aquatus1 Posted January 9, 2006 #101 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Ultimately, what we have is a thirty foot beastie that cannot be living in the loch full time, unless it has a family with it, in which case it still couldn't live there without collapsing the eco-system of the loch, which means that it must migrate from the ocean and back, which would be impossible for a single beast, let a lone a family of them, due to the locks used for boat movement in the access points (unless one wishes to argue that a thirty foot sea monster has somehow been missed by the lock managers every time they check to make sure the area is clear for the boats to move in and out, for the past how many years since the locks have been in use). I just cannot see how it can be a natural creature in the loch that meets all the descriptions of Nessie. And I do not believe in supernatural creatures (why would a supernatural creature need to leave the loch? Sonar wouldn't affect it, would it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vidgange Posted January 9, 2006 #102 Share Posted January 9, 2006 QUOTE(theSOURCE @ Jan 7 2006, 10:15 PM) * Though it's possible that some of the sightings were of large fish in the loch, for them to have been seen for such a long time would mean that there would have to be schools of them (either that, or a single creature with an extremely long lifespan). Extensive scans of the loch have shown that there are no large creatures living in it's depths. I'd be thrilled if any of the unknowns you mentioned turned out to be real. But based on the evidence so far, I have to remain skeptical. 1) It is possible for larger fishs to liv in the loch (however some ought to have been cought sometime...). But this does not mean that they stay all year round; they might come and go through the locks and canal without anyone noticing - which has been proven! 2) There has been scans that's shown something big under the water, several times, that are not a group of fishs... I don't think it's something like a dragon down there, but some form of life that shouldn't exist there as a natural piece of the enviroment. I think that nessie is a numerous of animals, such as seals, eels and sturgeons.... back on topic! I state what I've already said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted January 10, 2006 #103 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Aquatus, "Supernatural" does not necesairly mean "invisible spirits" and the like, but rather creatures who have abilities which we do not yet understand. For example, the original angels and dragons of the bible are not invisible spirits, they eat food and have real bodies, nor do angels have wings, but look like normal men. Invisible spirit angels are a pagan Greco Roman idea adopted by the early Christian church like so many other elements of their theology. Zandore, it is not "off-topic" to look at other alternatives for why people keep seeing these creatures despite the claim by scientists they cannot be there. Get real, a good 3/4ths of UM involves the supernatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 10, 2006 #104 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Winged creatures are hard to see in the dark frogfish, even large ones. If it leaves as often as you said, then it should of been sighted several times... I still find it very curious that you have the "faith" to believe in invisible demons and underground fiery hell ("borrowed" by the early christians from pagan cultures), because you think they are in the bible (not in the old testament for sure), Because that is what my religion teaches...even in the old testament Oh and what do you think the sea monster "Leviathan " is? Unlike whales, it is covered in scales and spews fire. Demon, fish, anything.... Fiery hell and invisible demon creatures are far less scientific than the notion of dragons which are part of the very same Christian theology, They're about the same, except that Jesus plainly endorses hell and demons, while only your "dragons" come from your perceptions of what a creture with no descripion is....Oh, I don't know what that animal is...must be a dragon! Zandore, it is not "off-topic" to look at other alternatives for why people keep seeing these creatures despite the claim by scientists they cannot be there. Get real, a good 3/4ths of UM involves the supernatural. No DC, is THREAD is off-topic...it turned from a discussion abou nessie ino a magical fairytale with magical dragons flyin out of lakes...UM does deal with the supernatural, BUT NOT THIS THREAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted January 10, 2006 #105 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Aquatus, "Supernatural" does not necesairly mean "invisible spirits" and the like, but rather creatures who have abilities which we do not yet understand. For example, the original angels and dragons of the bible are not invisible spirits, they eat food and have real bodies, nor do angels have wings, but look like normal men. Invisible spirit angels are a pagan Greco Roman idea adopted by the early Christian church like so many other elements of their theology. "Supernatural" refers to abilities beyond the natural world. If a creature reflects sonar, it is a natural creature. A thirty foot marine creature taking flight without being noticed either by people actively searching the loch or by any of the hundreds of tourists in the area as it flies overhead (to say nothing of a creature described like Nessie flying to begin with) would definitely qualify as beyond the natural world. To say nothing of unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSOURCE Posted January 10, 2006 #106 Share Posted January 10, 2006 If you studied the subject more, Source, you would know that Nessie has often been referred to as a "dragon", particularly before people knew what a plesiosaur was. You're going to have to back that up with a source, DC. Most of the early accounts often referred to Nessie as a Kelpi, or water horse. In fact, not even the St. Columbia story says anything about a dragon. The only reason we know Troy existed is because it was in a greek fairy tale, and scientists scoffed that it really existed. But guess what, Source, it turned out to be true! Imagine that! They actually found a site where HUMAN BEINGS built a city! Oh, and there dragons in that story too, though that part was never included in the movie versions. Perhaps the producers wanted to make a movie based on reality, rather than fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted January 11, 2006 #107 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Source, Just type Loch Ness Monster and Dragon into your search engine and you will see many connections. Aparently Nessie is referred to as a dragon in the original Latin text Columba story, but since the new sighting of the 20th century it has been prudently called a "monster" instead, for apparently more "credibility". Many of the medieval dragon legends of Britain apparently have their origins in Celtic Kelpie/Water Horse legends. But dragons in every culture are aquatic, so they are probably referring to the same creatures if in fact they are real creatures. Yes Troy was a City, but a city most scientists claimed was only a myth until it was discovered. No, every Troy movie made to my knowledge has supernatural elements with "the Gods". The fact that the dragons were left out, is more probably due to the fact that most films are simply a rehash of the earlier ones, and very rarely does anyone use the original source material of Homer and Livy. The same applies to the Jason story. In the original the dragon is never slain. Quite the contrary, it eats Jason, commanded to regurgitate him by Athena, who restores him to life. It is the original Greek reseurrection story good christians are not supposed to know about, because it proves the Greeks already had reseurrection legends that may have inspired (predominately Pagan Greek) Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 11, 2006 #108 Share Posted January 11, 2006 not even the St. Columbia story says anything about a dragon Aparently Nessie is referred to as a dragon in the original Latin text Columba story contradiction... Yes Troy was a City, but a city most scientists claimed was only a myth until it was discovered You think demons are fantasy, I think dragons are fantasy....they both have as much proof of existence as fairies...don't try to force your "nonsense" into others. I don't. What about "Atlantis" No proof of that yet. Troy wasn't much of a myth. It was a city. Dragons persay, now THAT's a myth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted January 11, 2006 #109 Share Posted January 11, 2006 If you studied the subject more, Source, you would know that Nessie has often been referred to as a "dragon", particularly before people knew what a plesiosaur was. You're going to have to back that up with a source, DC. Most of the early accounts often referred to Nessie as a Kelpi, or water horse. In fact, not even the St. Columbia story says anything about a dragon. Source please! That is if you have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSOURCE Posted January 11, 2006 #110 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) Aparently Nessie is referred to as a dragon in the original Latin text Columba story, Apparently not. There is some question as to whether the creature being referred to in the story was in fact a wild boar. Do a search. but since the new sighting of the 20th century it has been prudently called a "monster" instead, for apparently more "credibility". It wasn't until the mid 20th century that Nessie was associated with the word dragon. As for descriptions, here's a few that occurred prior to the 1930s before it was labeled a "monster" by the media. Observer: D Mackenzie Time: 1200 Date: October 1871 Motion: Slow, then moved off at speed Description: Log like, then up-turned boat Observer: Roderick Matheson Time: Unknown Date: 1885 Motion: Forward Description: Described as the biggest thing I ever saw in my Life, neck like a horse with a mane. Observer: Alexander Macdonald Time: Early morning Date: 1888 Motion: Description: He called it salamander-like. Observer: Salmon Angler, Forester, Hotel Keeper and Fishing Ghillies Time: Unknown Date: 1895 Motion: Description: Observers reported that a horrible great beastie appeared in Loch Ness Observer: F Fraser, 2 others Time: Afternoon Date: December 1903 Motion: Could not get closer by rowing towards it. Description: Hump like upturned boat Observer: John Macleod Time: Unknown Date: 1908 Motion: Motionless, then moved off Description: Long tapering tail, eel-like head. 30-40ft, creature lying in the water, flush with surface Observer: William Miller and D McGillvray Time: 0730 Date: May 10th 1923 Motion: Stationary, moved off in arc, submerged. Description: 10-12ft like up-turned boat. Observer: Mrs Cumming and D McGillvray Time: 0930 Date: August 1929 Motion: Motionless, sank with a splash Description: Hump size of horse's body Whether what these people witnessed was a living creature or not, none of them used the word dragon to describe what they saw. Many of the medieval dragon legends of Britain apparently have their origins in Celtic Kelpie/Water Horse legends. But dragons in every culture are aquatic, so they are probably referring to the same creatures if in fact they are real creatures. I believe you just jumped to ludicrous speed. Ancient myths regarding aquatic creatures may have certain similarities to dragon legends, but they are not the same creature. According to your way of reasoning, since a whale has fins and lives under water, it must therefore be a fish. Yes Troy was a City, but a city most scientists claimed was only a myth until it was discovered. You still missed my point. Ancient cities are man made objects that had been discovered before. They are real world, physical artifacts for which there is a vast amount of empirical evidence to support their existence. Whether or not it's existence was doubted, the search for the City of Troy was a search for one of mankind's accomplishments. There is no precedent for the existence of dragons. They are mythological creatures, and despite your attempts to blur the legends together into one huge lump, the stories regarding them do differ from culture to culture. No, every Troy movie made to my knowledge has supernatural elements with "the Gods". The fact that the dragons were left out, is more probably due to the fact that most films are simply a rehash of the earlier ones, and very rarely does anyone use the original source material of Homer and Livy. The same applies to the Jason story. In the original the dragon is never slain. Quite the contrary, it eats Jason, commanded to regurgitate him by Athena, who restores him to life. It is the original Greek reseurrection story good christians are not supposed to know about, because it proves the Greeks already had reseurrection legends that may have inspired (predominately Pagan Greek) Christianity. There are several sites that do movie reviews. I'm sure they would enjoy your opinions regarding those movies in their forums. Edit: Spelling errors. Edited January 11, 2006 by theSOURCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted January 11, 2006 #111 Share Posted January 11, 2006 There are several sites that do movie reviews. I'm sure they would enjoy your opinions regarding those movies in their forums. Or take up writing fiction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted January 12, 2006 #112 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Source, I am not good at linking but if you type these three words in google "piccardie, dragon, loch ness" you will see Dr. Piccardie's scientific paper in which he quotes the original latin text of Admnon's life of Saint Columba, in which it says "that in the original latin, the DRAGON "cum ingenti fremin"", clearly meaning it is called a dragon in the text which is not surprising as stories from that time were full of dragons. I agree that not only Loch ness, but other bodies of water had celtic water horse/kelpie legends, but after the Roman catholics came, they were called dragons. Nessie reverted to a "monster" because most modern people think the notion of a dragon is strictly "fairy tale". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkayn Posted January 12, 2006 #113 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I found an excerpt of what happened between the Nessie and the Priest thing I was talking about. Hold on: "...(He) raised his holy hand, while all the rest, brethren as well as strangers, were stupefied with terror, and, invoking the name of God, formed the saving sign of the cross in the air, and commanded the ferocious monster, saying, "Thou shalt go no further, nor touch the man; go back with all speed." Then at the voice of the saint, the monster was terrified, and fled more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes, though it had just got so near to Lugne, as he swam, that there was not more than the length of a spear-staff between the man and the beast. Then the brethren seeing that the monster had gone back, and that their comrade Lugne returned to them in the boat safe and sound, were struck with admiration, and gave glory to God in the blessed man. And even the barbarous heathens, who were present, were forced by the greatness of this miracle, which they themselves had seen, to magnify the God of the Christians" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vidgange Posted January 12, 2006 #114 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I found an excerpt of what happened between the Nessie and the Priest thing I was talking about. Hold on: "...(He) raised his holy hand, while all the rest, brethren as well as strangers, were stupefied with terror, and, invoking the name of God, formed the saving sign of the cross in the air, and commanded the ferocious monster, saying, "Thou shalt go no further, nor touch the man; go back with all speed." Then at the voice of the saint, the monster was terrified, and fled more quickly than if it had been pulled back with ropes, though it had just got so near to Lugne, as he swam, that there was not more than the length of a spear-staff between the man and the beast. Then the brethren seeing that the monster had gone back, and that their comrade Lugne returned to them in the boat safe and sound, were struck with admiration, and gave glory to God in the blessed man. And even the barbarous heathens, who were present, were forced by the greatness of this miracle, which they themselves had seen, to magnify the God of the Christians" Very interesting! But I do however doubt that he just calmly talk to the beast... I think that a more realalistic approach is that (as someone said earlier) the saint (and maybe a few others) flaxed with their arms and shouted. This has proven very effective against lions and such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSOURCE Posted January 12, 2006 #115 Share Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) DC, whether or not Nessie has ever been referred to as a dragon has nothing to do with proving it's real (actually, I think it would do more harm to the "pro" side of the argument, since dragons are considered mythological, and therefore non existent). The point is, there's no conclusive evidence to suggest that there is a large, unknown creature living in Loch Ness. Research shows that the number of eye witness accounts has been greatly exaggerated, and most of the reported sightings were made by people visiting the loch who were unfamiliar with the area and the behavior of the waters there. Not even the story of St. Columbia can be used as anecdotal evidence, since it's generally considered to be folklore. Also, all photographs and movie footage (including the famous Tim Dinsdale film) have been proven to be either hoaxes, or misidentifications of mundane objects; i.e., boats, trees, waves, etc. Adding this to the previous posts made by others regarding the unfavorable conditions to support any large creatures in the loch along with the outcome of the sonar scans, the chances for Nessie being there look pretty grim (read: nonexistent). I believe there's a greater chance for the existence of some sea-serpent-like creatures living beneath the oceans (no, not dragons), but the facts seem to have shred the Loch Ness Monster legend apart. Edited January 12, 2006 by theSOURCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted January 12, 2006 #116 Share Posted January 12, 2006 You have obviously studied the subject enough to know that other lochs in the region have been reported to have the same creatures, reported by even police and other very responsible people in isolated places with no intention to turn them into tourist traps. Although most photos are unimpressive or forged, there are many vivid eye witness discriptions that suggest what is being seen is not a fish or eel, particularly the ones on land. I realize calling it a "dragon" doesn't help the case, but that is what we'd all be calling it if we had lived in those earlier eras. Now the term is met with derision because of the fantasy connotations, but the naturalists of the 17th century and all times before were not embarrassed at all to call them "dragons" and appear as such in the most "scientific" literature of that age. And if it turns out that someday we discover there may be "truth" to some "supernatural" phenomena that forms the basis of our religions and beliefs, it will undoubtedly be somehow connected to something our ancestors regarded as "dragons". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted January 12, 2006 #117 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Source, I am not good at linking......With respect DC if you can type the web address for this forum you can create a link to the source of your information. It is that easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vidgange Posted January 12, 2006 #118 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Also, all photographs and movie footage (including the famous Tim Dinsdale film) have been proven to be either hoaxes, or misidentifications of mundane objects; i.e., boats, trees, waves, etc. Now you're just making up facts! there are plenty of pics and vids that can't be identified properly - not even by experts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted January 12, 2006 #119 Share Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) there are plenty of pics and vids that can't be identified properly - not even by experts!Yes that is right....Can not be identified as "boats, trees, waves, etc." OR as identified Nessie Edited January 12, 2006 by zandore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogfish Posted January 13, 2006 #120 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I realize calling it a "dragon" doesn't help the case, but that is what we'd all be calling it if we had lived in those earlier eras. Or just monster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkayn Posted January 13, 2006 #121 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Oh get over yourselves. You've proved one thing. YOUR NOT GONNA GET ANYWHERE BY ARGUING! Connect the facts you do know, and you might come up with an outcome. Its as simple as that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconic chronicler Posted January 13, 2006 #122 Share Posted January 13, 2006 As I have shown Frogfish, Nessie IS referred to as a dragon in the original latin text of the life of the Catholic Saint Columba who first encountered it. This is because everyone in those times, especially the catholic church, was absolutely convinced that dragons were real, as their bible stated in several placese. Must you always behave like a beligerrent little child and get the last word when you know nothing about the subject the adults are discussing? You have already been temporarily banned for your behavior on the crypto forum, and are most responsible for getting several threads closed by your inability to behave like an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted January 13, 2006 #123 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Must you always behave like a beligerrent little child and get the last word when you know nothing about the subject the adults are discussing? After that comment I'm not quite sure you're an adult yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zandore Posted January 13, 2006 #124 Share Posted January 13, 2006 As I have shown Frogfish, Nessie IS referred to as a dragon in the original latin text of the life of the Catholic Saint Columba who first encountered it. This is because everyone in those times, especially the catholic church, was absolutely convinced that dragons were real, as their bible stated in several placese. But you forget that "Nessie" (if it is real) resides in Loch Ness wich is in Scotland..... PSST DC Latin is not the native language there After that comment I'm not quite sure you're an adult yourself. The sky is falling.....I am agreeing with Zero! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSOURCE Posted January 13, 2006 #125 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Now you're just making up facts! there are plenty of pics and vids that can't be identified properly - not even by experts! I'm not trying to make up facts. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said 'most' pics and footage have been shown to be fakes and misidentifications. However, as you yourself stated, there are some that remain "unidentified." BTW, do you have any links to the pics you're referring to? 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