The Loch Ness Monster- Dinosaur or Elephant?

Do you think the Loch Ness Monster is real?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 51.2%

  • No

    Votes: 20 48.8%
  • Total voters
    41
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you on many points, but still, I choose to believe in SOME creatures. Some stuff is exaggerated, mistaken, or just plain false, but there are true unindentified creatures out there for sure. I have though, like you, been annoyed and thought that some of these people just aren't even making that much of an effort to prove a creature's existence or to find it. I mean, sometimes I just feel like I could go over there and tell them how they could easily find whatever they're looking for(if I belive it's real). People just go and look for evidence for a day or two looking for evidence just so they can fit footage onto a one-hour program and get paid and then they'll just give up. I feel like going and actually trying to find evidence and keep doing what I can until I find some evidence already.
 
Do you really doubt that there haven't been many people with the same mindset who haven't actually put considerable effort looking? People have already spent years of their lives, and some decades towards such efforts. There are multiple groups of people who go out often looking for bigfoot ofter, and have cameras set up in places it's alleged to have been. I'd be VERY surprised if much of loch ness didn't have high-quality cameras watching much of the waters there these days.

Also, why is the default position the creature exists until it can be dis-proven? With that mindset it's almost impossible to rule things out. How long of no good evidence does it take to give up the search? You have to start a search with GOOD evidence there is a chance of something existing, without an equally or better counter-explanation. I get that the pre-existing evidence for the loch ness monster seems reasonable enough to give it cause for some serious thought. And it kinda does to an extent, but that serious research has been done. Nothing worthwhile has been found.

I know it's exciting to think about the possibilities of those kind of things being real and out for us to find, and I WANTED to believe that stuff and held onto any evidence those documentaries had as best as I could... But in the end I had to think: Is it better to believe in something that could be really awesome, or is it better to find out what's true?
 
Porygon said:
Not to mention the Loch Ness picture that started it all:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Lochnessmonster.jpg
Was revealed as a hoax in 1994.
Click to expand...


Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I've been very busy. That was not what started it, a couple who were driving around Loch Ness claimed to have seen "the closest thing to a dragon or prehistoric animal they had ever seen, carrying an animal in its mouth".

Also, there has been a mega-huge sonar scan of the Loch, and there was supposed to be something huge at the bottom. Possibly a huge rock, who knows....
 
Yeah some people theorized that there was some unusual large animal that died and its carcus is at the bottom of the lake.
 
I actually think the Loch Ness monster used to exist, but there hasn't been much evidence of it's existence to prove it's real. I hope one day we will actually see the Loch Ness. As well as others.
 
One day the Loch Ness monster will rise from the Loch, grow massive feet and kill us all. It will be able to control all the ocean's molecules and use it to make massive tidal waves, imo.

We will never know what that figure was, there's no point in saying our statements, all we're just saying are probabilities, not facts. Still, I think this is still a pretty funny discussion, I mean a elephant in one of Scotland's lochs? lol. It could be a elephant but the reasons on why a elephant would be in Scotland is funny.
 
Dark Marc said:
One day the Loch Ness monster will rise from the Loch, grow massive feet and kill us all. It will be able to control all the ocean's molecules and use it to make massive tidal waves, imo.

We will never know what that figure was, there's no point in saying our statements, all we're just saying are probabilities, not facts. Still, I think this is still a pretty funny discussion, I mean a elephant in one of Scotland's lochs? lol. It could be a elephant but the reasons on why a elephant would be in Scotland is funny.
Click to expand...
Although an elephant still is a better explanation than a plesiosaur. Since a plesiosaur is both extinct and isn't able to survive in cold waters. Also Loch Ness would be way too small to host a group of Plesiosaurs, not spoken about the lack of fish.
 
Also, another theory to elephants is that traveling circuses let their elephants have fun in the Loch after a show (it may not be exactly the same, but that's a general theory).
 
paddy185 said:
Also, another theory to elephants is that traveling circuses let their elephants have fun in the Loch after a show (it may not be exactly the same, but that's a general theory).
Click to expand...
I doubt that the elephants that you are talking about would actually want to go in a freezing loch compared to what they're normally used to. They would of have to been in the loch that long to take a photo, they can't of been.

Unless it's a downing elephant, maybe there's an elephant body at the bottom. :p
 
i would like to point up that the 1933 hoax is by no means evidence against the existence of the loss ness monster. sightings have been happening for many hundreds of years. 1933 hoax was just first popular sight.

people have seen things like this all over the earth. either they are real, or it is human physicology. people have not been hoaxing for hundreds of years without contact of each other. that is absurd.

always hating of the disc,
hatedisc
 
What is the thing that could not have been hoaxed for hundreds of years that you are referencing? The creatures similar to the loch ness monster that have been seen across the globe? Here's how those situations probably work out:
1. See something strange in the water.
2.Without seeing the full creature, come to some idea of what the creature looks like, based on the limited portion seen/cultural influences.
3. Over the years people find out there have been weird creatures in other parts of the world. They look at a picture or hear stories and go "Yeah, that thing described over there is probably what I've seen too!"

If it weren't for Dinosaur discoveries over the past few centuries I doubt the Loch Ness monster would look like what it does today, it'd probably be in the shape of those classic sea serpents. Whatever happened to those anyway?
 
There's a theory that loch ness was once connected to the ocean, and slowly became fresh water. It gradually became cold too. A pleasiosaur could be it, plus it would have plenty of places to hide. For one... elephant's don't go all the way under water...so someone would have seen an elephant wandering around the lake. Also, they're pretty loud... plus they live in Africa and India.... there's no way it's an elephant.
 
Loch Ness is not big enough to hold a breeding population of plesiosaurs for over 10 thousand years. Wrangel Island was not large enough to sustain mammoths.
 
A population of Plesiosaurs would have to come up for air also. With so much attention put on the lake for decades it would have to have been properly documented by now. It doesn't matter what the quantity of evidence is, if someone can come up with ONE piece of GOOD evidence that's all there needs to be to raise the question appropriately, and I don't believe a piece of good evidence exists yet.
 
Porygon said:
A population of Plesiosaurs would have to come up for air also. With so much attention put on the lake for decades it would have to have been properly documented by now. It doesn't matter what the quantity of evidence is, if someone can come up with ONE piece of GOOD evidence that's all there needs to be to raise the question appropriately, and I don't believe a piece of good evidence exists yet.
Click to expand...

You do realise that Loch Ness is just one of several lochs/(lakes) in a more or less extremely long and deep 'highway' of water.
 
Krucifier said:
You do realise that Loch Ness is just one of several lochs/(lakes) in a more or less extremely long and deep 'highway' of water.
Click to expand...
In order for such animal to reach other waters it has to swim right through a river in the middle of a city. Don't you think people will notice a group of plesiosaurs swimming through their city?
 
Also, here is a statement from Wikipedia: The loch is only about 10,000 years old, dating to the end of the last ice age. Prior to that date, the loch was frozen solid for about 20,000 years.

So, maybe it is just a big trick. Maybe not.
 
paddy185 said:
Also, here is a statement from Wikipedia: The loch is only about 10,000 years old, dating to the end of the last ice age. Prior to that date, the loch was frozen solid for about 20,000 years.

So, maybe it is just a big trick. Maybe not.
Click to expand...
No, this information is true. The water the loch are the remains of a glacier (although believers claim the Loch Ness monster later found a way to enter the loch).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top