there's never been any concrete visual evidence of nessie, does it even exsist?

if theres no evidence it depends on peoples opinions

so what is your opinion?

I used to believe it were true, but I'm older now, and science and the cynicism induced by experience on this planet has unfortunately corroded and degraded my youthful enthusiasm for such an idea. I can only hope it's true, but to be honest I don't know what to think. Logic dictates that it's not possible, but the kid in me says not PROBABLE, nothing's impossible. So hey, talk about inner conflict... but there ya go. Hmmmm, inner conflict... sounds like a dodgy kebab.

put it this way, if there is something, there's no way in Hell it's a plesiosaur or other large extinct reptile!

RKD

This is hard to say...for whatever reason I believe in more cryptozoology stuff more than any other alien- or ghost-related stuff. Anyway...I've read that in a radar scan...thing...they found a large object, about the size of what Nessie "is." But another time there was nothing large enough to be Nessie. I can't say...I want the monster to exist...it's just...hard to say for sure. If someone were to say, "NESSIE EXISTS!" I would of course say "o rly?"

There is hard concrete proof that an animal
using ecco location lives in the loch, but it does not mean a
plesiosaur lives in the loch.

If it does exist...No way its any sort of marine reptile...

can you give a link to this 'hard concrete proof'?

I echo your feelings almost to the letter....it just isn't feasible......and I'll pass on the kebab.

k, anythings possible. who knows, there could be a plesiosaur living deep down in the loch, hiding away from us for millions of years. its not that far fetched actually. seeing as how the coelacanth fish (pronounced 'see-la-kanth') is still found in our oceans today, despite the fact it pre-lived the dinosaurs and everyone beleived it to be extinct over 65million years ago. but yet people started to find them in 1938, all the way up to today.
so im just saying.....

I for one, do think there is something in the loch. When witnesses describe the way 'Nessie" swims, it makes me think that it's some kind of giant eel. There are eels in the loch. And certain pictures of it's 'humps' seem to resemble an eel when it's swimming.

The picture that touched off the "Nessie" craze was a black and white photo showing it's head and partial back above water(I don't have a link the the photo, but we all have seen and know this picture).

That was the first modern sighting and occurred on May 2, 1933.

The newspaper Inverness Courier carried a story of a local couple who reportedly saw "an enormous animal rolling and plunging on the surface."

The report of the "monster" (a title chosen by the editor of the Courier) became a media sensation, with London papers sending reporters to Scotland and a circus even offering a reward of £20,000 for capture of the monster.

Later that year, A.H. Palmer, who allegedly witnessed Nessie on August 11, 1933, at 7 a.m., described the creature as having its head, which they saw from the front, set low in the water.

Its mouth, which had a width of between twelve and eighteen inches, was opening and closing; its maximal mouth aperture was estimated to be about six inches.

The modern preoccupation with the Loch Ness Monster was aroused by a photograph allegedly taken by surgeon R.K. Wilson on April 19, 1934, which seemed to show a large creature with a long neck gliding through the water.

Decades later on March 12, 1994, Marmaduke Wetherell claimed to have faked the photo after being hired by the Daily Mail to track down Nessie (the photo had by that time, been printed worldwide as "absolute evidence").

Wetherell also stated that Wilson did not take the photo and his name was only used to give added credibility to the photo. In 1993, another man claimed to have been involved in such a hoax.

Thus, so far we've been baffled by hoaxes? That's OK for me, but seriously, according to your opinion, COULD something big, undiscovered animal hide under the cold water of Loch Ness?

So pigs fly?



Actually, it is absurd...There are very major differences between a plesiosaur and coelacanth...The plesiosaur was a LARGE, apex predator...more prone to disaster. There is no proof they exist anymore...They died out with the dinosaurs...

The highers you are, the harder you fall...

the loch ness monster is also a fake, there's nothing there!

i know i know, ur opinion. we all have one

My favorite part of this topic is that it will never go away. years will pass and Jesus, JFK, and The Loch Ness Monster will always be up for discussion among the freaks and weirdos, of which, I am a proud member. keep a good head and always carry a lightbulb.selah

Nah no no no no.

Why do so many confuse fact with opinion.

This is not opinion. It happened. There is fossil record to back this, the Loch hs been scanned and probed more often than a roswell abductee. Nothing is ever found. The huge cave system leading to the Sea is a popular idea.

The facts are numerous. Many searches have been carried out. 100% all ended in vain. No positive proof to date.

The Ceolcanth is not a fair comparison by any standard. Just the shear size difference should make that point. Not to mention that it was 70 years ago. We have had a fair look around since then.

The Coelacanth is from a prehistoric lineage of lobefin fishes. Does not specifically mean that the particular species was around in the Mesozoic. Sharks have been around since (IIRC) the Devonian. To those not in the know, that is WAAAAY before dino-time (by about, oooooh what, 124-165 million years?) That does not give sound evidence for another completely different class, let along genus or species. I don't understand why folks think it's perfectly acceptable to easily compare two completely different, and wholly unrelated organisms and think that it's a valid arguement.

It's exactly the same as saying "oh well, you see nautilloid cephalopods lived before the Cambrian, and you still get Nautiloids today (Nautilus pompillus etc.) which is concrete evidence of there still being pterosaurs!!!!!!!11111one!!!"

You see? Absurd arguement. I'm sorry to all those who have been misled by unexplained books and sites that have sited this as valid evidence. I don't blame you, but I do blame the authors of your sources (I myself have read that poppycock, and used to be fooled by its reasoning), who either should have known better already, or done proper research!

RKD

ha. good one. i wasnt making an argument though. just giving my opinion on the thread here, like many of other people seem to do. like urself.

oh... yeah. True However, if your opinion can be backed up by fact or proof, or at least lack thereof of any contradicting proof, then it can be safely classified as fact, and not just opinion. I didn't mean you were arguing anything, it's just that that particular phrase, regarding ol' coelly, tends to be dangerously overused as an arguement for a monster when it's really just a load of nonsense. Fair Enuff if marine plesiosaurs were found in high latitudinal waters, but nayh, fish and reptiles are completely different no probs though.

RKD

But mine is backed up by evidence...yours is not

wat evidence? the only thing u have is that they havent found anything yet.
and the only evidence i have is that they have some sightings or reports about it. which i know isnt much at all really when it comes down to it. but oh well, like i said. its just my opinion.

Did you read all this? Plus the fact that there is no fossil evidence, no carcasses, the habitat is totally different...etc.

yeah i know they havent, thats ur only evidence so far. they havent found anything.
but i dont really care, i never said it was out there for sure in the first place, i said, in my opinion it could be possible that theres something in the loch, thats it.
although i know how incredibly slim the chances actually are.

I think it could possibly exist, I mean there have been a lot of hoaxes. But I suppose anything may still be possible.

So pigs can fly?

Get it through your head people! Not everything is possible!

that first pic that u have descibed "the surgeon picture" as it is called has already been clarified as fake

What many people do not realize it that the "Surgeon's Photo" did not start the Loch Ness Monster sightings. There were dozens of recent sitings by reliable people before the photo. In fact it was the other sitings that provoked the fake photo.

What actually started the "modern" sightings was a new road that went around the lake, causing more people to see a "creature" reported some 1500 years before, not to mention identical creatures seen in other bodies of water in Scotland.

Many "real" scientists still believe there is some large, unknown creature in the loch irregardless of the scepticism of certain junior high school kids who frenquent this Forum.

oh man , u already used that one. at least get some new material for ur comment on his post. geeze

be careful, frogfish can insult anyone here with impunity because he's a little kid and the moderators stick up for him. He wants to be taken seriously, like an adult, but it is not easy when he insists on making rude, and pointless comments that often have no bearing on the discussion, simply to show people he is here all the time, and believes he knows so much that he can comment on virtually every subject, even when it is simply to insult.

lol. truer words have not been spoken.

And many, many, MANY more real scientists believe there is no nessie


I'm trying to make a point, but people like you refuse to learn

Hmmm, I wonder what that was then? Maybe an insult?

Deal with it DC, you're wrong again Some adults these days They cannot let go the "Seen but not Heard". Me thinks its just jealousy

To insist that Loch Ness is conclusively real is insanity.

k, but u already made ur point. u beleive nessie isnt alive because the proof u have is they havent found anything yet. we get it geeze

actually, in that instance, my point was that not everything is possible.

true.
like the existance of nessie and living in the loch

Yep...they don't exist

yeop. we know, ur opinion.
uve given it many o'times

Hiya i live in Scotland and have been there on numerous occassions - the legends go that there is a monster that lived there - i would say now its well brown bread (dead) - i think monster was an overstatement - extremely large reptile probably - anyway Loch Ness itself the other lochs near it are what they call sometimes as bottomless as in very very deep - they join up with the other lochs nearby underneath - so Nessie probably swam between them all and popped up in them all - i believe something swam around there in the past but certainly not now. So i go for something existed there whether you could call it a monster is another question.

Nessie is the most rediculas of the famous crypids. Forgetting how totally impossible it would be for a large reptile, or two, to live in that lake, there is very, very little believable proof.

I do not believe.

erm.....no