It is still being seen. It will be seen as long as the Loch exists, such is human nature.

I'll just have to go for "my guess would be a giant eel." But, uhhh.... According to the documentary, eels don't grow upto a size like Nessie's size...
Seal? There's no such thing a fresh water seal...right? Lakes, which "loch" means in Scottish, are fresh water. But then the ocean following the loch closes that theory. Anyone else got fresh theories or old ones that are crucial to the Nessie sightings?

I know how some famous Nessie pic, like the Surgeon Photograph, were faked.

Isn't that called "coverup?"

They say that there are no recorded Orca attacks because nobody survives an orca attack.

The Same might be true of a creature like Nessie, who was reported killing/eating a person in the earlierst account.

But Orcas are pretty smart. They know how dangerous modern man is, and know better not to be caught killing them.

Nessie could have the same mentality. Back when people only had swords, people may have been considered "prey".

But after getting shot once or twice, animals begin to respect humans.

The British Isles were flooded with "reports" of predatory creatures similar to Nessie, though in other places they were called "dragons", and sometimes Nessie is called a dragon as well. The sightings and reports of depredation on people and their animals diminished about the same time a guns were introduced.

It's true.

Numerous eyewitness reports have described Nessie out of the water, and there is a lot of woodland around the Loch. Nessie could leave the water any time the sonor soundings bothered her. Nessie may be able to even fly, since she is obviously the same kind of "dragon" reported througout the British Isles. Hundreds of people sometimes reported seeing the same dragons flying over the land. Nessie is still there becasue reliable people still see her.

Really, Orcas just decided this did they?



Proverbial Nail on the head.

If Nessie is anything, it's not a plesiosaur, that's just stupid and there is nothing supporting it. It could be something unknown, something something whatever, but not a prehistoric creature. Rines just wants there to be a Plesiosaur in Loch Ness. Most observations are vague, some are not at all similar to any Plesiosaurs, etc, don't be ridiculous. The Loch wasn't there till merely 12,000 something years ago. The plesiosaurs had been long dead by then.

Anyway, I don't even believe in the Loch Ness monster, just a massive pile of people spying out over the lake day and night hoping to see something, eventually catching a glimpse of that rare floating piece of wood or some waves, some whatever, run away seals, elephants, doesn't matter, no plesiosaurs anywhere to be seen but in people's heads.

Also, oh god I lol'd hard at flying Nessie...

Okay, people that believe Nessie is a plesiosaur, raie your hand! What makes you believe that it's a plesiosaur? Based on my research, all this plesiosaur idea has just came up on the 70s, that's when they got the underwater picture that shows a flipper-like picture and combined with the glorified Surgeon's photgraphy...before that, it was only "The Loch Ness Monster". And most description, actually resembled a huge eels...

Actually, there have been only two reliable orca "attacks". One was a report on an expedition to the North Pole, whereupon an orca broke through the pack ice to eat sled dogs. The officers reported it as a man-eater, even though it never came anywhere near anyone. This formed the basis of much of the Navy's mythology of the deadly, ferocious orca for decades. In another "attack" a juvenile orca knocked a surfer off his board and was cought in the whale's mouth. The mother in the pod then got the young man free, apparently rescuing him ("now, now, Junior, we don't eat those").

When you compare these incidents with an orca's capabilities, and the numerous friendly encounters (where they approach humans in the wild to be petted and scratched, or jump about boats) it becomes clear that they are not a hostile species to man. Certanly these highly intelligent mammals can understand our danger, and respect that (even stupid animals learn to fear man). But it seems to be more than that. Just like dolphins, for some bizarre reason they seem to like us (and not with tartar sauce). I have heard the statement that orca are not afraid of man to be an indication of how dumb they are.

Who knows, DC, maybe Nessie or some of your dragons just aren't that hostile. However, unlike orca, they clearly are camera shy (even wild orca will breach, jump and clown around in the presence of people.)

I never said every dragon automatically hated or wanted to eat humans. Many legends dispute this, particularly those of China. If the original St. Columba account is correct, Nessie was hostile to humans at one time. "She" had supposedly killed/eaten one person and was after another when Columba asked her to "stop". If the account is true, the gist of the legend is that "the power of God forced the beast away". But on the other hand, the creature might have thought it was perfectly okay to prey on the violent pictish barbarians of the region but desisted when "she" heard the voice of a cvilized person. And if Nessie was a Seraph, (since the Seraphim have been translated to dragons), she would probably not harm a Christian monk. Perhaps that was the last day she hunted humans, since civilized Christian humans had entered her territory..

But on the other hand, the main purpose for the existence of dragons, may well be that a creator entity found them the perfect "pre mechanical weapon of mass destruction" designed to utterly eliminate and recycle failed human experiments, and indeed, some legends might suggest just such a thing.

As for the Orcas, in those cases you cite there were human witnesses with their "kill sticks" so the orcas would have known they couldn't get away with it. But who knows how many humans trapped alone on rafts could have been eaten, since the orcas knew no other humans were around to stop them? This doesn't mean I don't think they are maginificent creatures, but it is naive to think they don't attack humans becasue they are so nice or think we are so nice . After all, they slaughter any other "fellow" cetacen so why should they respect human life more? The truth may be as simple as "they do not eat us because they know we can kill them", but don't expect their ternder mercies if you are all alone at sea on a little raft.

...

Of course the St. Columba story isn't true. Oh, the BARBARIAN PAGANS EVILS MUST DIE, THE BEAST ONLY BOW DOWN FOR THE MEN OF THE LORD! The legend obviously is a local "miracle" symbolising the destruction of the "barbarians" and the introduction of "civilisation" by way of converting to christianity or something alike, as you so splendidly put it in your biased way.

You really seem to take all those old legends too literally.

I can't explain it, but its true. Whereas dragons seem to be generally well behaved servants and assistants to the Gods of civilized peoples, it almost seems that "on their days off" they are busy burning and devouring Nordic barbarians. I'm not making this up.

So were Asian dragons fierce and evil and murderers? 'cause I'd say ancient China was alot less barbaric than Europe in the 600's.

Exactly. The Chinese were civilized people so the dragons behaved themselves there. As in the west, Civilized lands were generally off limits to their depredations.

I'd say there was a similar scenario in the far east as well. Dragons that were mild mannered in China would hunt barbarian mongolians on their time off. It would seem either east or west, barbarians were "dragon fodder" because they contributed nothing to mankind's betterment.

This seems to be the purpose of the dragons from the beginning. To eliminate humanity's failures.

Another reason why Chinese Dragons seemed generally "friendlier" than Western dragons was due to the enormous number of Chinese babies thrown out on the garbage heaps.... a centuries old tendency that disturbed Chiristian missionaries who reported this. But a well fed dragon is a docile dragon. In truth, they are really the same dragons. This is revealed in the earlier depictions of them when they were actually seen.

"Dragons that were mild mannered in China would hunt barbarian mongolians on their time off. It would seem either east or west, barbarians were "dragon fodder" because they contributed nothing to mankind's betterment."

Uhm...minor point...I don't think there is an organized culture that has not referred to those whose practices they did not understand nor wish to understand as barbarians...including your oh so civilized Chinese...look up this oh so convenient wiki on barbarians as seen through the eyes of historians, sociologists, etc...

Barbarians

"Another reason why Chinese Dragons seemed generally "friendlier" than Western dragons was due to the enormous number of Chinese babies thrown out on the garbage heaps.... a centuries old tendency that disturbed Chiristian missionaries who reported this."

And this was not viewed as a barbaric custom by the Christian missionaries? Sounds fairly barbaric to me...

I apologise for going off topic, but the idea that dragons, Nessie, Seraphim, etc. devoured pagans because they contributed nothing to society hit me square....last time I checked, every significant civilization, from Rome, to China, to Germanic, to British, started as a 'barbarian tribe' in some other, more 'advanced' culture's views. The difference between a barbarian and a citizen is a matter of perspective, not contribution.
Call a spade a spade, be consistent...Nessie ate pagans cause she is a Seraph, at least in your reckoning, and pagans don't worship the Judeo Christian ethic...making them crunchy, and good with catsup, and enemies of the Church. What better way to eliminate enemies of the Church then to have dragons around to eat them?

We have the benefit of history to determine who the useless barbarians were. The ancient Germans accomplished nothing for millennia until they imitated the cvilized humans and had slaves from the civilized world. The archaeological evidence is perfect evidence of this. Whereas classical civilization left us theaters and librarys and fortunately hundreds of book from their tens of thousands, the barbarians have left us almost nothing. They were scarecely able to stack one stone on top of another, and their greatestest achievements, Meade halls of timber, twigs and cow dung to get hopelessy drunk in while spinning lies of monster slaying, have eroded to nothing.

Almost every real civilization speaks of "dragons" who taught them their technologies, whether we go to China, Mesopotamia or MesoAmerica. Barbarians on the other hand seem to regard dragons as simply monsters that tried to eat them. So I am merely drawing a logical conclusion from the evidence.

Yes, western missionaries were appalled at the common Chinese practice of child abandonment, but many of their successors today are equally appalled by the "acceptable" western practice of sucking babies apart through a powerful vacum hose stuck in the mother's womb.

But most barbarian cultures also "exposed" unwanted babies, it was fairly universal in ancient times.

DC, you mentioned that the ancient civilized cultures were taught to civilize themselves from the 'barbarian' era by dragons. What I know is that they learned from nature, quickly learn from it and they told us that their gods taught them. Now, did you just made up the idea that their gods were actually dragons (or the other way around) or do you have any solid proof that stated so, instead of the Bible?

I never make anything up. There are Chinese legends of dragons teaching humans, the Chinese actually call themselves the people of the dragon. Then, not only the Bible, but virtually all of the Mesopotamian cultures had dragon gods to teach them agriculture and technologies, and we see the same thing again among the most advanced Native American cultures. Why would the most ancient civilizations all over the world invent the same story about being helped by dragons, when by all rights these people should hate or fear such creatures, exactly like the ignorant barbarians?

Making up or not, you really do seem to take it all to serious. Those things are really old, and things like them don't happen anymore. Which will end up with something along the lines that, "maybe their mission here was complete so they left us alone but a few remants like the Loch Ness monster and wherever" or something. Yeah, yeah, there are references to reptiles and to dragons of various kinds here and there, maybe based on some real encounters with real animals in part, but most of it is just legends that have been carried through the centuries by many different minds, each retelling the story differently, spreading by word of mouth like some infectious disease. Those are all just legends, just people talking, making things up, recalling things that just aren't as clear as they once were, filling in the gaps with their own imagination... or something.

And all those "dragons" are not necessarily dragons anyway. I think you just want them to be dragons, and see whatever old references to various reptilian creatures as being the same, that undying recurrent dragon that stalks us throughout history and helpds us along and kills off the no-good heathen barbarians.

But if many or most of these large cryptic animals *ARE* the intelligent dragons of WORLDWIDE ancient religions, it would explain why people continue to catch glimpses of these things, yet all concentrated attempts to capture them end in failure. The are very intelligent, and by no means are they "trapped" in a particular body of water. Nessie, or another creature like her has been spotted in other Scottish lochs, and similar long necked "dragons" have been reported living in lakes all over the world for thousands of years.

Maybe we can lure Nessie to reveal herself (or himself), with the age old, trusted and true method of offering the creature a naked virgin chained to a post on a raft in the middle of the loch. Siometimes the simplist and most logical methods are still the best. No self-respecting lake monster can resist a virgin sacrifice. though it might wait until dark for taking her, but the virgin could have one of those radio tracking collars.

Any volunteers among the UM readership?

not hardcore evedence at all

That is insanity. That's obsession leading to taking away human lives. I strictly against that! If that's how your dragon-gods want, then we shall rebel!

That was meant to be a bit "tongue in cheek", but it WAS the tried and true way to attract such creatures in earlier times, even in China, as some ancient accounts attest.

Some? Okay, let's just go back to Loch Ness monster, shall we?

I notice a tendency to assume that Nessie (if she is in fact real) must be a threat to life. We have the St.Columbia legend (versions have varied from someone being eaten, to the creature just rising up in an apparently threatening manner), to eye-witness accounts of seeing Nessie on land, and being frightened into running or reaching for a game shotgun. Frankly, I am reminded about the common tendency to ascribe dangerous intent to anything that looks dangerous. If these accounts are real, they sound much like the hysterical reactions often reported about well known real creatures, usually followed by cries for their destruction. When things calm, an attack often turns out to be a non-threatening encounter.

Frankly, if an enormous marine reptile (or dragon) was inclined to munch people, a great many people would disappear, and sightings of the incidences would be much higher. It is safe to say, that if such a creature exists, then she is activly avoiding man (and a good idea for her to do so).

Hasn't this been done? Or was it just naked exhibitionists on that beach in 1977? Maybe they weren't virgins... That one fellow said Nessie came anyway...

I think it could be a plesiosaur. And the reason why no one has found it dead well, who knows how long those things can live and I think its possible for it to survive in the cold because it could be like the tuna or sea turtles and radiate heat by swimming. I also think that its hard to find because of how dark it is in the water and there are several other things in the water.

I agree.

Actually, just being an "large" alligator peacefully living close to humans is enough reason for it to be killed in Florida.

If Nessie is real, she is undoubtedly intelligent, and actively avoiding contact with man. Othersise, she, or any similar Lake Monsters would have been caught by now. "The "chained naked virgin" experiment, while made in jest, might be the kind of thing that would seem so irrisistable, that caution and good sense may be overcome for an instant of "bad judgement". Law enforcement stage just such enticing "entrapments" to capture "intelligent" human predators.

Good videos though for educational porposes

I dont' think that the loch ness monster is real sorry

Actually, alligators are very opportunistic predators and will prey on people. Most people who are native to Florida are aware of this and dont go trouncing around where there is large gators, those who forget gators are opportunistic end up on the front page of the news.

The giant eel theory goes consists of sterile eels.
The idea is that when this type of eel matures, they head out to the ocean to spawn and die.
The theory is that sterile eels never leave for spawning and continue to grow to huge sizes.
This is purely theory.

No, that would be silly. Why on earth would we cover up Nessie? We share this planet with at least ten million other life forms. One more ain't gonna hurt.

It's called mass mis-identification due to pre-conceptions.

Yea, "Bubba" you really know a lot about this.

Alligator attacks are EXTREMELY rare considering how many of them are there in relation to the human population, and in a good portion of those attacks the person was usually responsible. But unprovoked attacks can happen, I agree. It is ridiculous to imply they commonly prey on people. Most are very wary of people. I have a six foot alligator on my patio as tame as any dog.


As I said, alligators are killed in Florida simply for the crime of living close to people. This shameful slaughter without any reason accurately portrays the mindset of the ignorant crackers in charge of "America's Anus" If the state were run by humane, responsible human beings instead of the lowest specimens of white trash, large alligators that simply "frighten" stupid humans by their unwelcome existence could be moved to wilderness areas, but that would cost money. It costs the state nothing to let professional (illiterate, incest-degenerated, redneck) trappers kill every alligator on the flimsiest of excuses. In fact, the state gets a cut of the blood money by issuing the "licenses to kill". That's what's really going on down there.

Why am I not surprised a "bush" is the governor?

I was merely pointing out to Mulder that sonar does not care what time of the day it is.

LOL!
omg yes lets try it
what the hell
it might work

Dead right DC.

Alligators' main prey are smaller animals that they can kill and eat with a single bite.

He may have been thinking of Crocodiles.
They belong to two quite separate taxonomic families, and are as distinct from one another as humans are from gorillas.

I am now tending to the giant eel theory. This has a certain quality to it. The Great Lakes in the US and Loch Ness have a few common characteristics, is about the only thing complicating the scenario, and both have had some "creature" sightings, though it's hard to tell if there are similarities in them from the varied and scattered accounts.

The thing about it being on land--there are actually relatively few reports of this, and it isn't sticking around when it is seen on land--it's moving for water. This would fit with the very limited eel contact with the surface or land.

As for size, there is more evidence for a giant eel--as with the giant squid--than you might think.
One source, Gardner Soule in _Mystery Monsters_ (NY: Putnam, 1965. 132-37. Chapter 12: "The Young Sea Serpent"), describes the catch by a young (at the time in 1930) scientist named Anton Bruun on contract for the Danish government, of a larval eel which would easily have grown to gigantic proportions--far larger than anything then or now actually known or proven to exist. The larvae reported by Bruun, was 6 feet long:
"Among eels, the conger and moray grow larger than others. A monster conger can grow up to 8 to 10 feet long. ...the record was about 11 feet long. The record moray...16 feet long
"The larvae of these eels are 3 to 4 inches long--or aobut one thirteenth (or so) of their length as adults.
"If the 6-foot larva grew proportionately to its size, the result would be an eel 180 FEET LONG [--my emphases--mcs]".
Bruun tried, over the years, but never caught another specimen, but extensive studies of the specimen determined beyond a doubt that it was merely a larva, not an adult.
This adult eel, if it's still around, is a WHOPPER.
When eels die, they go to the surface and "seethe and boil" as the waters of Loch Ness are repeatedly reported to do when the creature surfaces. They may appear as a series of humps.
Few reports of the Loch Ness monster--in terms of eyewitness reports--speak of heads or necks. Most--90%--talk about "humps" in the water.
An eel population in the world's oceans--Bruun's specimen was caught in the open sea off South Africa--of this size, could surely have inspired some sea serpent stories, anyway. Since Loch Ness, like the Great Lakes (though with more circuitous a connection for most of the Great Lakes), is connected through to the oceans on both sides, rather than being a landlocked lake, eels could circuit through occasionally.
It doesn't necessarily follow that the eels live in Loch Ness permanently, they could traverse it due to particular prey that attracts them.
The "dragon's head" photo of Rines, may actually be valid after all, is one possible spin-off of this theory. An eel this size, living in the depths for years, might develop encrustations on top of an already ugly-looking Moray eel head.
Others have posted some details about this eel theory on this thread already. Anyway, it's right now an especially intriguing theory.

The problem with the Eel and Sturgeon theories is that there have been quite a number of Nessie reports on land, and most are early before there was any attempt to make the place a tourist trap. Also very close up descriptions of the "dragon-like head" , not only in Loch Ness, but I think in at least two other nearby lochs are not eel like, and often describe a kind of "mane". Something else eels never seem to have.

Finally, if the creature is real, it must be intelligent and able to leave the water, due to the sonor scans. a "dumb fish" would have been captured years ago.

I wish these dragons would come and gobble up Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan, because they should be "dragon fodder" they contributed nothing to mankind's betterment....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3096839.stm

'bout bloody time.

Especially liked this part:

^Right on right on! Paredolia is the keyword...

That doesn't prove anything. Some of the most reliable reports are from Fisherman and other locals who definately saw much more than a "post".

You cannot compare their accounts with a bus load of tourists in a staged "set up" situation.

Most of the reports different quite a good deal. Before the whole "plesiosaur" bullcrap became really popular in the 70's, the shape varied a bit more. Of course some have suggested Plesiosaurs much earlier, in the mid 1930's, but it became much more popular when Rines went there and took those unclear photographs of driftwood and all that jazz.

Eyewitness testimony proves nothing.

As ridiculous as that comment is... it actually stands up well in a Court of Law.

A single witness would probably not mean much in a court of law if there was contrary evidence. And I don't even think ten thousand witness (of which only a few describe something that is undoubtedly the same thing) during a very long period of time would be taken particulary seriously in a court of law without any unbiased observations, some photographic evidence that isn't vague and ambigious, some other findings - a cadaver, some tracks left on a bank by some land visitation-- anything other than just the exciting but rarely very reliable stories of people who most of the time has just seen "movements", "humps", or similary vague things. Most of them probably are compulsive liars or just misidentified something. It's not that hard to do, even if you're an experienced fisher or live in the area.

Not always, even a thousand witnesses would still need a confirmation from the police, the detective and the crime lab. Eyewitness stands as a supporting arguments. For you know, testimony can be bought...and hatred can be spread. So instead of just witnesses, the court will need more evidence to set the justice right.

Hhh...why do you have to bring this up? I'm visiting this forum everyday to relieve my stress on daily court activity...
Try being a punk mohawk haired lawyer and attend a court with everyone always looking at you whenever you talk

That's me, et c'est la vie, mon ami!

If Nessie can make "us" think she is only a hallucination, and stop looking for her, then Nessie has "won".

Won what? ......'Nessie' is pure myth & story telling, nothing more.
As with all these fun topics, aliens, ufo's, bigfoot, men in black, ghosts, fairies, chuprawhatever, yeti, yes & even dragons there is one undisputable connection between all of them.......no physical evidence, & there never will be, because once there is, it is no longer an unexplained mystery.