Loch Ness Monster Spotted?

[ShadowSot]

8 hours ago, Lilly said:

Keep in mind that Loch Ness is connected (indirectly) to the North Sea...some type of critter could upon occasion venture into the Loch.

This does happen, don't remember the details at the moment but marine mammals have found their way into the Loch. 

[Mr.United_Nations]

12 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

This does happen, don't remember the details at the moment but marine mammals have found their way into the Loch. 

River monsters mentions it could be a greenland shark, which with a long age and slow movement could fit the bill

[Reilly.]

On 16/07/2017 at 0:06 PM, stereologist said:

This ridiculous quote "More than 70% of the Wilderness in North America has not been stepped on by human foot in over 200 years."  reminds me of a comedian who stated that 42.7% of all statistic are made up on the spot.

Call in and ask for the data. Its a free call and they will send you a package if you request it. When I have my apology I will read the rest of your post.

[Reilly.]

On 16/07/2017 at 3:17 PM, ChrLzs said:

That's just daft.

OF COURSE people will doubt things that have not yet been recorded, until they verify them.  Do you honestly not spot the difference between that simple (and wise) skepticism, and the bullmanure surrounding Nessie?   It's just a silly and unjustified comparison.

May I ask, do you know who Diogenes of Sinope is?

I think when skepticism stands in the way of imagination, it has failed to serve its purpose. We should be critical but we should not be arrogant in our thinking and assume we know all there is. The only person who knows anything, is the one who admits he knows nothing at all.

Skepticism is a tool for discerning truth and measuring probability, not bulwarking one's self against new ideas but that is what I see all too often, especially on the internet. Its almost like people are scared children fighting to keep ideas repressed and suppressed lest they threaten their delicate worldview. Case-in-point...

I am not deliberately going to consider the unlikely[1]. Nessie, for instance, could not be a worm and the size of a bus.[2] That's not biologically feasible[3].

1: Translation: I am only comfortable with what I already know.

2: Translation: I did not consider the possibility of the amphibians shared in the post. I did not consider the possibility that Nessie was smaller than a bus and witnesses were surprised by the creatures size and exaggerated it. Which is common (REF: Mothman sightings). If Nessie does not exist in the manner depicted in fiction, it cannot exist at all. Closed Logic 101.

3: Amphibians the size of small cars existed. Burrowing amphibians which hibernate and have lifespans in the hundreds of years are known to exist. The notion of a burrowing amphibian which hibernates is not only feasible, they already exist. Albeit, not in the scale of Nessie.

As we can see, from this one line alone, these matters are not being considered with an open-mind. Skepticism is a tool and it is currently being misused as a substitute for reinforcing religious ideas masquerading as scientific fact.

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, Reilly. said:

Call in and ask for the data. Its a free call and they will send you a package if you request it. When I have my apology I will read the rest of your post.

Sorry this is nonsense. FIrst off it has nothing to do with what I posted. After you apologize for posting irrelevant garbage we can continue.

Let me help you. I stated US and US only. You enlarged it to North America. It really does not matter what happens in the huge area of central Canada. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I stated.

Edited July 17, 2017 by stereologist

[Myles]

6 hours ago, Reilly. said:

3: Amphibians the size of small cars existed. Burrowing amphibians which hibernate and have lifespans in the hundreds of years are known to exist. The notion of a burrowing amphibian which hibernates is not only feasible, they already exist.

This interests me.   Could you link me to some reading.  From a quick google search all I can find is the tiny cave salamander which can live up to 100 years.    It would be neat to read about amphibians the size of cars that live for hundreds of years.  

Edited July 17, 2017 by Myles

[oldrover]

17 minutes ago, Myles said:

This interests me.   Could you link me to some reading.  From a quick google search all I can find is the tiny cave salamander which can live up to 100 years.    It would be neat to read about amphibians the size of cars that live for hundreds of years.  

The olm, found in caves in Slovakia as I remember, there are two sorts a black olm and a white, they can live live up to 100 years, as far as I'm aware that's the longest living amphibian. Here's a nice documentary on them. https://vimeo.com/110999667

They're very appealing, but they don't burrow. No point really they already live in caves. Caecillians burrow, but don't live for hundreds of years, or even a hundred years, I think about 15-20 is their maximum. One of the posters on the FT breeds them.  

As for amphibians the size of small cars, there have been some very large animals that'd fit that description quite well. Look at the Temnospondyls, some of those were huge. But remember, a lot of the places you find on the internet, and the media, grossly exaggerate the size ranges of extinct animals. 

 

 

[Carnoferox]

On 7/15/2017 at 7:51 PM, Reilly. said:

There are breakthroughs and new discoveries everyday, just because Nessie isn't a Plesiosaur or behaving the way a large marine reptile would does not mean Nessie does not exist. There is no reason Nessie HAS to be a marine reptile. I ran into the same **** from people in the scientific community when I pointed out that Plesiosaurs had an uncanny resemblance to the Australian long-neck turtle and may have hunted and operated in a simmular manner and now 10 years on its Paleo-Fact that they're more closely related to turtles than previously thought.

"Paleo-fact", huh? While they are currently grouped together in the larger clade Pantestudines (although even this has been called into doubt), plesiosaurs are sauropterygians that aren't all that closely related to turtles. Additionally, the mobility of plesiosaur necks are far less than that of the Australian long-necked turtle, and their habitats and feeding methods were not similar.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Carnoferox

[Carnoferox]

On 7/15/2017 at 8:08 PM, Reilly. said:

You're missing the point. This creature was surrounded by a city, there was a bridge over the water source. People come and went every single day, much more population density than Nessie and it was mystery for hundreds of years. There were about seven. So, let that sink in. You've got this body of water, surrounded by a city, people coming and going day in and day out, and it was only relatively recently they found it existed.

Now, if Nessie is not a marine reptile but like I mentioned; a worm or a caecilian it is possible for it to live in the mudbed under the loch, to come and go from the lock, and it might only emerge when sick or dying. We don't know. You need to consider all the possibilities, even if they are unlikely. Given the high rate of size-related mutation in amphibians, its entirely possible that something like Nessie COULD exist.

Some ancient Amphbians have the potential to be quite large. And if they hibernated like the Australian Burrowing Toad, there is no telling how long specimens could live.

Using Koolasuchus as an example is misleading, since it went extinct around 120-115 million years ago and is a member of the Chigutisauridae, an amphibian clade with no living descendants. A better example would be the genus Andrias, including the extant Chinese giant salamander (A. davidianus) featured on the chart or even the extinct Matthew's giant salamander (A. matthewi). They're the only truly large amphibians that have appeared since the Cretaceous.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Carnoferox

[oldrover]

Apart from the fearsome 'big newt of Carmarthen'. A tale for which the World is not yet ready.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

Apart from the fearsome 'big newt of Carmarthen'. A tale for which the World is not yet ready.

You know you aren't supposed to talk about that. 

[oldrover]

14 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

You know you aren't supposed to talk about that. 

I can't keep it to myself any longer I tell you! It torments me day and night. 

[Matt221]

Can't beat a big old Newty thing for a lively"discussion"

[Maureen_jacobs]

Do not, I repeat, do not give it 3.50

[PersonFromPorlock]

On 7/16/2017 at 7:21 AM, ShadowSot said:

it's sort of how like Bigfoot is becoming an increasingly metaphysical creature instead of a flesh and blood being.

'Becoming increasingly metaphysical' happened to UFOs too, in the 1960s; I suspect entropic woolliness is a fundamental characteristic of crank beliefs.

Edited July 18, 2017 by PersonFromPorlock

[oldrover]

14 hours ago, Maureen_jacobs said:

Do not, I repeat, do not give it 3.50

I know I'm missing this, please explain. 

[GlitterRose]

I really love the idea of a Loch Ness monster. Who doesn't love a sea monster? 

That said, I'm not holding my breath for it to be discovered. I think the sightings are probably a log, boat wake, a sturgeon, etc. 

[SHaYap]

Uhmmm .... no ?

~

~

[Reilly.]

On 18/07/2017 at 3:01 AM, Carnoferox said:

Using Koolasuchus as an example is misleading, since it went extinct around 120-115 million years ago and is a member of the Chigutisauridae, an amphibian clade with no living descendants. A better example would be the genus Andrias, including the extant Chinese giant salamander (A. davidianus) featured on the chart or even the extinct Matthew's giant salamander (A. matthewi). They're the only truly large amphibians that have appeared since the Cretaceous.

Using the Koolasuchus is merely to show that creatures like these HAVE once existed. I was not asserting it was a Koolasuchus. I was exploring possibilities. But for the sake of argument, simply because we have never found any living decedents does not mean we never will. Doesn't mean its not possible. The point here, the whole point, was to explore possibilities and show that the religious adherence to the certainty of the now is self-serving and does not benefit a critical mind. Simply saying "This is not possible" because of our current understanding of things is what we've done every generation in recorded history and every generation we're rewriting the history books and finding new things, breaking now ground and making exceptions.

My theory as posited here was that burrowing and hibernation behavior exists in amphibians.  As does the size required to match Nessie.  So it is not impossible that both these qualities could exist within a single species. It is unlikely, but not impossible. For all we know, some ancient amphibians may have acted in this very manner. We cannot be absolutely certain they did not.

While they are currently grouped together in the larger clade Pantestudines

Nothing beyond your sentence there matters. That one line is my point. You're going to tell me because there are some Paleontologists that argue that dinosaurs don't have feathers, none did next?

Additionally, the mobility of plesiosaur necks are far less than that of the Australian long-necked turtle, and their habitats and feeding methods were not similar.

Their environment was not similar but a working hunting strategy is not always influenced by the environment. So long as certain factors are met and the method is effective. If they hunted like Long Neck Turtles (or verse Grey White Sharks), cruising the bottom then dashing up or striking up at unsuspecting prey from underneath, that would warrant a similar evolutionary path. I would also like to point out (since you clearly care about contention so much) that there are men and women in the field who are not completely satisfied with how they are constructed. But if we follow your logic, the Iguanodon would still look like this...

Everyone was pretty happy with how that looked too for decades.

But of course, what we know now about everything is always the pinnacle of knowledge and understanding. There is no margin for era or new discoveries. I was foolish to question the status quo. Silly me.

[oldrover]

Why chose amphibians though? As Carnoferox points out they're very distant. Why not pick on the Carnivora? After all there's examples of burrowing, hibernating, and swimming in that group too and there are plenty of living examples. 

 

[stereologist]

Oddly enough you chose an iguanadon image that is old and known to be incorrect. It has the nose horn which is actually a spike on the foot of the animal. The posture of the animal is wrong as well. Notice the drooping tail.

Why are you using old and outdated material?

[Carnoferox]

6 hours ago, Reilly. said:

Using the Koolasuchus is merely to show that creatures like these HAVE once existed. I was not asserting it was a Koolasuchus. I was exploring possibilities. But for the sake of argument, simply because we have never found any living decedents does not mean we never will. Doesn't mean its not possible. The point here, the whole point, was to explore possibilities and show that the religious adherence to the certainty of the now is self-serving and does not benefit a critical mind. Simply saying "This is not possible" because of our current understanding of things is what we've done every generation in recorded history and every generation we're rewriting the history books and finding new things, breaking now ground and making exceptions.

"Possible" is not the same thing as "probable". Koolasuchus was the last of its lineage and a relict even in its own time, the rest of the chigutisaurids having been outcompeted by crocodilians during the Early Jurassic. The chance of it having any unknown living descendants 115 million years later is practically nonexistent.

6 hours ago, Reilly. said:

My theory as posited here was that burrowing and hibernation behavior exists in amphibians.  As does the size required to match Nessie.  So it is not impossible that both these qualities could exist within a single species. It is unlikely, but not impossible. For all we know, some ancient amphibians may have acted in this very manner. We cannot be absolutely certain they did not.

A large amphibian the same size as the purported Nessie would not be able to survive the cold climate of Loch Ness. Amphibians are ectotherms (cold-blooded) and rely on external heat sources to regulate their body temperatures. Truly large amphibians have only appeared during warm periods in earth's history, most notably during the Carboniferous. There is interesting fossil evidence (see Vasilyan et al. 2012) that shows how Eurasian giant salamanders (belonging the genera Andrias and Zaissanurus) appeared during various warm periods in the Cenozoic but were unable to cope with subsequent cooling periods and went extinct. These giants salamanders were at maximum 2 meters long, quite a bit smaller (also meaning requiring less heat) than the supposed size of Nessie.

6 hours ago, Reilly. said:

Nothing beyond your sentence there matters. That one line is my point. You're going to tell me because there are some Paleontologists that argue that dinosaurs don't have feathers, none did next?

Within Pantestudines, plesiosaurs are about as closely related to modern turtles as crocodiles are to birds. In phylogenetics this is not considered a close relationship, and certainly does not indicate that they have a shared morphology. The Pantestudines as a valid clade has been contested recently, with it's potentially polyphyletic nature being called into question. New phylogenetic studies show that plesiosaurs may be part of a marine reptile "super-clade", it's own lineage of diapsids separate from turtles, archosaurs, and lepidosaurs. See Motani et al. (2014) and Scheyer et al. (2017).

6 hours ago, Reilly. said:

Their environment was not similar but a working hunting strategy is not always influenced by the environment. So long as certain factors are met and the method is effective. If they hunted like Long Neck Turtles (or verse Grey White Sharks), cruising the bottom then dashing up or striking up at unsuspecting prey from underneath, that would warrant a similar evolutionary path. I would also like to point out (since you clearly care about contention so much) that there are men and women in the field who are not completely satisfied with how they are constructed.

Plesiosaur ambush hunting is not a new idea, and was suggested as far back as the early 1900's. However, the limited range of motion in plesiosaur necks that is now known indicates that another feeding strategy may have been used. Called benthic grazing, plesiosaurs would have angled their necks down and swept along the seafloor, using their long teeth as rakes or sieves in the sediment. Noe et al. (2017) is the most recent study on plesiosaur neck mobility and supports the benthic grazing model. Also read Zammit et al. (2008), which actually has data from the eastern long-necked turtle and demonstrates that flexion angles are far less in plesiosaurs than in the turtle. This is mostly due to a much higher number of cervical vertebrae in plesiosaurs. In short, the eastern long-necked turtle is a poor analogue for plesiosaurs.

7 hours ago, Reilly. said:

But if we follow your logic, the Iguanodon would still look like this...

Everyone was pretty happy with how that looked too for decades.

But of course, what we know now about everything is always the pinnacle of knowledge and understanding. There is no margin for era or new discoveries. I was foolish to question the status quo. Silly me.

Iguanodon was one of the first dinosaurs discovered, and was known only from fragmentary material. At this time there was practically no other fossil material to compare it to, so it is understandable that the likes of Mantell, Owen, and Hawkins got the earliest reconstruction so wrong. Since then there have been numerous more discoveries of Iguanodon, including the famous complete skeletons found Bernissart mine in the 1870's. Try to compare what we know about plesiosaurs today to what we knew about Iguanodon in the 1850's is preposterous; it's comparing literally thousands of known specimens, many complete, to a single fragmentary specimen.

[Reilly.]

You're right. Amphibians are not able to survive in cold environments. I was so foolish.

[Carnoferox]

1 hour ago, Reilly. said:

You're right. Amphibians are not able to survive in cold environments. I was so foolish.

This is a small frog, which does not require nearly as much heat energy as a 3+ meter giant amphibian. Did you even read my previous post?

Edited July 27, 2017 by Carnoferox

[Reilly.]

You're still missing the ENTIRE point of my post(s).