Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Alaska and Loch Ness 'Monsters' huge sharks?

alaska loch ness monster sharks

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#16    Myles

Myles

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,501 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 May 2012 - 02:41 PM

Growing up in the St. Louis area, it seems that every couple years a shark was caught near St. Louis.   Usually bull sharks I think.   That's quite a journey in fresh water.  Over 700 miles.


#17    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 07 May 2012 - 04:57 PM

View PostMyles, on 07 May 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Growing up in the St. Louis area, it seems that every couple years a shark was caught near St. Louis.   Usually bull sharks I think.   That's quite a journey in fresh water.  Over 700 miles.

The difference being that Bullsharks have adapted to be able to survive in freshwater and the journey up the mighty Mississippi is a pretty tame affair since there aren't rapids like are described in the posts above.  

To me, the most likely scenario is that there are no large creatures in the Loch.  Ever notice how the most likely explanation is usually the correct one?  Lets see - on one hand we have the fallibility of human eyewitness reports and then on the other the possibility that a giant prehistoric fish/reptile has managed to survive millions of years with the barest minimum of population size, in a smallish lake, leaving no actual measurable traces of its existence whatsoever.  Which seems more likely?


#18    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 38,576 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 07 May 2012 - 07:54 PM

View Postorangepeaceful79, on 07 May 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

To me, the most likely scenario is that there are no large creatures in the Loch.  Ever notice how the most likely explanation is usually the correct one?  Lets see - on one hand we have the fallibility of human eyewitness reports and then on the other the possibility that a giant prehistoric fish/reptile has managed to survive millions of years with the barest minimum of population size, in a smallish lake, leaving no actual measurable traces of its existence whatsoever.  Which seems more likely?
Just to point out, Loch Ness is not a 'smallish lake'.

Loch Ness is the second largest Scottish loch by surface area at 56.4 km2 (21.8 sq mi) after Loch Lomond, but due to its great depth, it is the largest by volume. Its deepest point is 230 m (755 ft),[1][2] deeper than the height of London's BT Tower at 189 m (620 ft) and deeper than any other loch except Loch Morar. It contains more fresh water than all the lakes in England and Wales combined,[2] and is the largest body of water on the Great Glen Fault, which runs from Inverness in the north to Fort William in the south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness

Posted Image

#19    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:02 PM

View PostStill Waters, on 07 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:


Just to point out, Loch Ness is not a 'smallish lake'.

Loch Ness is the second largest Scottish loch by surface area at 56.4 km2 (21.8 sq mi) after Loch Lomond, but due to its great depth, it is the largest by volume. Its deepest point is 230 m (755 ft),[1][2] deeper than the height of London's BT Tower at 189 m (620 ft) and deeper than any other loch except Loch Morar. It contains more fresh water than all the lakes in England and Wales combined,[2] and is the largest body of water on the Great Glen Fault, which runs from Inverness in the north to Fort William in the south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness

My bad, to be sure!  Thanks. :tu:  still however seems unlikely to me..... The existence of Nessie, I mean.


#20    3amfright

3amfright

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined:19 Jan 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States

  • Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.
    - Marie Curie

Posted 07 May 2012 - 09:39 PM

It is an interesting concept, but I agree with everyone else that it is unlikely that whatever is being seen is a shark.

Now, the seal theory though...that is interesting. Here in the US we've had some sightings of Caribbean seals off the coast of Florida which were thought to have been wiped out decades ago. If continued research proves that these seals are not only back but have adapted to the change in water temperatures over the years...it is not unrealistic they would find their way in to other areas safe from predators, particularly enclosed lakes & possibly lochs that have underground passage ways.

I don't know how adaptable seals are to fresh vs salt water, but if sharks can adapt then in theory so too could other marine species.

But again, it is all theory. We still know so little about the marine life in our oceans & lakes & rivers....until we truly do I'm not ruling anything out, including something on the prehistoric side. I mean, have you ever seen a pic or video of a Frill Shark? :huh: They are seriously one ugly looking shark. The great white I can see staring at eye to eye but not a Frill shark.

Just in case you were curious to see one:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Frilled_shark






Also tagged with alaska, loch ness monster, sharks

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users