This is an archive of past discussions about Loch Ness Monster. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the Evidence/Evidence For section, we read the following: "There has also been a little published photograph of 2 bodies." These would be human bodies, would they? Doesn't this cry out for amplification? Hi There05:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's very hard to believe, because finding even ONE plesiosaur body would not only solve the "mystery" of the Loch, but would be very possibly the most incredible and unexpected zoological find in all recorded history - as it would be, essentially, finding the recently-deceased body of a dinosaur. If it is true that there is a picture of a plesiosaur carcass or two or even a basking shark ; ) - and you will forgive me if I am highly skeptical - then the article should make this perfectly clear, which it isn't, and needs to give a specific reference for this claim, and, hopefully and helpfully, a link to the picture, along with an explanation as to why such a picture would be "little-published". Hi There00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the above comment was written nearly 3 weeks ago and neither amplification nor sources have been forthcoming, so I am just going to delete the sentence with the astounding claim. Hi There14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi There, it is from Henry Bauer's site. He wrote a book called The Enigma at Loch Ness. He has a few pdfs that tell about the monster and inclueds the shot, as well as the enhancement of the Dinsdale Film. He says that the shadow in the film is really a wake, but that there may be something in front of the object causeing it too, possibly a head. BTW, Tim Dinsdale did see a black anaconda-like head as told in a Discovery Channel TV show. Some say that Dinsdale believed that Nessie is a plesiosaur, but Beckjord claims there is evidence that he thinks she travels through wormholes LOL! Don't ever listen to beckjord. Frankyboy523:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What an excellent site! where's it been all my life? Personally speaking, I'm not convinced by the two-bodies photo (and we can't use it without Rines's permission), but otherwise we really should use this site to improve our article. Beware of copyright and the dreaded POV though... Totnesmartin12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
When I change the contrast and the brightness of the "Head and Neck" photo, I see and eye on its head. In the two body photo, while it may not be very convincing, I saw two other suspicious things. I saw a plesiosaur like head (blackish with teeth) as well as a head similar to the head in the "Head and Neck" photo beside it!!! Frankyboy523:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good thing to know (what the article used to say)
"Keeping true science in mind, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Exactly. There has been no evidence that Nessie doesn't exist and the lack of evidence cannot be counted as evidence it doesent exist. In the fake mockumentary Incident at Loch Ness the "cryptozoologist" Michael Karnow (he "dies" later on by the ship being hit by Nessie!) he said that: (Skeptics) are telling me show us the evidence! But I'm trying to say, show us the non-evidence!Who reverted it??? Frankyboy500:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I will assume that you do know that one of the elementary principles of formal logic is the impossibility of proving a negative and that, therefore, there can not be evidence that the Loch Ness Monster, or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter, does not exist. Hi There00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, someone edited that out? I added it originally. I was under the impression that, as a scientist, I knew what I was talking about. However perhaps I can still add what I would hope to be a few pearls of wisdom. While I admit that the scientific community cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy, we can still assign a likelihood to that existence. Since science must begin with observation of some kind, and I have yet to hear of someone actually reporting an encounter with the tooth fairy (maybe I'm reading the wrong journals), we would tend to label claims of its existence (until stronger evidence turns up, like an out-of-focus photograph taken from 100 yards or some tooth fairy pelts or droppings to analyze) as spurious at best. I imagine that mention of the tooth fairy was an extreme example designed to discredit arguments that the Loch Ness 'Monster' may be real. In any case people vest too much in Nessie's out-of-focus photographs. Photographic evidence is, sad to say, subjective. Look for the objective. Objectice evidence of strange happenings in Loch Ness include acoustic data, most notably acoustic monitoring and sonar records. Unfortunately many who involve themselves in this sort of debate never review all of the facts before they join battle. Fringe elements that claim there is a plesiosaur in Loch Ness do not help matters but instead turn the entire argument into a laughable fiasco (I hate that word but nothing describes it better). Because evidence of large, unidentified animals in Ness has been reproduced by experts in various fields many times using different instrumentation, we are simply required to soldier on and continue looking until we can look no more. The flak against merely looking is what I find to be most irksome about all of this business - I'm here defending our responsibilities as scientists. Why do skeptics have a vested interest in coming here to bash the simple possibility of something unique beyond experience afoot? As innocuous as it seems, it is the seed of ignorance. We cannot close our eyes to the workings of the natural world simply because what we find appears to be beyond momentary understanding. Modern science exults over the corpses of upturned paradigms.
Absence of evidence can never be absolute. For instance, if someone says that Loch Ness doesn't have enough fish to support a plesiosaur, then that merely says "Nessie isn't a plesiosaur", not "there is no Nessie". (personally i'm against the plesiosaur theory on grounds of plesiosaur anatomy not matching nessie descriptions, but that's another kettle of fish). Totnesmartin19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This applies to many other mysteries such as Bigfoot, The Hindenburg being sabotaged and many more. I can defend the plesiosaur theory and even the recent one about the anatomy by saying that there is no proof that it is specifically a muraenosaurus. It may be a plesiosaur of a completely new species that has stronger neck muscles. Also, the fish supply is said to be at least nine times more that originally thought. Frankyboy523:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
if it's possibly a plesiosaur that's evolved an uprightable (is that a word?) neck, then why not say it's (eg) a long necked seal - which would set aside lots of arguments about plesiosaurs. Totnesmartin18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I added this information onto LZ 129 Hindenburg in the section about the sabotage theory (which I believe) but somebody removed it and said that it is oirginal research. I think that's why it got removed. Frankyboy501:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Very funny LOL! But I meant to say that I added something like this to the article (LZ 129 Hindenburg):
However, keeping true science in mind, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", which means there is no evidence that the Hindenburg wasn't sabotaged. Frankyboy502:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The available evidence does not suggest sabatoge of the LZ-129, nor does it suggest there is a plesiosaur in Loch Ness. Philosophically, that Dick Cheney quote might be true, but then it's arguably true for all situations, and has no real practical value. Scientifically speaking, you can only go with what you have. If you have an alternate hyphothesis, but no evidence to support it, it's off the table until such evidence, if any, comes to the surface (how's that for an apt metaphor?) Wahkeenah03:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does for the D-LZ129 (that's the correct way to spell it) being sabotaged. Read the part about rigger Hans Freund and Helmut Lau in the Sabotage theory section. Frankyboy504:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. However, those who examined the evidence concluded it was not sabotage. Maybe it was, but we'll likely never know for sure. It doesn't compare well with Nessie, since it only happened once, whereas Nessie has supposedly been around for hundreds of years without anything resembling a definitive sighting. Wahkeenah05:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
its true
I think that the legend or belief of the monster in the lake is true. there is a lot of proof that is not phony and if scientists took a closer look they could find it.
I found out that there are quite a few people in the forums of Cryptozoology.com that believe Nessie is a Tanystropheus. I don't find this likely because tanny had legs, not flippers as nessie is alleged to have. But should there be something about the other theories?
That after all these centuries, it has never been found. The coelecanth, a fish much smaller than this critter is supposed to be, was found in the middle of the freakin' ocean. This is only a lake, and they've never found one of these guys yet. Logic tells me it doesn't exist. Wahkeenah16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Does that creature fit the supposed evidence or observations in both cases? Is the creature notably elusive? Could they be cousins? Wahkeenah18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. The whole tany thing is pretty spurious anyway - the genus became extinct in the Triassic period. I'm not aware of either lake monster having such a long, thin neck. Totnesmartin18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
True. There haven't been many sightings by trained observers expecting to see something, so there's a lot of vagueness and imprecision. Totnesmartin19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Boat wakes
(split from tanystropheus)
Recently I saw a TV show someplace where they demonstrated that what might looks like a set of "humps" in a single still photo can actually be simulated by the rippling action from a motorboat's wake. Wahkeenah20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't get mentioned a lot, but it's a good point. Loch Ness is long and thin, with (roughly) parallel sides. When a boat goes through, the waves spread out, and bounce back to create strange waves - and the boat is long gone! This is why we have to be careful about reports of sightings, and check carefully. Totnesmartin20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. And it's one of the reasons that individual photos and films have to looked upon with skepticism. You never know. Recently they caught the giant squid live on film for the first time ever. But numerous carcasses of the animal had been found in the past. You would think, with the hundreds of years since Nessie was first seen, that they would have a few bodies, unless this thing is immortal (like its legend). Wahkeenah21:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
there are many comparisons with marine life that are not really looked at much. Sharks sink when they die, and so are hardly ever washed up. Some sharks and whales migrate to a certain area and then never eat when there. I have hardly ever seen these arguments used in relation to lake monsters, just lots of stuff about what species of plesiosaur it is. Sorry, that's a bit rantish...Totnesmartin22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What if some 'boat-wakes' can also be caused by the monster? In the 1990s somebody photographed a wake with no boats nearby. The AAS got a v-shaped wake on film in 2001. The small picture they shown (see under the plesiosaur theory in the article) shows that it was as if something was in front of the wake and was just underwater. What if Nessie is following behind you in your boat's wake? It could happen....... Frankyboy523:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember the loch is a mile wide so a boat that's long gone really IS long gone. However, yes a monster could cause a wake - but we can't assume that a wake is evidence of a monster.Totnesmartin23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no evidence some wakes aren't caused by the monster, keep true science in mind guys. Remember that although there is no evidence that Nessie exists there is no evidence that it doesn't exist. Lakes are dead calm when most sightings are reported. While it's true that boat wakes could last longer on calm days there is no evidence that it can't be a monster's wake. BTW, you need an NPOV to solve the mystery, just like Adrian Shine, who is a "skeptic" but is still looking for the monster because he believes that a NPOV is the only way to solve the mystery once and for all. Frankyboy504:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Logic and reason enter into science. If you keep looking for something and don't find it, there are only a couple of possibilities: (1) it is somehow beyond your detection capabilities, or (2) it doesn't exist. The more you search for something and still continue to come up empty, the more you're inclined toward option (2). People used to think there was such a thing as "the ether", also. Wahkeenah05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"there is no evidence some wakes aren't caused by the monster" - what? So every wake is caused by the monster? Here's some stuff about wakes: [2] -
However, some sightings tell of a wake that dives in, indicating something that is not a boat. The wake also has a beginning to it, although it can't be seen on the surface. The wake even moves. One sighting seen by 26 people in a bar told of a wake that moved and dove and appeared again for about 8-12 minutes. Frankyboy516:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
People almost invariably see these wakes, whether caused by boats or whatever, as waves breaking on the shore of the loch. By the time they reach the shore they have crossed half/three-quarters of the mile-wide loch and are travelling almost parallel to the shore. They are only noticeable on a calm day and given the distance they have travelled, it is impossible to infer diving and appearing from them. My experience is that they generally arrive at the shore 5-10 minutes after a large boat has passed by. -- Derek Ross | Talk17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that's an interesting idea and I wouldn't rule it out without a bit of research but my first thoughts are that you wouldn't get much reflection. The shoreline is mostly sandy, pebbly or rocky beach and tends to absorb wakes rather than reflecting them. There isn't that much of the cliff-type shore with deep water that would reflect strongly. However there may be enough. It's certainly something that would bear investigation as a possible cause of monster sightings. -- Derek Ross | Talk19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm basing my assertion on a series of photographs I saw once. The wake from a boat was photographed spreading out, then reflecting back, then meeting its oppsite number in the centre and creating hump-like waves. Without seeing those photos, the concept would never have occurred to me. Totnesmartin19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And that TV show, on Discovery or wherever it was, showed that it could happen, and was presumably repeatable. I'd like to know how it is that people have no trouble finding whales in the ocean, yet can't find a large creature (and there would have to be at least two of them, right?) in this relatively small body of water. It just doesn't add up. But it does sell lots of T-shirts and such stuff as that. Wahkeenah19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(There's actually a lot of trouble finding whales - some are known only from a couple of washed-up carcasses). There's a lot that doesn't add up about nessie - almost as if there's not enough evidence too support a monster, and too much to dismiss it entirely; which is why these arguments have been going round and round for the last 70-odd years.Totnesmartin20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The Loch and the Azure Main
Loch Ness is not that small, it's the deepest lake in all of Britain. Although some doubt plesiosaurs to live there just because Loch Ness has only existed since the last Ice Age , remember: anything is possible. There is some evidence that Loch Ness was once connected to the sea(see the section of the plesiosaur theory about the AAS disovering two seashells). Frankyboy505:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
fossil evidence from the loch floor simply shows that the loch was part of the sea milions of years ago. But then, Britain was a cluster of coral reefs surrounded by tropical seas during the mesozoic period. (And you could still get change from a shilling.) Totnesmartin11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a good quote! who is it? And yes, that's when Britain was born, although it still had a few changes to go in the following 150 million years.Totnesmartin20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It's also connected to the sea by the Caledonian canal, of which it forms a part, but the river is fairly shallow and the canal is only deep enough for fishing-trawler-sized vessels. Fish can come up it, salmon, sturgeon and the like, without being noticed. But something the size of a small whale is going to have to go through the canal's lock system if it wants to get from the sea to the loch and it won't do that without attracting attention. -- Derek Ross | Talk21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Assertion, discussion and evidence
(split from Boat Wakes)
My theory is that Nessie comes and goes via wormholes, like the UFO's, bigfoot, and victims of the Bermuda Triangle do. And, apparently, odd socks in the washing machine. Wahkeenah20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the way that I look at it the monster isn't real but the monster sightings are. That way you only have to explain how people see what they think is the monster rather than having to explain how a monster could exist. The former is much easier than the latter. Mirages, wakes, etc. really do exist on the Loch. Large animals don't. -- Derek Ross | Talk21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought Wahkeenah was a skeptic!!!!!! Why is he talking about the paranormal theory now? He is like Jon-Erik Beckjord, the controversial Bigfoot researcher. He got banned for adding links to Wikipedia as well as agressively defending his theory in forums!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The person working in the bar at the time of the sighting said that the wake zig-zagged and disappeared, and then reappeared somewhere else.
In another sighting a fisherman saw a disturbance and suddenly an animal with a long neck and "a face like a black labrador dog". He even rubbed his eyes and still saw the creature. The creature then dove and a hump appeared. Frankyboy501:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
frankyboy, Wahkeenah is nowhere near Beckjord. I asked him to defend his assertions and he did, in a rational manner. i can't really see beckjord doing that. Talk nice to people and if they talk nice back, you can deal with them. if you want to ask Wahkeenah about his UFO or wormhole ideas, ask him, rather than shouting. Totnesmartin13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping both frankyboy and I are merely trying to be funny. However, maybe I should read about this Beckjord guy. First, I'll have to see how to pronounce it. Wahkeenah13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Am I behind the curve, or what? He thought of this years before I did. Now, if he comes out with a theory for perpetual motion, he'll really have some credibility. Meanwhile, I'm guessing it's pronounced "BECK-jord". Wahkeenah13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ban TV Show Loch Ness Monster: Search for the Truth as well as webcam and fan club (This is 100% serious)
(split from Assertion, discussion and evidence)The sightings are from a show called Loch Ness Monster: Search for the Truth, which aired on Animal Planet(in my country) recently. It documents GUST's search for the monster. The don't get to find it but had a strange sonar contact over night. Beware: some will find some of it's content, well, "bad" and shouldn't watch it. I mean, many Christian groups will definitely go against this documentary if they see it.Frankyboy505:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly a good enough reason to ban it. Luckily, they don't watch science programs on TV, since they disagree with them. Wahkeenah06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You know why they will go against the documentary? It's on BBC, the Nessie on the Net Webcam site, The Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, and GUST's site. Just guess what it is that's really bad. It's in the beginning of the TV show. Definitely not a recommended documentary for everyone, especially Christians.
Wahkeenah, please stop joking around. I'm being 100% serious. I'll repeat that: 100% serious. Go to BBC, the Nessie on the Net Webcam site, The Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, and GUST's site! It's a highlight on the front page of the webcam and the fan club site. It something to do with a bad person(s maybe more than one?) (won't tell you what they are) doing something to the loch, as well as Nessie. Not physically, but another way. Don't just ban the show, but also the webcam, the fan club as well as BBC's articles about those people, whatever they are. Ban the sites and shows! Frankyboy505:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to go to some spam-laden site. Tell me what, precisely, Christians would have a problem with, beyond their usual complaints about evolution theories? Wahkeenah06:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought the Christian Mujahaddin actually liked Nessie! On Answers in Genesis, there's a big speil about how dinosaurs didn't really die out and that there's plenty of evidence of them being still around - one plank of this illuminating argument is the Loch Ness Monster!--Oscar Bravo08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I remember reading a kid's book on the monster and it also told of other mysteries in Loch Ness. Some say that there is a ghost ship in the loch that appears every few decades. I think every twenty years but I could be wrong. They say it should have appeared in 1982.
They also said that a man on a mountain near Loch Ness was mad and said that if he were telling the truth, that his footprints would stay and not wash away, or get dug away and would always reappear. No citations but that kid's book, it's non-fictional so it's reliable. Frankyboy523:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the ghost ship is the residence of the monster, and hence the critter only shows up once in awhile... kind of like the Brigadoon story, also set in Scotland. I wonder if the monster can sing and dance like Gene Kelly or Van Johnson? Wahkeenah00:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
"it's non-fictional so it's reliable" - sadly, in books about mysteries, this isn't always true. Lots of long-disproved crap gets recycled book in book out, and trying to get to the truth is a difficult process that doesn't always make for a "good" (sellable) book. This is because most publishers, and many writers, are more concerned about what will sell (so they can eat, pay the rent etc) than with being accurate. The general public likes a mystery and is happy to buy a book about mysteries simply as entertainment. Because of all this, the number of really good books in this area is actually very small. too small if you ask me. Oh, there I go again...! Totnesmartin11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what ol' Erich had to say about Loch Ness? Maybe Nessie is an "ancient astronaut"? (speaking of which, see next section). Wahkeenah13:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's a little scary that someone would think that finding a book in a school library ensures its credibility. I recall our school library had the Dick and Jane series. It was a pack of lies. It was also subversive. "See puff go up" was a hidden message about pot-smoking. Wahkeenah16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It was in the non-fiction section of the library. There really are rumors of ghost ships in Loch Ness and that it has a halo on it. But there is very little info on the web. Frankyboy508:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The word "nautical" means "pertaining to sailing". The word "astronaut", for example, literally means "star sailor". Wahkeenah13:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sightings
I'm putting in some sighting reports, to show how the modern view of nessie has come about. I just realised that the article seems to be edited by people who accept the concept of nessie as a given (whether they believe in it or not), and has become a debate about nessie's nature rather than an overview of the subject. For instance, there is stuff about what kind of plesiosaur it might be, but nothing about why the plesiosaur idea came up in the first place. So some reports of it looking like one are needed. Obviously we can't put every sighting in, that would be ridiculous, but the main good-quality sightings and a couple of recent ones would probably cover it. Totnesmartin13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
looks like the hoax was based on the Spicer and Armstrong sightings I just put up. Even though they aren't especially plesiosaurish... Totnesmartin21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Standing Wave
I read an article in Discover magazine some years ago about Loch Ness and they mentioned that Loch Ness has a standing wave (I think called a seiche or something) in it. I didn't see any mention of this in the article. Titanium Dragon12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There's some links in this discussion page (under "boat wakes"); I will add a bit in the main article when I get time (lots of College deadlines ATM). Totnesmartin16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is now pretty big. I'm going to archive the old stuff on Saturday unless there are any reasonable objections. Totnesmartin21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, I found a glitch with the article when I added the following:
On June 17, 1993 a young mother, Edna MacInnes, and her boyfriend David Mackay, both of Inverness, Scotland, claimed to have watched the Loch Ness monster for 10 minutes. MacInnes, age 25, told BBC Radio 4's Today program that the 40 foot monster swam around, waving its long giraffe-like neck <ref name=Discovery>Discovery Communications, Loch Ness Discovered, 1993</ref> and then vanished into the murky waters of the loch in what was the first major sighting of the year <ref name=strangemag>http://www.strangemag.com/nessie.sightings.html</ref>.
"It was a very light colored brown. You could see it very clearly," Miss MacInnes recalled. The creature was estimated to be a mile away, but appeared huge. Edna MacInnes reportedly ran along the shore in an attempt to keep up with Nessie <ref name=strangemag/>.
"I was scared when the wash from its wake lapped on the shore, but I just kept running behind it. By the time it plunged below the surface I was running as fast as I could go," Miss MacInnes exclaimed. She and her boyfriend ran to get a camera and binoculars from a relative's house nearby and returned to the Loch. Shortly thereafter they had another sighting. This time the creature was only 20 feet from the shore, and David attempted to photograph Nessie. Unfortunately, the resulting photos showed a wake but no monster <ref name=Discovery/> <ref name=strangemag/>.
Later the same evening, James MacIntosh of Inverness was returning from a fishing trip with his son, also named James <ref name=Discovery>. Young James first sighted the unidentified object, telling his father, "Dad, that's not a boat <ref name=strangemag/>."
"I was concentrating on my driving but I looked over the loch and I suddenly saw this brown thing with a neck like a giraffe break the surface. It was an eerie experience. It was swimming quite swiftly away from the shore at the time," recounted the elder MacIntosh <ref name=strangemag/>.
A third sighting was also reported. A woman named Lorraine Davidson large wake about half a mile long in the loch when no boats were seen for miles. She also said that the shape of the wake wasn't like a boat wake either <ref name=Discovery/>.
Then, the article cut off and skipped some part of the Surgeon's Photo section.
First the good news: I was looking for a good, fairly recent case. thanks for putting this in.
Now the bad news: It's a direct cut&paste from Strangemag.com [5] and will have to be rewritten to avoid copyright violation. I'll try to put this right before the Americans wake up. Totnesmartin11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
the new infox caption says: "unsubstantiately claimed to be a hoax by Chris Spurling", while technically true, is a complete hash of a sentence. It doesn't say (to a casual visitor to the article) who Chris Spurling might be, and "unsubstantiatedly" is dreadful. Can anyone out there write a better sentence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
I've changed it to "Which remains controversial", which is about as neutral as possible. This really is too hot to allow it get out of control. We need to agree on a neutral title. Is it possible to make one small section uneditable by new or unregistered users? We need to keep it as it is until we can find a descriptive, neutral standpoint between "Unsubstantiatedly claimed to be a hoax" and "Revealed as fake". If I say that I was the second sniper who killed JFK, some places could claim it was so, or say it was unsubstantiated. That's the problem in saying outright that it is fake. Anyone have a good idea for a compromise? We want a short phrase that says "A person living in the area at the time claimed it was fake, however, the original photographer, a reputable surgeon, has never said that it is fake". Chamale03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It has its own section in the article, so we could say "although claimed to be a hoax, it remains controversial (see article)". Totnesmartin13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a citation needed tag in the surgons photo section. According to www.museumofhoaxes.com/nessie.html the otter/bird theory comes from Stewart Campbell writing in the British Journal of Photography in 1984. To put in the source, should this quote the website? Or quote the journal? I personaly woudl want to quote the journal, however since I dont have direct access to the journal, how woudl I honestly know if it is writen there or not? TheHungryTiger15:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Please fix "doesn't exist", first paragraph
There is a short sentence that says "Doesn't exist." below the first paragraph on this page. The statement is a matter of opinion, and should be removed. Unfortunately, the author of the statement has hidden it within some wiki formatting. Can someone better versed in editing Wikipedia please remove this statement?
Unconfirmed? This is pseudoscience pure and simple, as defined by the following from Pseudoscience:
Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on the individual making a claim, not on the critic.
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").
Lack of progress
I'm going to change the status to unsubstantiated, trying to resist using something as inflammatory as "Bogus" or "What a crock". Throughout the history of natural science, whenever someone cannot explain what has been observed, there is reliance on the supernatural or mythology.Orangemarlin18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I know what you mean. I don't think continental drift was ever "pseudoscience". But I may not get the drift of your sentence, so to speak!Orangemarlin18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Oh yes, see the article. For example, "For their part, the geologists ignored Wegener's copious body of evidence, allowing their adherence to a theory to override the actual data, when the scientific method would seem to demand the reverse approach - a common obstacle to the advancement of knowledge (see paradigm shift and belief perseverance)." and "even in 1977 a textbook could write the relatively weak: "a poll of geologists now would probably show a substantial majority who favor the idea of drift" and devote a section to a serious consideration of the objections to the theory (Davis, 1977)."
If we were discussing the subject any time before the late 1960s, continental drift would have been considered utter pseudoscience. It is now accepted as being real. I do not personally place the LNM in the same category, but I wanted to caution you against too black-and-white a view of such matters. --Guinnog18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please read the definition of Pseudoscience above. Continental drift may have been considered an unproven hypothesis, but it was being studied by reasonable people, submitted to peer-reviewed journals, and numerous scientists were studying how continents moved. There were hypotheses about the movement of land masses, as a result of tons of data from palentological to geologic. The method of how it happened was under study. And there were a number of dead ends, which is true of all sciences. Other than media-centric attempts to find this myth, not a single reasonable scientist is involved. Without some sort of proof, this is merely a myth, without any underlying science to it. Orangemarlin23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I already did. While I agree with you in theory, unfortunately in real life, scientists can be stubborn, inflexible and unreasonable, like all human beings. While I am not saying for a moment that the LNM is a modern example of this as I personally don't think it exists, I would just caution you against seeing things in such black and white terms. Sometimes the majority for years and years turns out to be wrong in the end. --Guinnog04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
NPOV--Plesiosaur theory
This is pseudoscience. Searching for a dinosaur explanation for the Loch Ness Myth is not real science. The theory that this myth is a dinosaur has been falsified so many times, that the search is fruitless. This section gives undue weight WP:Undue weight to the few searches for this myth as opposed to the huge number of paleontologists who either don't care, don't believe, or wouldn't ruin their reputation by participating. Orangemarlin18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If I may say so, the above is the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in Nessie, that cryptozoology is psuedoscience. But before anyone gets out of shape, here's why I say that...
First, I share the opinion that Nessie does not exist, so I agree wholeheartedly with Orangemarlin. The reason for it is one very simple fact: out of all the years of exploring the loch, out of all the years looking through cameras, operating sonar, standing cold on a beach just plain hoping one of those things would pop up, NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, has ever thought that the one sure way to establish the existance of the thing was something NOBODY ever thought of doing...and that is getting hold of a proven-to-catch-and-kill-whales drift net and dropping it in the loch. Such a net would settle the argument within 24 hours, and if Nessie is caught alive...well, the people on the beach would do what many nature show hosts have done with other animals over the years: put a camera in its face, tie a collar on its neck, put a tag in its ear, and paint a number on its butt, then let the thing go!
Second, as to cryptozoology being psuedoscience, I have to disagree. Reports of hidden animals have to be investigated properly, and if they don't exist, then the people who believe in them will just have to swallow their pride and move on. Mainstream science will not make a move to look for such an animal, but they don't get it that at one time the gorilla, the okapi, the komodo dragon, and a bunch of others were considered cryptids. The latest one to go from cryptid to actual is the ivory billed woodpecker, declared extinct some thirty years ago. It's flying about in Arkansas. Carajou23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Cryptozoology is definitely pseudoscience, and that's insulting pseudoscience everywhere. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker, first of all is still extinct, since there are no confirmed sightings, and second is not a cryptid--just a presumed extinct animal, that was once known. Bigfoot or the Loch Ness hallucination have never been shown to exist by either fossils or by actual evidence. Those qualify as cryptids. Orangemarlin23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The ivorybill has been confirmed again just two weeks ago. And the first part of the scientific method is observation...they got to see it in action. Nessie is something made up, and I'm still demanding someone drop the net in the loch. Bigfoot on the other hand has actual physical evidence, but this evidence only indicates the presence of an unknown primate (hair and scat samples only), plus it has fossil evidence in gigantopithicus blacki. Yes, I would like to see one caught, killed, stuffed, mounted, or maybe caught and tagged and released with a number painted on its butt. But don't write off something just yet because we don't have the thing on a slab. Carajou01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as the plesiosaur theory goes, that is part of the history of the Loch Ness Monster. The long-necked seal theory is part of the history; the giant worm; the giant eel; the gas-filled log bobbing up from the bottom...all of these are theories that have been postulated over the years. It does not matter a whit which side of the Nessie fence you're on; both sides of the monster's history deserve to be placed on this page. Carajou21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT evidence for several reasons: 1) Nobody on that ship thought to save the carcasss; it was tossed overboard due to the stench; 2) Nobody on that ship thought to save a piece of that carcass to give to their scientist buddies, due to stench. 3) the pattern of decay and shape of the carcass itself only points to one animal: the basking shark. It rots in such a way as to resemble a sea monster. Case closed. Carajou08:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be real or not. The fishermen rejected the shhark theory because the vertebra are too long for a shark. Some thought it was a shark because they took tissue samples and said it was 96% similar to that of shark protein. There is a possibility that Nessie is a distant relative of the plesiosaurs, but has very different neck bones that let it stick its head out!
Anyway, never make automatic assumptions in science, that's very bad science. They assumed that the Green-winged Teal was conspecific with the Common Teal because of appearance but now they say they are more related to the Speckled Teal than to each other. Some recent studies of the Green Peafowl suggest that either there is more than three subspecies, or that there are up to six distinct species. Same thing is with the plesiosaur because they assumed that the plesiosaur could stick its head out like a swan. Frankyboy514:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right...NEVER MAKE ASSUMPTIONS IN SCIENCE. That includes turning smelly carcasses into sea monsters when all you have of the smelly carcass is a cheap photgraph. You don't have the body on a slab; you don't have a tissue sample; and yet you sit there and demand that we should accept this picture and only this picture as that of a sea monster because you think so. To quote you again, Frankyboy, that's very bad science. Carajou01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocking request
Does anyone object if I semi-protect this article? personally I'm fed up with the continuous petty vandalism, but i won't block unless someone else concurs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
If I may make a suggestion as to the formatting of the article, arrange it this way:
Subject heading (introduce the article)
Contents
Description (this is the claimed description of the animal, as given in the sightings)
Early History (with subheadings of St Columba and sightings until 1900 or so)
Sightings up until present (incidents like Surgeon's photo can be briefly discussed here, with more detail below)
Photographic evidence (with subheadings of first photo, Surgeon's photo, others, etc. This can include reasons why photos have been debunked...if possible include the photos.)
Film evidence (subheadings of Dinsdale's film, etc)
Sonar evidence (subheadings of 1988 expedition, others)
Theories as to the type of animal claimed to be.
Scientific evidence (include that which supports it as well as that which refutes it; this can include serious research by pro and con alike)
I know where to get the old classic pics, including the first one, and the uncropped Surgeon's photo. Carajou07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Two points
Where, if anywhere is it referred to as "Ness" as opposed to "Nessie" etc?
Secondly, although I realise the likes of Loren Coleman persist in this usage, and Scots are starting to pronounce it "lock", lochs are not called "lakes" by Scots (with two exceptions), and it is even considered somewhat offensive to call them such. --MacRusgail15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
1. Is what referrred to as Ness/Nessie? I'm not sure what you mean here.
2. The article does not call it a lake. the word lake is only used to describe the loch once, in the intro, simply to say what loch means (for the benefit of non-Scottish readers). "Lake monster" is the standard name for this type of creature (whether real or not) throughout the world. Totnesmartin19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of "loch" (which has a freshwater and saltwater meaning) can be found at the relevant article. If you refer to "loch Ness" as a lake in Scotland, you will often receive no thanks from a Scot - we have only two lakes in Scotland - Lake of Menteith and Lake of the Hirsel.--MacRusgail18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has made the obvious connection amongst the various strange phenomena in this world. Nessie, Champie, Bigfoot, the Yeti, et al, are seldom seen because they just drop in now and then. They use the earth as a playground for awhile, then get picked up again by the mother ship and return to a hidden destination somewhere within the Bermuda Triangle. I call it the Unified Phenomena Theory. Oh, and that's where all the mismatched pairs of shoes and socks go, too. :) Wahkeenah12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Wahkeenah is back. I've noticed that paranormal explanations are often given in cryptozoological literature, but seem to be absent from WP articles. It's a recurring theme but nobody here mentions it. Totnesmartin13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No...Wahkeenah does have a point. I've seen it myself, and it's one of those new planets found by Hubble. It's called the planet of the missing left sock, where all missing left socks go. Didn't you see that Ren and Stimpy episode? Carajou19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Gray photo
File:Graypicture.jpgHugh Gray's 1933 image, and the retouched version below, showing the image of a dog.
Found both versions of this photograph on this page [6], but there are two things I don't know about it. Is the dog in the original pic, which was altered later, or is it the other way around? And what is the correct copyright tag for this? As far as Gray's history is concerned, at the time this photo was taken, Gray owned a labrador retriever. Carajou08:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what a lot of believers say, but if you look at the water around the object, it's not being disturbed at all. I see something in this image making a commotion, but nothing's happening to the water. And this was 1933. There was a lot of hoaxers in the early 1930s. There was a man who placed hippo footprints around the loch until he was found out; there was the pranksters involved with the Surgeon's photo; Gray himself owned a dog that may be part of this photo; other classic photos involved the use of double-negatives, plastic bags, and outright tampering of the negatives. You've got to get serious here. There is nothing...NOTHING...at all regarding the existance of the Loch Ness Monster that constitutes more than these silly photographs. There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE; no bones, no tracks, no teeth, nothing. And if you click on the above website, you'll read an account done by the BBC in which witnesses litteraly made a monster out of a fencepost. You want to get serious about it, you want this thing to be real, then do what I've been demanding the believers should be doing, and that is DROP A NET AND CATCH IT. If it's a bonafide, live animal, it could be caught. Carajou18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Today, I sent a letter to Dr. Adrian Shine, director of the Loch Ness Project, proposing that a net be dropped into the loch, or the bottom searched for skeletal remains. Any objections? Carajou19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking for evidence of Nessie with a net is about as sane as searching for rainbows with a shovel. No one sensible doubts that rainbows exist but you won't find any physical evidence for them that can be held in the shovel. In fact "there is nothing...NOTHING...at all" regarding the existence of rainbows that constitutes more than photographs, silly, faked or otherwise. Why is that ? Well, it's because the rainbow is a type of optical illusion which people see when conditions are right; it exists in people's visual fields but it's not real in a material sense. The same is almost certainly true of the Loch Ness monster. -- Derek Ross | Talk19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I've been saying for years about this animal. The net is for those who want to believe in the thing, so I'm demanding that they toss one in and go fishing. Carajou22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Rainbows exist. But they are collections of refracted light, not solid objects. Come to think of it, that pretty well describes Nessie. Wahkeenah01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is why this article on the Loch Ness Monster has to be re-written to include evidence and documentation that says it's a fake. That includes the analysis of all the photos, which is about the only "evidence" believers in this thing have. Carajou09:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I need a correct licence for this photo. It was made by a private individual (Hugh Gray) in 1933 while in Scotland. The drop-down menu does not have a listing for fair use of historic photos...only templates, so what was done so far is useless. Carajou09:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Scientists reject plesiosaurs in the loch because plesiosaurs had neck vertebre that prevented them from looking like swans? That was the gist of the single, stand-alone sentence in the "plesiosaur theory" section, and reading it as a part of the rest of the block made no sense at all. For those who need a better reason why it was removed, the plesiosaur theory has to be explained not just why the things are not alive any more, but explained in relation to the loch itself. Explaining a cold-blooded reptile hunting fish in a cold, peat-stained lake where it couldn't see a flipper in front of its face constitutes a valid article entry. Having neck vertebre so this ugly duckling can't look like a swan? What does that have to do with a plesiosaur in the loch? Come on, people...you got to get better in the writing than that! Carajou09:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Mamenchisaurus Rising, with the anti-swan vertebre things sticking out of its neck bones.Field Museum, 2005
Try this webpage [7] featuring various drawings made by professionals of fossilized plesiosaurs in situ. The neck vertebre in question has to have what appear to be long, finger-like bones jutting towards the rear, as in mamenchisaurus. This structure physically prevents the animal from turning it's neck more than 15 degrees. And try clicking on the "images" part of Google or Yahoo, type in 'plesiosaur' and see actual fossilized remains. They don't have the structure in their necks that would stop them from looking like swans. And if you click on swans here, you will see a picture of black swans, one of which refuses to hold it's head and neck in swan fashion. This is not meant to be a cut-down of the original writer; it is meant to ensure that this article is well written and factually accurate. Carajou09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
John Banner is a valid entry for this article, as he was an alleged witness to a Nessie sighting. "I see nothing...NUUHHHTHING!!" was his reply! Carajou01:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was the image of Col. Klink naked in the bathtub...fat sergeants are prone to pop in unannounced in their c.o.'s bathrooms! Carajou21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed layout
Ok, I changed the overall structure of the page, but without much change in the writing itself. Since this article was about the Loch Ness Monster, the first thing that had to be approached was the animal itself; i.e. what it was like, what it looks like, what it eats, drinks, or spits up....and that description had to be first (ok...not the spits-up part!). Then followed by the history of the sightings, the expeditions, the photos, etc. It could use some polishing, but the flow of thought should be there, and that should come first.
I also felt a big change was needed in the lead paragraph. It supposed to introduce the subject to the reader, but the reader doesn't need to see the word "loch" three times in the same sentence..."The loch ness monster inhabits loch ness the largest loch in Britain..."
