Loch Ness Monster real?

[Huntster]

...One real sea monster in Scottish lochs, notably Loch Lomond, is the Arctic Char- a seafish trapped in fjords by isostatic uplift which has lifted Scotland above sea level since the last ice age. They have adapted well and make good eating. Anyone visiting the Öld Oak"at Balmaha should give them a try.

I'll betcha our Arctic Char here in Alaska are more "monstrous" than the Arctic Char in Loch Ness........

 

[William Parcher]

...but Nessie is larger than a Bigfoot, so the Scots have a more "monstrous" myth animal than tha Alaskans.

 

[Huntster]

...but Nessie is larger than a Bigfoot, so the Scots have a more "monstrous" myth animal than tha Alaskans.

We have more than just big bears, big feet, and big people up around here:

The Lake Iliamna monster once again has reared its legendary head. On July 27, several, reportedly sober, etewitnesses say they saw a 10-foot, black "fish" leaping ans splashing in the lake, about five miles northwest of Pedro Bay village......

For the record, I don't know what to think about "lake" monsters. Lakes are extremely limited habitat, even large lakes.

I suspect lake monsters are large species of known animals that people mistake for "monsters."

 

[carcharodon]

Wrong again ... the subject is "Loch Ness Monster real?" ... not "carcharadon jacks the thread!"

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

The subject is giant freak eels as a possible answer to the Loch Ness 'monster' and other lake monsters.

Pay attention. Did you even watch the link???

 

[carcharodon]

Carcharodon's photos give an excellent impression of the loch- and he is quite right that the area near Urquhart Castle is atypical of the bulk of the loch. I would still argue that there are viewpoints by the roadside and a very large number of people on foot as well as in cars by the loch, at least in Summer. Passengers in southbound vehicles (especially modern high seat coaches) do have good views of much of the loch, though it is broken up by trees.

I wouldn't argue with you there at all. You are right of course. There are lots of viewpoints dotted here and there along the roadside. What I was trying to do was get away from the impression that the entire roadside is like the clear unobstructed viewpoint seen at Urquart Castle. I would still say that most of the roadside along both sides of the Loch has obstructed views. Most, but not all.

In a south west wind- common in summer- the loch gets quite rough as one of the pictures shows. On calm days though, it looks like a sheet of glass and the wake of even a small boat can persist for 10-15 minutes after the boat itself has passed.

Here are two more pics taken at more or less the same spot at the very south west end of the Loch near Fort Augustus to illustrate your point showing the differences...whitecaps vs almost a glass like surface.

 

[Fnord]

A single report is enough to cause an investigation.

It's more like: "A single rumour is enough to cause a flood of woo-woo tourists to converge on the site and take grainy photographs of everything they see and use any anomaly therein as incontrovertable proof of the rumour's truth and validity."

See also: "911," "Squib," "Thermate / Thermite," and "Weapons of Mass Destruction."


-Fnord of Dyscordia-

 

[William Parcher]

For the record, I don't know what to think about "lake" monsters. Lakes are extremely limited habitat, even large lakes.

I suspect lake monsters are large species of known animals that people mistake for "monsters."

If we give the lake witnesses the same benefit-of-doubt that Bigfoot believers give each other - then we have true lake monsters that are not misidentifications. How does it go?..."If only 1% of the witnesses are correct then..."

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
For the record, I don't know what to think about "lake" monsters. Lakes are extremely limited habitat, even large lakes.

I suspect lake monsters are large species of known animals that people mistake for "monsters."

If we give the lake witnesses the same benefit-of-doubt that Bigfoot believers give each other - then we have true lake monsters that are not misidentifications. How does it go?..."If only 1% of the witnesses are correct then..."

That's right. I don't fully discount the possibility.

However, it's fair to point out that there are lots of different critters that a lake monster might be mistaken as; seals, otters, big fish, or even whales. It's even possible for a big known fish to be way out of it's habitat.

My father-in-law showed me a photo of a large dorsal fin that looked like a shark's that he swears he saw in Kenai Lake, some 80 miles from salt water.

A couple of years ago, while floating Twentymile River near Anchorage on a moose hunt, I saw a pod of several beluga whales miles up the river. Whales. In a fairly small river.

The Kvichak River, which drains Lake Illiamna into Bristol Bay, and has the most tremendous sockeye salmon run in the world, is 50 miles long. Lake Illiamna (the largest lake in Alaska) has a reputation of a "monster".

With sasquatch the list of known animals it can be mistake with is a bit more restricted. It's either a bear, man in a suit, or an escaped ape. The sightings which report bipedal locomotion kick the bears and apes out of the equation.

And lake monsters don't leave footprints.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Here are two more pics taken at more or less the same spot at the very south west end of the Loch near Fort Augustus to illustrate your point showing the differences...whitecaps vs almost a glass like surface.

Nice shots. I'll be interested to hear if any big eels turn up, but to be honest, I just like the place for itself.

Loch Morar- home of "The other monster" is even prettier.

Huntster- Given the lack of bears, our char may be bigger'n your'n! It's ironic that environmentalists are worried global warming will kill off Scotland's Arctic Char. It was of course, global warming that put them there in the first place. They're adaptable.

 

[Huntster]

....Huntster- Given the lack of bears, our char may be bigger'n your'n!

If they are, I'm looking forward to a fishing trip to Scotland.

The Wulik River in northern Alaska (which drains into the Arctic Ocean) is legendary for absolutely gigantic char.

It's ironic that environmentalists are worried global warming will kill off Scotland's Arctic Char. It was of course, global warming that put them there in the first place. They're adaptable.

I agree. Global warming/cooling is a perfectly natural phenomenon. It has happened many times before.

Overfishing (especially commercially with the high technology possible today) is a much bigger threat......

 

[Carnivore]

I wouldn't argue with you there at all. You are right of course. There are lots of viewpoints dotted here and there along the roadside. What I was trying to do was get away from the impression that the entire roadside is like the clear unobstructed viewpoint seen at Urquart Castle. I would still say that most of the roadside along both sides of the Loch has obstructed views. Most, but not all.



Here are two more pics taken at more or less the same spot at the very south west end of the Loch near Fort Augustus to illustrate your point showing the differences...whitecaps vs almost a glass like surface.

[qimg]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/Loch-Ness-1992.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/Loch-Ness-at-dusk.jpg[/qimg]

Those are gorgeous pics! I'm going to have to head there myself in the new year.

Regarding photo ops for random Nessie appearences:

According to the Scottish Executive, Inverness is the UK's 13th most popular destination for overseas visitors, receiving just over a million international tourists per year.

Just one of the cruise companies that sail on Loch Ness carried 72,000 passengers in 2004. A quick google brings up half a dozen more cruise operators on the loch. I'm guessing that the number of cameras actually on the water every year therefore probably numbers over a hundred thousand.

 

[Porterboy]

I hear about these "reliable sources," and I've seen a couple on TV documentaries (one was even a supposed retired MI5 officer). The only thing that's missing is the guy spreading his arms and saying "It was this big!"

But fishermen don't lie, do they?

I'm sure if anyone ever caught Nessie then they'd be in the pub bragging that it was the size of a whale! But then again the idea that every single Loch Ness monster sighting is simply lies based on myth, or the product of Highland wanderers on hallucinogenic haggis pushes it a bit. It's more likely, in my view, that a real creature exists. As Carcharodon points out, Loch Ness is an enormous body of water, a natural wonder. You could drown the entire human race three times over in its opaque depths ands you have to travel hundreds of miles westwards into the Atlantic Ocean to find deeper water. There's plenty of room for something to hide in there and remain hidden forever. It's not necessary for Nessie to be a cryptid, an unknown species; it could just be what Downes calls a "pseudocryptid", a species of animal known to science but found out of its normal environment, like the "Beast of Bodmin" which is probably a puma. Sightings of Nessie usually describe a beast with a long neck, but very few people describe its body, always assumning that it has a reptillian or mamallian one. What if the neck was just the front end of a long, lithe body, like an eel.

 

[Porterboy]

In what way was it proven?

Downes and his team set up an observation post on the lakeshore and also went out on a boat with an active sonar scanner. They eventually spotted a big fish break the surface of the water which had features unique to the Wels. The story is told in full in Downes' 2005 book "Monster of The Mere".

Wels are one of the world's biggest freshwater fish. The biggest ever specimen, leaving aside fisherman's tales, is 16 feet long. They're native to eastern Euope, but a British naturalist introduced them as part of the misguided Acclimatization Project in the 19th Century. The monster of Martin Mere is probably a descendant of one of the original batch, although it could be an original; the Wels can live for over 100 years.

 

[mummymonkey]

Downes and his team set up an observation post on the lakeshore and also went out on a boat with an active sonar scanner. They eventually spotted a big fish break the surface of the water which had features unique to the Wels. The story is told in full in Downes' 2005 book "Monster of The Mere".

So no proof at all then. Thought not. In any event, the existence or otherwise of an introduced large catfish in an English pond is not evidence for a Loch Ness monster.
What species are these supposed giant eels?

 

[Big Les]

But then again the idea that every single Loch Ness monster sighting is simply lies based on myth, or the product of Highland wanderers on hallucinogenic haggis pushes it a bit. It's more likely, in my view, that a real creature exists. As Carcharodon points out, Loch Ness is an enormous body of water, a natural wonder. You could drown the entire human race three times over in its opaque depths ands you have to travel hundreds of miles westwards into the Atlantic Ocean to find deeper water. There's plenty of room for something to hide in there and remain hidden forever.

Argument from personal incredulity. Big lake + lots of stories, does not = truth. for how long, have how many people been looking? And still no evidence? Seems reasonable to suggest that it is a myth. By the same logic one could suggest that it's "likely" that ghosts, demons, psychic powers, the tooth fairy, and anything else lots of people have reported as existing, exist. There is about as much evidence for Nessie as there is for any of those things.

Which is to say, sod all.

 

[Correa Neto]

There's a small detail lake monsters proponents seem not to be aware of: The space avaliable for lake monster is smaller than most people think. Narrow deep lakes (such as Loch Ness) with little water exchange have only a relatively thin surficial zone with enough oxigen and sunlight to sustain (relatively) large concentration of lifeforms. This upper zone is the most productive one, where the biomass is concentrated. The deeper areas are reduced (oxigen-deprived) environments, usually very poor when it comes to life. The most productive lakes are shallow, with a large surface area.

Even at very deep lakes, the volume avaliable for animals (specially the large ones) is not as large as it seems to be at a first glance. The deeper areas are improductive and "not friendly" to life. So, the "its a big deep lake" line of reasoning is not correct.

http://lakeaccess.org/ecology/lakeecologyprim15.html
http://www.mlswa.org/lkclassf.htm

Oh, alleged Nessie footprints (flipperprints?):
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9603/nessie.html
http://www.nessie.co.uk/sight.html

BTW, sturgeons are quite often cited as possible candidates for lake monsters.

Soapy Sam:
A great friend of mine made his PhD at the Moine Thrust back in the 80s. He told me the channel linking Loch Ness to the sea is shallow and a popular fishing spot. If this is true, its a bit hard to imagine how 6 m long eels would come and go unoticed. An occasional sturgeon could do the trick, but 6m long eels passing frequently...

 

[William Parcher]

On the Wels catfish: "The biggest ever specimen, leaving aside fisherman's tales, is 16 feet long."

That statement is false.

 

[bruto]

Another problem with lake monsters is that the environment in which they (or the things that pass for them) appear is inherently lacking in scale references, as well as being plagued by odd reflections which make boundaries difficult to establish, especially when photographs are poorly focused or heavily cropped. A few stray reflections and a misjudgment of distance can easily turn a cormorant into a mysterious plesiosaur.

If Lake Champlain ever does yield a true cryptozoological monster that is not just a sturgeon or an otter, an eel or a log, I won't be surprised if it turns out to be no bigger than an otter anyway.

 

[luchog]

This film describes the recent expedition to the Lake District by the Centre for Fortean Zoology to prove a new theory: That there exist in British lakes giant eels over 20 feet long! Eels that easily qualify for the title "monster". I've a lot of respect for Jonathan Downes and his colleages and I've read all his books.

Sounds extremely unlikely.

The best film on the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon I've ever seen is Werner Herzog and Zak Penn's Incident at Loch Ness

 

[Polaris]

Sounds extremely unlikely.

The best film on the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon I've ever seen is Werner Herzog and Zak Penn's Incident at Loch Ness

I still suspect Penn wasn't in on the joke. A guy whose claims to fame are the Inspector Gadget movie and Last Action Hero isn't exactly awe-inspiring. I don't think he had the creative capacity to pull it off. But then that movie was unorthodox in all regards (and watch all the extras on the DVD, you'll thank me.)