my biology teacher recently told me about something that has recently occurred on Lochness. a large piece of flesh was found floating on the surface of the loch, which scientists have compared to a sample of every known animal and the results came up with no matches.this is no creature we know about..could this be the elusive monster that plauges the loch? anyone else got anything on this?please post!!!

No. Inconclusive just means the scientists don't know what they're doing. Remember the 'inconclusive' bigfoot hair that turned out to be from a buffalo?

Yes, there have been quite a few threads about this. Go back a few pages and you will find them

cheers, mate

creepy, though, and no, i dont remember the buffalo hair

That was my armpit hair accually.

This was once one of the TOP UM feature stories, but after no follow up, we can only assume it turned out to be nothing extraordinary.

could this not be just another animal that we have not discovered because who is to say that their is just one creature that we've not found?

i dont remember saying there was only 1 animal not discovered, if there was, then there would only be 1 cryptozoology thread

It has been over a month now, so I doubt anything came of the mystery flesh from Loch Ness.

I believe it was found to be Organic material from some dead tree debris or similar another Rines discovery the man who will not admit the flipper and gargoyle head pictures were fake.

no offense but many people believe the loch ness monster either never existed, or was made up in scotland. To begin with how could a creature live so long and still exist to this day without being spotted. Which brings me to my next point everyone now and then "if there really is a loch ness monster" it would have to come up for air, and since it is there at the lake and there is always someone there watching for the moment for it to come out, nobody ever sees it. And the living creature needs to at least come up to the surface every couple of minutes to breathe in air. So let me ask you, if there was a loch ness monster if it had to come up for air and if it did pictures would be taken. But no all we get is all these fake rocks, logs, elephants, or even pictures of what they think is ogopogo. So please you need to accept the fact that there is No loch ness monster, and maybe there never was. i did believe that there was a loch ness monster for a long time..... but those thoughts were just my imagination childish ideas....so what it think we need to accept is that there is no NESSIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The clue to what Nessie really is lies with the original account of St. Colomba. The Saint knew exactly what Nessie was, because ancient Christian art is filled with images of the exact same creature. He spoke to it because he knew it was no mere animal but a sentient, supernatural creature of his religion called a Seraphim. It was this same creature, or one like it, that his God sent to swallow, but not kill Jonah of the Bible. Modern Christians have perverted this scripture, like many others, saying the creature was a fish or whale, but the archaeology doesn't lie. Every depiction of Jonah in anicent times clearly depiect him being swallowed, by a long necked, reptilian creature that is celarly not a whale or fish, but looks virtually idential to the popular conception of "Nessie", and other lake monsters. If a supernatural, heavenly creature, it is no wonder Nessie can avoid human detection if "she" so chooses. Nessie then, is as "real" as the God who created it as a Seraphim servant creature, though such things are more commonly referred to as "dragons" today.

what I tell you guys about taking hair from my poo in the woods!!

I don't think you appreciate the size and Georaphy of the Loch, even though the main road runs along the North side of the Loch, there are very few vantage points where you can actually see across the Loch. Yes there are a handul of individuals that camp on the shores of the Loch hoping to get a photo or at least a glimpse of Nessie but even with Bino's there is only so much they can actually see.

The Loch is over 21 Miles long and just over 1 Mile wide, it is deep enough to hold the Worlds population 3 times over under the surface of the water, it is also linked to the sea. Also living creatures don't have to surface every few min=utes to breath, many seals can stay under for an hour and half with ease, even a struggling Croc can do 40 minutes and even when whatever Nessie is has to surface to take a breath, it only has to get its nose or head above the water not its whole body. A 20ft Croc can surface breath and then drop back down without creating even a ripple in the water.

That is true. I've seen people who tell me that there are no beaver, otters or turtles in the lakes and rivers around here. (Oregon) They will fight you right up to the point that they see one climb out on the bank with their own eyes. They will even say photos of turtles are fake and must be from somewhere else. My friend even said that the one turtle he saw must be the only one there.

I believe that large creatures could be living in Loch Ness. The water is colored brown by peat and mud. The sides seem to be fairly steep and wooded in some areas. A large creature that is wary could go to the banks and breath regularly and not be seen.

I'm not sure what they would eat, but except for that there is little reason they couldn't be there.

Oh, how convenient that it's just a "piece of flesh", huh? Just the fact that any sort of evidence or potential proof is always so vague or hazy sorta kills any potential for there actually being something out there...don't get me wrong, a piece of Nessie's flesh being taken in for evaluation would be amazing, but it's still proof by exclusion.

I mean, you figure with a (or several) massive air-breathing beast living in those waters, there'd be something more concrete to show for it. Someone with a steady hand, or carrying something that produces better pictures than my camera phone actually capturing something that makes you say "Ok, there's a giant beast swimming in the water." Not something that makes you say "That looks like it could be a wave or a log or computer graphics." ...and you know something, with improving graphics technology it's just going to get worse. I was just watching some videos on another site about the bones of some Ice Giant "discovered" by Siberian archaeologists or something and another about giant bones that washed up ashore during the Tsunami...and they're clearly computer graphics, but they're well done. It's getting easier to fool people.

Ahhh, it's all exciting and has been to me since I was a kid...but it's equally as annoying to sort through all this mess and fuzzy evidence. I just wanna know the truth already...

Ok, I'm done.