Anomalocaris Posted September 5, 2015 #1 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) The Queen and the Loch Ness monster: a murky tale of myth, nature and spin The Queen was 'very interested' in the quest to solve the mystery of the mythical life form, but a senior aide was not amused by proposal for it to become her namesake. From the royal stable of thoroughbreds to her loft of racing pigeons, the Queen’s fascination with creatures great and small is a lifelong affair. But until now nothing has been known of the monarch’s passion for another sizeable beast of her dominion - the Loch Ness Monster. Read more Edited September 5, 2015 by Anomalocaris 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted September 5, 2015 #2 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Sorry, I read that as "the Queen is the Loch Ness Monster". 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel M. Posted September 5, 2015 #3 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Sorry, I read that as "the Queen is the Loch Ness Monster". :w00t: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xYlvax Posted September 6, 2015 #4 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Sorry, I read that as "the Queen is the Loch Ness Monster". It wouldn't surprise me. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted September 6, 2015 #5 Share Posted September 6, 2015 there must of course be absolutely irrefutable evidence of its existence. It would be most regrettable to connect Her Majesty in any way with something which ultimately turned out to be a hoax. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/loch-ness-monster-how-the-queens-private-secretary-planned-to-name-nessie-after-her-10487309.html Ah so what, did not stop the David (shellsuit) Icke calling her a reptilian humanoid. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofkrypton Posted September 7, 2015 #6 Share Posted September 7, 2015 It wouldn't surprise me. well if David Ike is right she could periodically shed her human skin to reveal her true Lizardlike Visage.......is out of the bounds of probability that her Queeniness wouldn't go for a dip? they've never been seen in the same place at the same time?......coincidence......i think not now where do i sign my contract to appear on Ancient Aliens 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xYlvax Posted September 7, 2015 #7 Share Posted September 7, 2015 well if David Ike is right she could periodically shed her human skin to reveal her true Lizardlike Visage.......is out of the bounds of probability that her Queeniness wouldn't go for a dip? they've never been seen in the same place at the same time?......coincidence......i think not now where do i sign my contract to appear on Ancient Aliens Look at her teeth. She drinks blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 11, 2015 #8 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) there must of course be absolutely irrefutable evidence of its existence. It would be most regrettable to connect Her Majesty in any way with something which ultimately turned out to be a hoax. Why? There's nothing to be regrettable about. The Queen has an interest in the Loch Ness Monster, as do millions of people around the world. As for it being a hoax - St Columba in the year 565 was told all about Nessie by the locals. He was staying in the land of the Picts with his companions when he came across the locals burying a man by the River Ness. They explained that the man had been swimming in the river when he was attacked by a "water beast" that had mauled him and dragged him under. They tried to rescue him in a boat, but could only drag up his corpse. So, if it's a hoax, it's a very good one that has been going on for at least 1,500 years. Edited September 11, 2015 by Black Monk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted September 11, 2015 #9 Share Posted September 11, 2015 well if David Ike is right she could periodically shed her human skin to reveal her true Lizardlike Visage.......is out of the bounds of probability that her Queeniness wouldn't go for a dip? they've never been seen in the same place at the same time?......coincidence......i think not now where do i sign my contract to appear on Ancient Aliens You may be on to something here... She's never been seen in the same place at the same time as Carrot-Top either.... Hmmmm.... Sorry Your Majesty... Just having a bit of fun... (She lurks on this site you know... They all do!) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavan Posted September 11, 2015 #10 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Why? There's nothing to be regrettable about. The Queen has an interest in the Loch Ness Monster, as do millions of people around the world. As for it being a hoax - St Columba in the year 565 was told all about Nessie by the locals. He was staying in the land of the Picts with his companions when he came across the locals burying a man by the River Ness. They explained that the man had been swimming in the river when he was attacked by a "water beast" that had mauled him and dragged him under. They tried to rescue him in a boat, but could only drag up his corpse. So, if it's a hoax, it's a very good one that has been going on for at least 1,500 years. Stories of water beasts and other fantastical beings and events run rampant in medieval saints' 'lives' - that is not proof of the Loch Ness monster. It's a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 12, 2015 #11 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Stories of water beasts and other fantastical beings and events run rampant in medieval saints' 'lives' - that is not proof of the Loch Ness monster. Where's the proof that it's a fake and not real? It's a story. Me and many other people believe the Loch Ness Monster - or monsters, plural - is real. There have been too many sightings over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavan Posted September 12, 2015 #12 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Where's the proof that it's a fake and not real? There is no evidence that the 565 CE account is authentic but there is also no evidence that it is just lore. However, as I have said before, many medieval stories featuring apostles and saints (such as St. Columba) included mythical creatures - St. George and the Dragon instantly springs to mind. What's not to say that the story of the creature in the River Ness is also just a story? Me and many other people believe the Loch Ness Monster - or monsters, plural - is real. There have been too many sightings over the years. That means absolutely nothing. Just because you see something in the loch doesn't automatically mean that it is Nessie. What about the other animals that live in the loch? Have you ever considered that they might be the monster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 12, 2015 #13 Share Posted September 12, 2015 (edited) There is no evidence that the 565 CE account is authentic but there is also no evidence that it is just lore. However, as I have said before, many medieval stories featuring apostles and saints (such as St. Columba) included mythical creatures - St. George and the Dragon instantly springs to mind. What's not to say that the story of the creature in the River Ness is also just a story? What's to say that it IS just a story? ]That means absolutely nothing.[/b] It means that I and many other people believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Why should the views of the believers be any less worthy than those of the skeptics? If I believe in the Loch Ness Monster then I believe in it. You have as much proof that it doesn't exist as I have that it does exist. Just because you see something in the loch doesn't automatically mean that it is Nessie. What about the other animals that live in the loch? Have you ever considered that they might be the monster? Nope. There have been just too many strange sightings over the years - including of a strange, long-necked creature actually passing across a road of front of a person's car - for it to be easily dismissed as a mere seal or a prank. Edited September 12, 2015 by Black Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavan Posted September 12, 2015 #14 Share Posted September 12, 2015 What's to say that it IS just a story? The beast came after him, but Columba made the sign of the Cross and commanded: "Go no further. Do not touch the man. Go back at once." The beast immediately halted as if it had been "pulled back with ropes" and fled in terror, and both Columba's men and the pagan Picts praised God for the miracle. It means that I and many other people believe in the Loch Ness Monster. Why should the views of the believers be any less worthy than those of the skeptics? If I believe in the Loch Ness Monster then I believe in it. You have as much proof that it doesn't exist as I have that it does exist. My statement was moreso directed towards your remark about there being too many sightings to falsify Nessie. Nope. There have been just too many strange sightings over the years - including of a strange, long-necked creature actually passing across a road of front of a person's car - for it to be easily dismissed as a mere seal or a prank. Oh dear, a ufological logical fallacy. There being lots of 'sightings' of an unidentified creature does not mean that it is the Loch Ness monster; it also doesn't mean that they were actual sightings either. Was this particular sighting accompanied with a photograph or video? Answer me this - what is the Loch Ness monster in terms of taxonomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 12, 2015 #15 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Answer me this - what is the Loch Ness monster in terms of taxonomy? How the hell do I know what the Loch Ness Monster is in terms of taxonomy? I've never studied the creature in great detail. But from eyewitness reports it does seem that the creature is remarkably similar to a plesiosaur, if not an actual plesiosaur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavan Posted September 12, 2015 #16 Share Posted September 12, 2015 How the hell do I know what the Loch Ness Monster is in terms of taxonomy? I've never studied the creature in great detail. But from eyewitness reports it does seem that the creature is remarkably similar to a plesiosaur, if not an actual plesiosaur. I'm sorry, I meant what do you think the Loch Ness monster is in terms of taxonomy. If it is a plesiosaur, then Nessie certainly does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realm of Unknown Posted September 12, 2015 #17 Share Posted September 12, 2015 Loch Ness was the myth that toke my supernatural virginity, lol xD Nessie will always hold a special place in my heart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 13, 2015 #18 Share Posted September 13, 2015 If it is a plesiosaur, then Nessie certainly does not exist. Says who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavan Posted September 13, 2015 #19 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Says who? Logic. First off, there is no fossil evidence of any plesiosaurs surviving into the Cenozoic era, nor are there any fossils of potential plesiosaur descendants migrating to the Highlands. Some may say that it may have also lived in Loch Ness. However, during the last ice age, the loch was completely frozen over. If the loch was frozen over, then there would be no possible way for a plesiosaur to breath nor would a cold-blooded animal survived in such cold conditions. This is no conclusive evidence of Nessie, even if it's a plesiosaur or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 13, 2015 #20 Share Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Logic. First off, there is no fossil evidence of any plesiosaurs surviving into the Cenozoic era, There was no fossil evidence of the coelacanth surviving into the Cenozoic era - it was thought to have become extinct around the same time that the plesiosaur became extinct - until a living coelacanth was found off South Africa in 1938. nor are there any fossils of potential plesiosaur descendants migrating to the Highlands. Most of the early plesiosaur skeletal discoveries were made in Britain, so the plesiosaur did live in Britain and could have lived in what is now the area of Loch Ness. Some may say that it may have also lived in Loch Ness. However, during the last ice age, the loch was completely frozen over. If the loch was frozen over, then there would be no possible way for a plesiosaur to breath nor would a cold-blooded animal survived in such cold conditions. Nobody knows for certain whether or not plesiosaurs were cold-blooded. This is no conclusive evidence of Nessie, even if it's a plesiosaur or not. Nor is there no conclusive evidence that Nessie does NOT exist. Edited September 13, 2015 by Black Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavan Posted September 13, 2015 #21 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Most of the early plesiosaur skeletal discoveries were made in Britain, so the plesiosaur did live in Britain and could have lived in what is now the area of Loch Ness. You didn't read what I said properly. I said "potential plesiosaur descendants", as in evolved forms of plesiosaurs, as in Cenozoic plesiosaurs. That's by-and-by. Nor is there no conclusive evidence that Nessie does NOT exist. Cenozoic plesiosaur fossils, have ya' got any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Monk Posted September 13, 2015 #22 Share Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) You didn't read what I said properly. I said "potential plesiosaur descendants", as in evolved forms of plesiosaurs, as in Cenozoic plesiosaurs. That's by-and-by. No, I did read what you said, but lack of evidence of them today does NOT mean that none exist. Cenozoic plesiosaur fossils, have ya' got any? Nobody's got any Cenozoic coelacanth fossils, and they were thought to have become extinct around 66 million years ago around the same time as plesiosaurs, but then a living coelacanth was discovered off South Africa in 1938 and now we now that they didn't become extinct after all. This could be true of plesiosaurs and there could be some in Loch Ness. Edited September 13, 2015 by Black Monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PersonFromPorlock Posted September 18, 2015 #23 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Sorry, I read that as "the Queen is the Loch Ness Monster". I put that down to jealousy on your part. She is, after all, the acknowledged Supreme Wearer of Hats for the entire English-speaking world. But - come to think of it - has anyone ever seen the two of them together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now