up-to-date sonar technology interview an American Scientist who claimed to locate what looked like a slowly decaying Plesiasaur? The Scientist's last name was something like Dr. Rhine or Rine. Dr. Rhine also discovered a new species of mushroom-like algae that has existed at the bottom of Loch Ness for as long as it has existed, and he theorizes that this algae could serve as a feeding source to whatever lives at the bottom of the Loch.

The Dr. is reported to be planning an expedition to retreive the supposed carcass of Nessie.

yeah i saw it last week at 1am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.167.89 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 July 2006

Loch / Lake

This artile uses the words loch/lake interchangably throughout and it is quite disconcerting to read. I'm going to change all occurrances to loch - remember, there is only one lake in Scotland. --Colin Angus Mackay 06:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

COULD IT BE A CATFISH???

I've read extensive cryptozoological articles on the theories of what the creature from Loch Ness is, but I've never come across any theories that it could be a bottom-dwelling catfish. There was a news report out of Thailand where two Thai fishermen caught a 600+ lbs. Catfish in the Mekong Delta. Looking at the pictures of this fish made me wonder if it's possible such a large fish could grow in the Lochs of Scotland.

No. Sturgeon have been suggested but catfish are impossible. a) It's too deep. b) It's too cold. c) An ecological energy analysis shows that there isn't enough energy coming into the loch to support such a large animal. Any large animal has to be a sea dweller that can come up the River Ness from the sea. d) The monster leaves a wake as large as that left by a trawler. That's killer whale size not catfish size (not even monster catfish size). -- Derek Ross | Talk June 30, 2005 20:34 (UTC)

did u also know that there is no such thing as the lochness monster

och aayyyee, a aint seen nessy for a wee while noo but i still mis the old gal. well im off for some haaaggissss. och aye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.19.6 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 June 2006

Sounds like you've already had more than enough! -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

its all a hoax u people do know that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.135.50 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 May 2006

Of course it is. And hoaxes are good for sales and marketing. Wahkeenah 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a little premature to say it's a hoax. First off you have sonar from 1968 that shows that there has to be SOME kind of large animal, fish or Nessie, in the loch (Mackal, Roy. The Monsters of Loch Ness). Second if it IS a hoax for marketing than it is the biggest hoax ever thought up since scientists, and yes monster hunters if you want to call them that, from various countries would all have to be in on it. And third there is just evidence that cannot be explained neatly as a hoax. I am not saying it exists (although personally the evidence for is better than the evidence against) but we should keep an open mind until we are absolutely sure.

(sorry I don't have a username. just call me an interested party.)

Loch Ness Environment

  • The climate is often foggy.
    • Britain as a whole, thanks to where it is, as an island nation in the Atlantic Gulf Stream, often experiences coastal fog especially at dwan and dusk. Look at a map of Scotland. Loch Ness is a huge body of water, large enough to generate fog, comparable to the lake fog of the USA Great Lakes. These climate conditions are also conduscive to mirages, comparable to what people can see on a Desert, where there is a bit of an illusion with respect to what we are seeing, and where it is.
      • Just because some of what we might see is a mirage, or illusion, does not mean that all that we see is that way.
      • I would hope that some place in Wiki, there are articles to explain this kind of phenomena, that this one should link to.
  • This means it is difficult to see clearly.
  • As for sonar mapping the bottom of the loch, there is also speculation that there might be underwater caves, whose entrances not visible by sonar looking down from the loch surface.
    • This is all part and parcel of the difficulty of proving a negative.
  • The alleged monster is also fuel for much speculation, comparable to many other topics where masses of people believe in something that modern science does not, like UFOs.
    • Such phenomena often has non-scientists attempting the scientific method without adequate tools, training, peer review.
    • Sightings and speculation about them, can take on a life of their own, with Conspiracy Theorists unable to accept explanations of the original events.
      • For Example, the official story of Roswell was that a high altitude balloon was spying on the USSR at the beginning of the Cold War and when it came down, UFO was used as a cover story, then covered up again with a balloon story, a double Hoax.
      • Just as controversial topics, where masses of people believe something that is contrary to official science, attract Conspiracy Theories, they also attract Hoaxers.
        • Something weird is happening some place, be it the Bermuda Triangle or the skies over some communities. This attracts attention and speculation. The theories may be totally off base. The attention may draw hoaxers. But just because the theories are whacko, and the hoaxers abundant, does not mean that there was nothing there in the first place.
      • Visit any major search engine and look for Cryptozoology. It staggers the imagination how many variants are out there.
      • Sometimes official science is later proven to be wrong about such topics. Consider Giant Meteor Impact as the reason why the Dinosaurs went Extinct. Today this is accepted science, but once it was the stuff of non-scientist beliefs outside that of the mainstream.
  • Believe it or not, the site of some sighting does become a tourist attraction, that private enterprise and government, that derives income from the tourism, is motivated not to let scientific inquiry undermine the tourism.
  • Just as the British government has passed laws to protect Castles and ancient ruins from vandalism that would speed its passage from this Earth, or lose tourism value, so has it passed laws to protect Nessie from certain types of activities. Whether these laws are effectively enforced is another matter.
    • (<Grin>, The laws are impossible to break. How much more effectively enforceable can a law be ?)
  • I'll locate a source before I think about editing the article, but I feel that the "evidence against" section should mention that ecological analysis of Loch Ness leaves little room for the monster: it is dark, cold and mostly dead, without the necessary fish stocks to sustain a population of large predators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.115.35 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 2 May 2006

The Faulty Dinosaur (Plesiosaur) suggestion

Isn't it true that the Plesiosaur was an air-breathing reptile and not amphibious? That being said, it's really amusing to continue reading the theory that the Loch Ness Monster might be a surviving descendent of this species, which would require it to breathe from the surface of the Loch at least as many times any other existing water-based air-breathing mammal or reptile (i.e. Hippos, Crocodiles, Manatees, Whales, Seals). 

--Bourbon King 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)Bourbonking--Bourbon King 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
That's assuming it's in the loch at all times. And what about those underwater caves they just found? Wouldn't that be perfect for a thirty-seventy foot reptile to hide? Where as it may not be plesiosaur it most certainly needs air, other wise there would be no reason to surface. Or perhaps it goes on land for food. Is it possible that this thing is a scavenger? Also FYI in the scientific comunity plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles (mosasaur etc.) aren't considered dinosaurs. And how about that tooth they found stuck into that deer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.110 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 June 2006

It could stick up only a tiny part of it's head and breath. The "tooth" was later identified to be an antler of a deer. They found there is at least 27 tonnes of fish compared to the estimate of 3 tonnes.Frankyboy5 04:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Underwater photographs

As regards the underwater photographs of "Nessie", it'd be nice to include them here as they are quite interesting. They do show a very distinct rhomboid fin and what appears to be a animal's head atop a long neck. However, as I understood it, the features photographed bear a rather strong resemblance to a model of "Nessie" that was built, then lost in the Loch, for a Sherlock Holmes film. Sadly I can't remember where I read all this, but as I recall, the facts were pretty straightforward and eminently checkable (which is more than can be said for much of what's said about "Nessie"). Could anyone help? --Plumbago 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. As regards plesiosaurs (see one comment above), yes, they are air-breathing reptiles. So it is correct that were "Nessie" to be one, it'd have to return to the surface fairly regularly. However, just for the record, adult amphibians also breathe primarily via lungs, so also require air. Some can take oxygen across their skins, but it's mostly only juveniles that use gills.

P.P.S. I notice that there's now more in the article re: the underwater photographs (one of which I added to the article). I still can't find my reference, but I've subsequently remembered that the photographs were taken in the Urquhart Bay region of Loch Ness. The same region where the model sank. I won't add this to the article unless I find my reference, or someone else supports. --Plumbago 07:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The model from The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes cannot explain sonar movements. Also, the pic has no resemblace to the model whatsoever. The gargoyle head was later found to be a tree stump. Plesiosaurs could stick up only a tiny part of it's head and breath. Frankyboy5 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Worm?

I kind of surprised this didn't mention that theory that Nessie is a giant slug, or "great 'orm" as some authors have termed it.

Indeed. Can't recall title or author just now, but he mentions marine Polychaete worms as possible cousins to Nessie. Toxic slime which withers vegetation, leaving a scorched appearance in the track of the Worm when it comes ashore, may account for the "fire-breathing" part of dragon legends. Could the worm have been (or be) a giant marine invertebrate? 141.154.74.71 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Eel

Worm? That's an interesting concept but I have my doubts. I don't think a worm would fit the Bible's description of the Leviathin but we're all entitled to our thoughts. Heres some interesting information. Some people beleive Nessie could be an enormous eel. Eel larva on average are about two inches long. Near the bottom of the ocean they found eel larva two feet long! It's estimated that the adult eels could reech twenty feet long! However the eel can not account for all the sitings. One family saw the beast and said it hard dark grey sking, a long neck and and stubby horns on its head. The authorities said they probably just saw a deer! How could you possibly get the two mixed up!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 June 2006

Eels are supposed to make good eatin'. I'd guess Nessie could be a mite tough, though. Wahkeenah 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

John Cobb ; Was it really Nessie????

Do you know about John Cobb?? NO?? Well I can tell you about him!! John Cobb tried to beat the speed record on the Loch when his speed boat The Crusader blew up because of strange waves and as we know big animals living in water make BIG WAVES while hmoving so was it really Nessie who made the strange waves??

to learn more see these websites: 

[1]   
[2]
[3]
[4]

or got to google (below) and search all the John Cobb web sites and see the pics too: 20cobb&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=iw

Yes I was aware of it, but we can't say it was the waves that did it. The true reason is unknown howerver there are other reports of lake and sea monsters that do show signs of an unkown aquatic creature being hostile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 June 2006

magazine/publications and perpetuation of 'monster' designation

It is probable that the 'Loch Ness monster', as described within periodicals and other publications, is actually the 'Baird's Beaked Whale'. As a sort of cultural discovery operation, the creature may be attracted to certain regions in specific ways -- such as sending someone from Scotland over the Golden Gate Bridge in California (U. S. A.)(as example). Beadtot

Uh...I don't get it.--Bourbon King 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent and principal sightings

'Regardless of whether anything is actually in the loch, the Loch Ness Monster has some "mythological significance" to the people of the town.'

What town is being referred to here? No specific town is mentioned prior to this point in the article. My educated guess would be Drumnadrochit but this clearly needs to be tidied up by somebody more informed on the topic than myself. IP 20:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Elephant on the run?

Researcher Neil Clark claims that Nessie is a circus elephant temporarily set out by circus manager Bertram Mills as some kind of PR stunt. Though I cannot find any english article about this now, this is the article from a norwegian paper: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/03/06/459852.htmlEhjort 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That just discredits one sitting and doesn't explain any others. Statisticly speaking there are many animals yet to be discovered on this planet and lake and ocean monsters are among them. Why can't scientist stop acting like they know everything and organize real searches!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 1 June 2006

New Scientist article, c. early 1980s

Mention of the Loch Ness Monster on today's news reminds me of the following:

There was a lengthy, serious New Scientist article about the Loch Ness Monster in (I think) the early 1980s (possibly a little earlier or later), which proposed the theory it is caused by deep-water cold, slow fermentation of Scots Pine tree trunks; still (to my mind) the most convincing theory yet made. Unfortunately I no longer have the relevant copy of New Scientist - anyone know the volume and page reference?

Some of the points made included:

  • Four Scottish lochs are very deep (Morar, Ness, Lomond, and one other, I forget which); of these, three have monster legends; the same three have native pinewoods on their shores and/or major river catchments; the one with no legends (Lomond) doesn't.
  • Storm-blown pine trunks falling in the lochs (or carried in by flooding rivers) would have the broken ends of the trunks sealed airtight by resin exuded from the wood. They would sink to the bottom of the loch, and over a lengthy period (hundreds? maybe thousands? of years), the wood in the logs would ferment, slowly building up gas pressure inside the log, which could not bubble out due to a combination of the resin seal and the very high water pressure. Eventually though, the gas pressure would build up to a sufficient level that the resin seal at one end would burst. This results in a gas-jet propelled log being pushed through the water, sometimes to the surface; once the gas is all expelled, the log sinks again (unless it hits a shoreline first).
  • The shape of pine logs (with branch stubs for 'heads' and 'flippers') and their predicted behaviour matches many claimed monster sightings.
  • Surfactants resulting from the decay of the log, plus the gas, result in a more visible foamy wake, as reported in some sightings.
  • Beached pine logs showing evidence of such deep-water fermentation have been found.

There were several additional points of evidence which unfortunately I can't remember. It would be worth locating this article and adding details from it to the page - MPF 23:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bords' "Modern Mysteries of Britain" (Guild Publishing 1987), p302 reports a monster sighting on Loch Lomond in 1972. I also remember the article. And ooh, look what I just found on the net: “The Loch Ness Saga,” by Dr. Maurice Burton, New Scientist, June 24, 1982, p. 872; July 1, 1982, pp. 41-42; July 8, 1982, pp. 112-113. From http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/astop_monsters.htm (two-thirds of the way down).

I propose splitting off all the popular culture into its own article. It is messing up the article just now, and I don't want to just delete content which might be interesting to some users Guinnog 16:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Danielos2, thank you for doing it for me. Guinnog 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Shocking Suggestion

It has been suggested that Loch Ness be bombed with Depth Charges to force out whatever is in it out of the Loch. In some areas, fishermen and poachers throw explosives in a lake or river to obtain fish that are killed or stunned by the shock waves. I hope this is not carried out. This has been proposed to find out once and for all time what is in Loch Ness. Martial Law 03:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Maybe so but that will only work if Nessie is caused by something in the loch. If Nessie is caused by something outside the loch, such as weather conditions, explosives will have no effect other than to kill a lot of fish. And I can't see the local landowners being too happy about that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Article slant

This article seems to imply that it is in some ways controversial whether or not Nessie exists. Nessie doesn't exist, and the article should reflect that, right? Terror Island 22:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about some kind of animal or supernatural beast then no, no such thing exists. If on the other hand you are talking about some kind of optical illusion (or other natural phenomenon) that makes people think that some kind of animal or supernatural beast exists, then yes, some such phenomenon exists. I think that the article does currently reflect that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"The Loch Ness Monster, sometimes called "Nessie" or "Ness" (Scottish Gaelic: Niseag) is a mysterious and unidentified animal or group of creatures said to inhabit Loch Ness, a large deep freshwater loch near the city of Inverness in northern Scotland. Nessie is usually categorized as a type of lake monster. Along with Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman, Nessie is one of the best-known mysteries of cryptozoology. Most mainstream scientists and other experts find current evidence supporting Nessie unpersuasive and regard the occasional sightings as hoaxes or misidentification of mundane creatures or natural phenomena." This makes it sound like the mainstream scientists are waiting for better evidence, rather than that they have concluded the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Terror Island 08:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well the nature of science is that mainstream scientists are always waiting for more or better evidence. Good mainstream 19th century scientists didn't just say, "Well that's all the evidence we need. We conclude that the Aether definitely exists." They kept on gathering more for purposes of confirming the Aether theory even though everyone "knew" it was correct -- until it became apparent that it wasn't correct and that the Aether didn't exist. In the same way good 21st century scientists will carry on collecting evidence on Nessie. This evidence is almost certain to confirm that she isn't real but that's no reason to stop collecting it. Jumping to "conclusions" is the domain of those who believe in the existence of Nessie -- not of those who take a scientific view. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article says that there actually is an animal called "the Loch Ness Monster." Unless this has been verified, the opening paragraph needs to be fixed. Has it been verified that there is a mysterious animal or group of creatures in the loch? Jimpartame 00:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case the first sentence should reworded. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Terror: That's great that you don't think he exists. Unfortunatly, that has nothing to do with the article in question, so no, your oppinion shouldn't be implememnted into the wording of the page. --Lettuceclock 20:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The existence of "Nessie" depends on what one means by "existence". It's kind of like the existence of Santa Claus: it does, and it doesn't. A little of both. Wahkeenah 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Santa clause can be proven as a lie. Nessie isn't. It's fine if you, personally, do not believe that the Loch Ness moster exists, however personall oppinions have nothing to do with Wikipedia articles. --Lettuceclock 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing can be proven not to exist. Santa Claus is far more real than Nessie; I've seen convincing photos of him for one thing, and even met him once when I was a wee boy. I'm absolutely sure that worldwide more people believe in Santa than in Nessie. --Guinnog 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Never make absolute statements. >:) One notable difference where Santa is concerned is that it is likely a far greater percentage of Santa encounters occur while the witness is sober. Wahkeenah 23:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, nothing can be proven not to exist; then it's utterly fucking stupid for you to sit here and argue with my claim that we shouldn't change the article to say nessie doesn't. --Lettuceclock 00:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear what your point is here; maybe you could reword it to explain what you were trying to say?
I'm utterly clear that I very strongly prefer not to be sworn at. Please don't do it again. Thanks. --Guinnog 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't swearing at you, I was swearing at Wahkeenah. This is quite a simple matter: I am arguing that since theres no proof nessie does or does not exist, saying it doesn't is incorrect. I am saying to simply leave the article as it is. If you are disagreeing with me, you are a dolt. I realize how bad that line of logic is, but still, it's true. Lettuceclock 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't OK to swear at anybody, or to call anybody a dolt. See the warning I placed on your talk page. --Guinnog 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
We're getting into the nuts and dolts of the issue. Meanwhile, your statement has so many negatives in it I can't figure out whether you want it say Nessie exists, or not. You can't exactly say Nessie does exist or doesn't exist, but you can point out that no one has ever come up with a clear film or photo, or a carcass, or anything of that nature, in all the centuries this alleged animal has been discussed. Wahkeenah 00:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't MATTER whether or not I think nessie exists. Get that through your head. It doesn't matter if Christ himself came down from heaven and gave us his oppinion on the matter. Saying neutrality is an "article slant", and the only way to fix said slant is to add oppinion and guesswork, such as "nessie doesn't exist", is stupid, fallaciouse logic.

OK. Were you proposing to change the article in some way? If not, I'd say we're finished here. --Guinnog 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The article presents plenty of facts about this critter, and makes it clear that there is no definitive evidence that it exists. That seems sufficiently factual and neutral. If Mr. Unsigned Rant is unhappy about the wording, then he should propose some changes. Wahkeenah 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog and Wahkeenah; considering your sitting here arguing a point, I would hope you would have had the sense to even read what you where arguing about. Appearently I was wrong. If you had read this.... hell what do you call it? "Section"? I dunno, if you had read this 'section' in question, you would see the entire point of it is that some guy (Terror Island) is saying this article is slanted, and that it should be changed to express his oppinion that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. If you would then donate half the ammount of time you spent arguing with me to read my responce to him, you would see I disagree, and do not think we ought to change it do to his oppinion. Lettuceclock 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Actually I always stand up when at the computer. Seriously, if you see the article changing in a way you don't like, or have any suggestions on how to improve it, then this is the place to discuss it. There's no need to over-react to a suggestion that wasn't implemented, and, as long as I am editing, won't be. I think the article is fine as it is. Best wishes --Guinnog 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what you do when someone sugguests something you don't agree with; you tell them you don't agree. Lettuceclock 04:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Surgeon's Photo

"Confirmed to be a hoax?" I've heard that the confession itself was the hoax... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.160.163 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 May 2006

Somehow I don't think it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 June 2006

It was actually the claim that the confessed hoax was a hoax that was a hoax - although this is rumoured to be a hoax. In any event, if it has seriously been suggested that the confession was not genuine then this should probably be included and any evidence for it cited. Davkal 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I heard that it was a hoax that the rumour that the claim that the confession was a hoax, was a hoax, was a hoax. --Oscar Bravo 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (BTW, you will need GCC to compile this).

The pic is often cropped!!!!Frankyboy5 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers mate! Totnesmartin 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it best not to know?

Perhaps it's better off that we never find out. What I mean to say is that if scientist do find something they won't let it, go and it will die in captivity. And then poachers will be after the rest of them for money or trophies. It's just not safe for endangered animals these days. Won't take man kind long to kill off the giant squid, I bet ya'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 June 2006

youre right in fact its probably best to imagine i mean if it is real its not a good idea to have a 50ft animal in an aquarium or being mounted on a wall because if it is real scientist would do anything to get their hands on one even kill a mother and take the babies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.167.89 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 July 2006

Good reason. But then....

The monster may one day become extinct before we discover it!!!!!!!!!!!!! About 2 species of living things become extinct everyday. That's everyday. Ranging from small microbes to undiscovered animals, and don't forget about plants, fungi, and protozoa. The reason why future sonar scans might not show anything is because the monster did exist but it's now extinct. There have only been 2 sightings this year and we're already at the 4th quarter. Frankyboy5 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

some changes

I have changed the statement from "before the hippy era" to "before the late 1960s". I presume this is what/when is meant. I have done this because "before the hippy era" seems a peculiar way to describe a date in an article not directly (not even indirectly) associated hippy culture.

I also think that the section this quote comes from "History of sightings" is in need of some work. At the start it says that people have questioned the legitimacy of rumours of a monster in the loch prior to the late 1960s (hippy era) but then goes on to mention the post 1930s history and subsequently details the newspaper stories published in the 1930s. If what is meant is that people have questioned the legitimacy of the ancient accounts then this needs to be stated more clearly. As it is the passage seems completely contradictory. Davkal 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

flow of first paragraphs

Moving the "earliest report" to "History of alleged sightings" caused the first two paragraphs not to flow together; it jumps to mention of _Life_. Any idea how to arrange it better? Ralphmerridew 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hippoformus?

The morphology of the thing in the "Surgeon's Photo" does not look very natural for a fish, reptile, or any real creature. In terms of skeletal and bone structure, it looks more like an abstract representation of a horse head with a skinny neck. The proportions and overall structure just are not consistant with natural animal forms. I would like the name "Guy with Zoology PhD Photo" better, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.190.3 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 August 2006

Pre-1930 history

I have heard that there have been sightings going back to around the time of the Crusades or even before. while I cannot offer you a source for this information, just watch one of the programs on "Nessie" that comes on the History Channel or Discovery channels and I am sure that they will mention it in there somewhere. I know memory is not a good reference, but I seem to remember that it was a priest and his party of followers that first spotted the creature and recorded it. I will look into it, but many sets of eyes can accomplish more then just one, so why don't we all look for it?

Look for what - the monster? Or the report... If it's the report you want, then there is already a discussion of it in the article (2nd para in History of alleged sightings). The "priest" was St. Columba, BTW. --Oscar Bravo 14:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I expect they had already invented Scotch Whiskey by then, the imbibing of which is said to aid in the search for Nessie. :) Wahkeenah 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Dammit, it never helps me search for reports. Maybe I need to practise! --Guinnog 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Consider this dialogue from "Animal House":
--Bluto: My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.
--Otter: You'd better listen to Bluto. He's pre-med.

Skeleton in Rine's Expedition??

I read a kids book on the monster and they talk about a person who is going to find the monster(perhaps Robert Rines???) They said before he took picures he saw a skeleton of what looked like a plesiosaur. Frankyboy5 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, it's not the 2001 mission because the book's too old!!!!!!!!! So, it must be the 1972 or the 1975 expedition!!!!!!!!! Frankyboy5 06:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Grant Sighting

A veterinary student named Arthur Grant was motor cycling when he nearly collided with a creature that he described had a long neck and a small head. Later people examined the tracks and they looked like they were caused by flippers. Here is a sketch [6](Bottom right of page). Here is a small description [7](Above the Surgeon's Photo.).Frankyboy5 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict With the "Champ" Article

The article on "Champ", the creature commonly sighted in Lake Champlain, states: "The reason some scientists believe that “Champ” may be a plesiosaur like “Old Nessie” is because the two lakes have much in common ... both lakes support fish populations large enough to feed a supposed sea or lake monster (Krystek 1)." However, the Loch Ness article states: "The loch simply does not have enough food to support animals as big as a plesiosaur, particularly a breeding population of plesiosaurs." These two statements are in conflict with each other. I don't personally know which statement is correct. I have posted this same observation in both articles, so if the conflict is fixed, my comment should be removed from both places.

  • The key phrase might even be a plesiosaur. What, is there a single plesiosaur, in each lake, that's somehow immortal? There are certainly enough fish to sustain whatever plesiosaur might be in the lakes, which is none. Wahkeenah 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, many are confused. The discovery documentary Loch Ness Discovered says the number of fish is nine times originally thought. Frankyboy5 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris Spurling, son-in-law of Marmaduke Wetherell, or stepson?

There are some sites that refer him as the stepson of Marmaduke Wetherell [8] [9].

I removed the "Loch Ness Monster and Bermuda Triangle Investigation" link...

Seriously, did someone put that there as a joke or was it placed there by some twelve year old? http://www.matmice.com/home/lochnessmonsterandbermudatriangle/ "From the creators of 'Pokemon Inspiration'"? Is this the type of reputable sources we want on wikipedia? I think not...

You gotta be kidding me?

Some artist's impressions of plesiosaurs support this.

An artist's "impression" of how a dinosaur might breathe is not a supporting fact of anything other than the artist's imagination.

I meant to say that some drawings of plesiosaurs/elasmosaurs(bigger, more advanced species) show their nostrils much closer to the eyes, just in front. Some have theorized that they only needed to stick up a portion of their head to breathe. Frankyboy5 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

not sure how helpful this is, but i recently saw a seal doing just that. Only its muzzle was visible above the water. Totnesmartin 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent video

I added this. Not very well I admit, still learning the ropes here. Still it's a compelling video clip. I am unclear about its provenance but anyone interested in this subject will be fascinated I think. I think the video clip is public domain. SmokeyTheFatCat 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well can someone give clarification on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97WDNIvnlgA I know it is probably fake but you can't be sure.195.137.109.177 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a fake. It's from a movie called "Incident at Loch Ness" starring Werner Herzog and directed by (another actor in the movie) Zak Penn. Frankyboy5 01:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Date for Vita Columbae

Someone changed this to the "3rd century", which is absurd considering Columba lived 521-597. The original had "6th century" (ie, the 500s) which is also impossible considering that its author, Adomnan, died in 704. Maybe he meant "in the 600s" - this is more likely, but then that's the 7th century, so that's what I've put. --Oscar Bravo 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

6th century is correct. Think about it - a 7th century author, St Adomnan, was writing the biography of a 6th century figure, St Columba. So he's writing (in the late 600s) about events that took place a hundred years earlier (in the late 500s) That's like a 20th century author writing the biography of a 19th century figure. Quite an ordinary thing really. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have noticed an apparent error. In the section of the article detailing Robert Rine's Studies there is a link to the Museum of Hoaxes (link #14). In the sidebar is the image known as the Flipper Photo, with a notation to the effect that the original undoctored image can be viewed at the Museum of Hoaxes. This is not so to the best of my discovery. They also show only the altered image. Ceroill 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loch_Ness_Monster/Archive_1&oldid=718493649"