26 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

www.telegraph.co.uk said:

The Loch Ness monster may be more fact than fiction, one of the UK's top dinosaur experts has claimed.

Paleontologist Dr Darren Naish reckons there have been too many sightings for 'Nessie' to be a hoax.

Boffin Dr Naish, who lectures at the University of Portsmouth, said: "The huge number of 'sea monster' sightings now on record cant all be explained away as mistakes, sightings of known animals or hoaxes.

"At least some of the better ones some of them made by trained naturalists and such probably are descriptions of encounters with real, unknown animals.

"Because large marine animals continue to be discovered various new whale and shark species have been named in recent years the idea that such species might await discovery is, at the very least, plausible."

Read more...

[Abramelin]

Well, I really don't think Nessie is a plesiosaur that ended up in a lake that came into existence after the end of the last ice age.

But maybe it's a sort of seal with an elongated neck??

And then - if that is so - why did no one ever catch one? Are they super-intelligent, like Bigfoot?? LOL.

Being a scientist doesn't exclude you of having crazy ideas.

[msmike1]

He speaks mostly about oceanic species that are newly discovered. There is a huge difference between finding a new undiscovered species in the vast expanses of the ocean and Loch Ness. It's apples and oranges. To many differences to even be thought of in the same context.

Mike

[The Silver Thong]

Now all the other Paleontologists are pointing and laughing at him  

[Mike G]

Is The Telegraph a reputable source?

EDIT: I think I solved the mystery of why this scientist (Dr Darren Haish) is outwardly speculating about Nessie. From his own blog site in 2007:

Quote

In, as usual, a desperate effort to bring in the hits, I thought I'd go nuts and see what posting about the Loch Ness monster might do for my stats. Hey, maybe I could throw the word sex in there as well. There: sex, there, I said it again.

Source: http://scienceblogs....sie_on_film.php

Obviously, just hyperbole designed to bring some surge of traffic to his site, methinks. Move along, nothing to see here...

Edited by Mike G, 28 July 2011 - 09:52 PM.

[scheming_dreaming]

Mike G, on 28 July 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Is The Telegraph a reputable source?

EDIT: I think I solved the mystery of why this scientist (Dr Darren Haish) is outwardly speculating about Nessie. From his own blog site in 2007:


Source: http://scienceblogs....sie_on_film.php

Obviously, just hyperbole designed to bring some surge of traffic to his site, methinks. Move along, nothing to see here...

breaking news from four years ago...

and its a joke...

poor nessie deserves better

[Mike G]

The most ironic part is this portion of that very same 2007 blog of his I linked to in my last post. Continuing on, Haish talks about the evidence to support the existence of the Loch Ness Monster:

Quote

Just to get it out of the way, I shall begin with a bold proclamation: there is no good evidence supporting the existence of any large unknown animal in Loch Ness, and I am of the conclusion that sightings and photographic and sonar evidence can be satisfactorily explained as mistaken or embellished encounters with known animals (including swimming deer, water birds, seals, and small cetaceans), waves, or other phenomena. I say this, not because I'm a knee-jerk debunker who cannot accept the idea that a big unknown animal might exist in a big body of water, but because I am familiar with the evidence, such as it is, and find it wanting.

A far cry from what he is quoted as saying in that article in the OP.

Edited by Mike G, 29 July 2011 - 12:42 AM.

[Murrangurk]

This article was the equivalent of the thing I bought and ate from the petrol station.  Wholly unsatisfying, slightly dodgy, but what did I expect?
this qualified paleontologist's argument is - it exists coz heaps of people like have done seen it and that.

[xXHellkittiesXx]

Get a huge net and dredge the lake, this end now! xD

[UFO_Monster]

If it did exist, and all of the claims are true, whatever it was must be dead.

[Clobhair-cean]

The fun thing is that the Torygraph managed to complete distort what Naish has said. Here's a part of his reaction

Quote

Here is why talking about cryptozoology is so often a bad idea: journalists are often looking to twist your words to make a more sensational story. No matter what it says in the article, while discussing cryptozoology at the ZSL I never said anything positive about the ‘Loch Ness monster’, nor do I think there is anything substantive to the Loch Ness monster legend, nor do I think that the eyewitness evidence for the Loch Ness monster stacks up to much.

Full text

[Mike G]

Clobhair-cean, on 29 July 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

The fun thing is that the Torygraph managed to complete distort what Naish has said. Here's a part of his reaction



Full text

Did it distort the part on his own blog site where he admits to cheaply sensationalizing the myth of Nessie to draw page hits and traffic?

Edited by Mike G, 29 July 2011 - 09:51 PM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

http://www.cryptomun...ypto-pinnipeds/

I'm not joining the argument one way or the other, just saying, is all....

[Clobhair-cean]

Mike G, on 29 July 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

Did it distort the part on his own blog site where he admits to cheaply sensationalizing the myth of Nessie to draw page hits and traffic?

You do realise that he was joking when he wrote that (The Tet Zoo is the most popular zoology blog out there, and it doesn't need tricks to get visitors), and in no way was he ever sensationalising Nessie. That's the territory of the local tourism authority.

[DigitalDreamer]

I want to point out the obvious but i hope ya'll can see it.This is a sad man who wants attention