Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Loch Ness monster theory 'remains plausible'

73 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

An international team of scientists say they have identified a plausible theory for sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.

The team took 250 water samples at various depths throughout the loch last year, collecting all forms of environmental DNA for further analysis.

While they did not come face to face with Nessie, the scientists say they have a biological explanation for her.

The team will announce the results of their studies next month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-49419989

https://news.sky.com/story/loch-ness-monster-theory-remains-plausible-scientists-say-11790441

Related:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/328182-loch-ness-monster-study/

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Susanc241

This I have got to see - their results of the study.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Good OP, @Still Waters.  This sounds interesting.

The first time I had  heard of eDNA being used to test for the existence of a cryptid was a team that had previously found Yeti footprints in the highlands of Bhutan going back up with a testing team from University of Grenoble to do eDNA testing  on any tracks they might find. They found none on that event, however, they did take water samples from a small lake and testing showed the existence of a creature that was unknown in the DNA database and was "99%" human, which of course means, it's not human.

This testing here in loch Ness will settle it, I believe.

Could this all be a rouse? well, I guess anything is possible. Scotland makes $millions in tourism and I can't see them allowing bad Nessie news to be revealed in Drumnadrochit on September 5, but we'll see. I look forward to it.

Still Waters, do keep us posted on that September 5 announcement. Thank you. :tu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Scotland makes $millions in tourism and I can't see them allowing bad Nessie news to be revealed

Would they have any actual say in the matter though? I doubt it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimatium

I remember reading about this a few months ago, some people were already ruling it out, claiming it was a waste of time.

I personally welcome it when science takes a new apporach to try and solve some of these mysteries. If a large, unidentified species is living in loch ness, surely its dna fingerprint will be in the lake.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Stiff said:

Would they have any actual say in the matter though? I doubt it.

Maybe not, but the scientific group in question knows that bad Nessie news would be frowned on so why start trouble. It's kind of a hint that this group's announcement will not prove existence but will leave the door open for possibilities, which would go a ways in fueling the flames of the passional believers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Ultimatium said:

I remember reading about this a few months ago, some people were already ruling it out, claiming it was a waste of time.

I personally welcome it when science takes a new apporach to try and solve some of these mysteries. If a large, unidentified species is living in loch ness, surely its dna fingerprint will be in the lake.

what would be ideal is if they could dredge for evidence right after a sighting. That - in my mind, would establish definitive proof, one way or the other. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Huh. This DNA testing tbrough water samples sound like reasonable science.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth

I think its a possible Plesiosaur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
48 minutes ago, Scholar4Truth said:

I think its a possible Plesiosaur.

You might want to do some better research then, because there certainly aren’t any living plesiosaurs.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

Next month now... I can’t help but feel this won’t be anything overly exciting.

Still potential good science though, about time a decent study was done like this. Logical.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skookum

Fresh water Sturgeon was always the most plausible to me. They can grow huge and do breach on occasions. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
15 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

, they did take water samples from a small lake and testing showed the existence of a creature that was unknown in the DNA database and was "99%" human, which of course means, it's not human

Can you please post links better yet not to derail this thread start a new thread this sound very thought provoking,

i recall documentaries that were saying how at the time the DNA database that was used in a case wasnt complete, so it wasn't that the creature was unknown just they didnt have it in their database.

I see this like the early days when hair analysis was not much more than under a microscope and would come back unknown some would jump unknown meant bigfoot then decades later modern tests show the hair if even hair belongs to known creatures.

What does 99% human really mean, couldnt a person with abnormalities test in a similar fashion yet be "human" which considering how humans differ and toss abnormalities into the mix "human" is a broad term.

 

17 hours ago, Still Waters said:

An international team of scientists say they have identified a plausible theory for sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.

And its just as plausible to say nessie is a large catfish or sturgeon, sadly no matter what they claim it takes a body to prove yet another theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
18 hours ago, Still Waters said:

An international team of scientists say they have identified a plausible theory for sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.

Hmm.... a plausible theory for the sightings huh ? 

Well, I've got one of my own. 

glenfiddich-12-year-old-single-malt-scot

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.... a plausible theory for the sightings huh ? 

Well, I've got one of my own. 

I like to drink.  I even like Glenfiddich Whiskey. However even on epic benders where I have wound up in unincorporated trailer parks 2 days later I have never been so drunk that I have hallucinated.  I find this disappointing.  Where are my alotment of pink elephants?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
8 hours ago, the13bats said:

Can you please post links better yet not to derail this thread start a new thread this sound very thought provoking,

It was a discovery channel episode. It might be on UTube but I have not checked.

8 hours ago, the13bats said:

i recall documentaries that were saying how at the time the DNA database that was used in a case wasnt complete, so it wasn't that the creature was unknown just they didnt have it in their database.

Isn't that saying the same thing? The DNA database on animal creatures is pretty complete as best I know. BTW, that team saw footprints they could not identify so they took samples. It turned out to be some sheep - the largest species known. And with that news, the people in the town in Bhutan that they made their base said they never knew that sheep was in their highlands. Just shows you, huh? They knew of the existence of Yeti but not a 400 lb. sheep LOL :)

8 hours ago, the13bats said:

I see this like the early days when hair analysis was not much more than under a microscope and would come back unknown some would jump unknown meant bigfoot then decades later modern tests show the hair if even hair belongs to known creatures.

What does 99% human really mean, couldnt a person with abnormalities test in a similar fashion yet be "human" which considering how humans differ and toss abnormalities into the mix "human" is a broad term.

Abnormalities..? I doubt it. And I am only quoting what they say, "99% human means it is not human."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
14 hours ago, skookum said:

Fresh water Sturgeon was always the most plausible to me. They can grow huge and do breach on occasions. 

Are there any confirmed reports of sturgeon in the loch? I know they’re pretty widespread including across the UK.

Maybe it’ll turn into a Nessie fishing competition...

I definitely want to travel and catch a sturgeon one day! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimatium
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2019 at 6:26 PM, skookum said:

Fresh water Sturgeon was always the most plausible to me. They can grow huge and do breach on occasions. 

Yes, and they look like monsters, too. I think its probably the best candidate, besides boat wakes and other misindentifications.

Edited by Ultimatium
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scholar4Truth
12 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

Yes, and they look like monsters, too. I think its probably the best candidate, besides boat wakes and other misindentifications.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/canadian-fishermen-caught-650-pound-sturgeon-180960256/  This is one of the largest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

Too many people too many cameras for this to be real.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I heard an interview with this group and they are doing studies on the animals in lakes. he media turned this into a loch ness monster hunt. The team's interest is not in finding Nessie. They allowed the media to run with this non-issue.

In this report we see the same intent as the i nterview I heard.

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/loch-ness-edna-06155.html

Quote

“We expect the project to document new species of life, particularly bacteria, and provide important data on the extent of several new invasive species recently seen in the loch, such as Pacific pink salmon, while also gaining a better understanding of the native species that reside there.”

“Is there anything else, perhaps something unusual, such as a giant catfish, sturgeon or eel, or a species unknown to science? It seems unlikely, but who knows?”

But when we go to the MSM we see a misleading headline.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/loch-ness-monster-legend-dna-samples-test/

Quote

Gemmell  said they've already been offering him theories, like that Nessie might be on vacation after swimming to the sea via hidden underwater caves, or that the creature might be extraterrestrial and not leave behind any DNA.

There it is flks, the excuses are already set to use when the team does not find a monster. That is the hallmark of fringies - a huge slathering of excuses to go with every investigation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

That is the hallmark of fringies - a huge slathering of excuses to go with every investigation.

Couldn't agree more!  Right now in the Cattle Mutilation thread, with 10,000 reports of mutilations there is someone with a slew of excuses to go with every report. State, County and local police reports, Lab reports, one was Colorado State University labs, - nothing matters to these nutters!

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

"Remains plausible"...no, no it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck

Jeremy Wade suggests the Greenland Shark as a suspect.

Is it confirmed they enter fresh water?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.