|
Page 9 of 11 pages ‹ First < 7 8 9 10 11 > |
Geoff
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 | 05:36 PM
Hello Barbi
I've been making this point from the start. That Loch scan in the late-90s did produce a large unknown trace that was detected swimming behind the sonar trail. As all the ships carrying the sonar equipment didn't want to break formation, it was just noted as a mystery trace.
I doubt if whatever it was would have felt a sonar trace but the ships' props would have made one hell of a noise, even in peat-embedded water.
If anything, this does tend to support the Rhine sonar tracks and that elusive flipper taken back in the 70s.
Link into: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/nessie/nessie.htm
Perhaps the best evidence for Nessie is sonar contacts. In 1987 Operation Deepscan, involving 24 motor launches traversed the whole length of Loch Ness providing a nearly complete sonar scan of the Loch. "All this effort was rewarded by three strong contacts. One of these - a sonar echo from a |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 | 08:39 AM
So, these people who are plunking down in their little sonar boats every few years...
They don't have something better to do??
What if there really IS Nessie? What if beyond any doubt, we find out that Nessie exists? Then what!?!? Will it be pulled out of the lake and put into an aquarium? Put in a zoo? Left alone? Dissected?
Regardless, I think it's best that we just leave it be. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 03:12 AM
The problem with most sonar systems is that they can't tell the difference between one large object and many small objects close together (such as a school of fish). And Loch Ness does have many fish in it. A "large sonar contact" does not necessarily mean a large object.
The particular Nessie story that this topic is about, however, was shown to be a definite hoax. |
Geoff
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 05:55 PM
Hello Alex
These sonar surveys weren't being done to hunt Nessie. As Loch Ness is one of the biggest deep freshwater glacier lakes in the world it would have been investigated irrespective of there being a 'monster' in it. What is puzzling is the fact that something large and animated was detected and reported and yet nothing was done about it. I mean why bother to say they found something if they were going to ignore it.
Re: Latest. What |
Brian Eggert
in USA MINNEAPOLIS MN
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 | 11:06 PM
That so called tooth is not from a loch ness monster but it sure helps sell a few books ya think? |
A Theory Maker
in Las Vegas
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 | 07:51 PM
Ok i have a theory.Im 13 and i want to take marine biologie in college and then become a monster, But anyways my theory is, Ive been studying on history of the monster,Castle Urquhart,And the lake. I have recently read an ancient history document about settlers in the area that were building a bridge around the northeast side of the lake i think, While they were building this bridge a supposable lake monster attacked and killed, then they finished the bridge, about a hundred years later to rebuild the bridge the british used dynamite to blow the bridge shattering it into the water, Nesse apparently came up from the water but whent back down, I THINK...they need to booby trap the bridge and reblow it and give it a try, but if anyone reads this hopefully theyll try it. |
Mirza
in Fort Pierce, FL
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 | 11:04 AM
For those that always ask the question "Why has one not been found or caught?" If you were to take one
Large fish/whale (whatever) and tag it --just one fish with just one tag --and everyone that knows how to fish and trap were to try and find it --it would no doubt take a very long time ---maybe a lifetime if you found at all..---THE LOCH is not a small body of water. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 | 05:17 AM
*bangs head off desk*
It is a SCAM to sell copies of a book.
The 'tooth' is not a tooth. |
dgray
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 | 10:22 PM
im willing to bet that the loch ness monster is an aguilla eel. not nesassarily an actual anguilla eel, but instead a precursor or ancestor of anguilla anguila. as we know, the ancestors are always larger and this would hold true to nessie. however, considering there have been nessie sightings since the 1930's, there would most likely have to be numerous "nessies" because it is unlikely that an eel could live for more than 70 years, even a precursor. as for the tooth, it looks very real although its disapearance is suspicious |
Lilly
in MI
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 | 07:31 AM
Well, I think it is real! |
Carter S
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 | 01:08 PM
It's real it has to be real cause if it's not.......
Ill be right back, I am going to go kill myself. |
ljrad
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 | 02:58 AM
An article quoted on the following forum
http://www.underwatertimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1350 states: "Rob McConnell, a Canadian broadcaster who interviewed McDonald about the finding on the air, is convinced the "tooth" story is a hoax.
Said McConnell in a press release: "According to a number of experts in Canada and the United Kingdom, McDonald's tooth is nothing more than an antler from a roe muntjac deer. " If you do a Google search on this deer you will see horns very like this "tooth", eg.: http://www.deer-uk.com/muntjac_deer.htm |
bobswell
in Colorado
|
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 | 09:40 AM
I am late to this discusssion. Just finished "The Loch". Fun story, but that's all. The "tooth"? Just look at the base of it. That is NOT a base of a tooth, it is the round nub of an antler of some sort.
Too bad, because like so many others, just the preponderance of sightings over the years make me want to believe there's something in the loch. |
Jacob Scum
in Cleveland
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 | 09:55 AM
I don't think it looks like a tooth. I don't think it looks like an antler. It's much too sharp, and that hook at the end is RIDICULOUSLY sharp. I'm going with the claw theory. It's from a crustacean of some sort. The little barbs on the side and the hook on the end are arranged in a pattern of a gripping scissor. ie: a claw. Conspiracies regarding the Freemasons and Knights Templar being involved in world politics....i'm willing to believe. Theories regarding the same two groups hiding cryptomorphs from us is preposterous. To what end would they do this and why? What possible gain could be met by hiding legendary beasts from the public?
Cryptozoologists are a bunch of jerks. I believe the suffix "ology" means "science of." Hence "ologist" would mean "one who studies the science of." Cryptozoologist is a misleading term; it implies that there is a science involved. Bzzt....negative....science involves the study of evidence through experimentation and the observation of results. Not the fantastical stories of a few backwoods people from (insert your culture here.) |
Dan
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 | 07:30 PM
Jacob, you're absolutely wrong about it not being a deer antler - the specific type of deer it belongs to has been posted already: http://www.deer-uk.com/muntjac_deer.htm
The fact that it was found inside the torn body of a deer should have been a dead giveaway, but Steve Alten & friends seem content to draw a much wilder conclusion even though all the evidence is against their hasty reasoning - when even an amateur zoologist can see from the barbs and shape that it's an antler.
So you're right about cryptozoologists being a bunch of jerks - people who don't even use scientific method to prove their claims have a real nerve to claim that a "mainstream science conspiracy" is keeping their amazing evidence from being shown.
In a weird twisted sort of way, they're kind of right - but only in that people are demanding they provide real scientific data to back up their claims, which is then subjected to rigorous peer-review and critique.
A good scientist welcomes criticism as a means to test and improve his evidence/hypothesis/whatever, or see if there's a better explanation. A bad scientist (or good pseudoscientist) reacts to criticism with outrage, paranoia, wild accusations, and increasing stubbornness.
In this regard, cryptozoology is a misnomer - A more accurrate title would be pseudozoology. Real zoologists are the ones most capable of discovering and categorizing new kinds of animals - pseudozoologists deal in anecdotal evidence and "conclusive evidence" that is always strangely too vague to see how it was faked, easily disproven as being something else, or conveniently lost. The latter is my personal favorite, since it strikes me as such a typical "teacher, I lost my amazing homework on the way to class because a conspiracy of science bullies didn't want me to get A+++" excuse. |
Jacob Scum
in Cleveland
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 | 02:06 AM
Well said, Dan.
However, i looked at those pictures the first time it was posted, and i fail to see how even a newly formed antler could be that sharp. I suppose it's possible, since what i study most are reptiles and amphibians. |
Dan
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 | 04:18 AM
Newly formed antlers are actually considerably sharp. It's actually a lot of grinding that wears them down. |
Jacob Scum
in Cleveland
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 | 08:01 AM
Got any better photos of that deer so i may be able to make a better comparison? |
Jacob Scum
in cleveland
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 | 08:08 AM
"Muntjac bucks have long pedicles from which relatively small antlers grow. Normally a single backward curved antler up to 10 cm in length and terminating in a small hook..."
-an excerpt from the article posted
Very convincing evidence, especially since i mentioned the hook in a previous post.
It does still look very crustaceon-like to me though. It's the barbs that are pointing me in that direction. Though, the broken base resembles bone far more than it does the innards of a crustaceon. |
Rica
in Florida
|
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 | 01:28 AM
After having looked at the pictures I was trying to figure out what was wrong with them. It hit me that there is no blood. Either that deer died of natural causes and was then cut apart and strewn about, or it is completly fake to begin with. My father and brother are both hunters (along with most of the rest of my family) and I have ssen enough to know that had that animal been attacked it would be covered in blood, as would much of it's surroudings. I'm not automatically saying that I don't believe in Nessie, but I doubt that is a tooth (it looks like a small antler) and I doubt anything attacked that deer. |
|
Page 9 of 11 pages ‹ First < 7 8 9 10 11 > |
