Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Archive 1

message: I had found this to be a pretty good balanced article to read and I would like to see more dyanmic and constructive argument that is laid out for and against the existence of Nessie Bernie 01:48 AM, 28th July 2006 (UTC)
Why ?  Even if Nessie turned out to be real it still wouldn't be paranormal. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: balance

message: Should it be removed? It could be misleading, even though the article says it's fake.a thing 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, it's the Loch Ness Monster.  By most reasonable yardsticks, all photographs are fakes.  But I think it's widely known enough for us to not worry about this.  It's an interesting point that you raise though.  Could we change the caption to note that it's a fake, or alter "famous" to "infamous" to imply that?  --Plumbago 09:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The photo at the top

message: What, nothing about Nessiteras Rhombopteryx????????????
:Added. Andy G 18:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: But failed to note that it's an anagram of monster hoax by Sir Peter S
Not sure I see any benefit of the link to http://www.lochness.co.uk/nessie2000/netwarning.html as the addition of Nessiteras Rhombopteryx was retrospective ... --VampWillow 18:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: ...Although I suppose a name could have been added to a list that the earlier legislation referred to. I guess that was your pont, sorry. I still doubt whether it is really on any oficial list. Andy G 18:23, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Nessiteras Rhombopteryx''

message: (moved from previous section)
Most of this article's edit history as been lost because of a "cut'n'paste" move from "Loch Ness monster" in July 2003.  Can anyone put it back together again ? -- Derek Ross 01:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit history

message: I thought the peter scott flipper was proved to be false. Can't remember the exact details but I'm sure I read something about somebody discovering something about the photograph
: The "flipper photo" has very heavily retouched from the original photograph.  The original photo looks nothing like the retouched one, and doesn't show a flipper.  I added a little bit about it, plus some links.  At the "Museum of Hoaxes" external link, you can see the original unretouched photo, and compare.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted Bubba73!  I was under the impression that the photo was less, well, "retouched", but that it was actually a photograph of a model of the monster which had sunk during a film shoot.  Of course, it might be both, but the retouching story is pretty damning.  I particularly liked the way that NASA were (mis)used by the "monster hunters" to give a veneer of respectability to their efforts.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also interesting is the fact that the photo was taken more than 30 years ago, and image enhancement software and hardware has improved, yet it can't get anything looking like a flipper out of the original image.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can still see a flipper(the "bone" at least) in the original shot though it's very faint. The model from The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes cannot explain sonar movements. Also, there is a picture of what seems to be a plesiosaur and I can even see the head, eye, and mouth of it.Frankyboy5 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flipper Photo

message: This artile uses the words loch/lake interchangably throughout and it is quite disconcerting to read. I'm going to change all occurrances to loch - remember, there is only one lake in Scotland. --Colin Angus Mackay 06:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loch / Lake 

message: Isn't it true that the Plesiosaur was an air-breathing reptile and not amphibious? That being said, it's really amusing to continue reading the theory that the Loch Ness Monster might be a surviving descendent of this species, which would require it to breathe from the surface of the Loch at least as many times any other existing water-based air-breathing mammal or reptile (i.e. Hippos, Crocodiles, Manatees, Whales, Seals).
 --Bourbon King 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)Bourbonking--Bourbon King 5 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
: That's assuming it's in the loch at all times. And what about those underwater caves they just found? Wouldn't that be perfect for a thirty-seventy foot reptile to hide? Where as it may not be plesiosaur it most certainly needs air, other wise there would be no reason to surface. Or perhaps it goes on land for food. Is it possible that this thing is a scavenger? Also FYI in the scientific comunity plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles (mosasaur etc.) aren't considered dinosaurs. And how about that tooth they found stuck into that deer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.110 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 June 2006
It could stick up only a tiny part of it's head and breath. The "tooth" was later identified to be an antler of a deer. They found there is at least 27 tonnes of fish compared to the estimate of 3 tonnes.Frankyboy5 04:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Faulty Dinosaur (Plesiosaur) suggestion 

message: As regards the underwater photographs of "Nessie", it'd be nice to include them here as they are quite interesting.  They do show a very distinct rhomboid fin and what appears to be a animal's head atop a long neck.  However, as I understood it, the features photographed bear a rather strong resemblance to a model of "Nessie" that was built, then lost in the Loch, for a Sherlock Holmes film.  Sadly I can't remember where I read all this, but as I recall, the facts were pretty straightforward and eminently checkable (which is more than can be said for much of what's said about "Nessie").  Could anyone help?  --Plumbago 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underwater photographs 

message: I kind of surprised this didn't mention that theory that Nessie is a giant slug, or "great 'orm" as some authors have termed it.
-------
Indeed. Can't recall title or author just now, but he mentions marine Polychaete worms as possible cousins to Nessie. Toxic slime which withers vegetation, leaving a scorched appearance in the track of the Worm when it comes ashore, may account for the "fire-breathing" part of dragon legends. Could the worm have been (or be) a giant marine invertebrate? 141.154.74.71 16:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eels are supposed to make good eatin'. I'd guess Nessie could be a mite tough, though. Wahkeenah 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Worm? 

message: Worm? That's an interesting concept but I have my doubts. I don't think a worm would fit the Bible's description of the Leviathin but we're all entitled to our thoughts. Heres some interesting information. Some people beleive Nessie could be an enormous eel. Eel larva on average are about two inches long. Near the bottom of the ocean they found eel larva two feet long! It's estimated that the adult eels could reech twenty feet long! However the eel can not account for all the sitings. One family saw the beast and said it hard dark grey sking, a long neck and and stubby horns on its head. The authorities said they probably just saw a deer! How could you possibly get the two mixed up!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 June 2006
:Eels are supposed to make good eatin'. I'd guess Nessie could be a mite tough, though. Wahkeenah 02:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eel

message: It is probable that the 'Loch Ness monster', as described within periodicals and other publications, is actually the 'Baird's Beaked Whale'.  As a sort of cultural discovery operation, the creature may be attracted to certain regions in specific ways  --  such as sending someone from Scotland over the Golden Gate Bridge in California (U. S. A.)(as example). Beadtot
:Uh...I don't get it.--Bourbon King 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  magazine/publications and perpetuation of 'monster' designation 

message: 'Regardless of whether anything is actually in the loch, the Loch Ness Monster has some "mythological significance" to the people of the town.'
What town is being referred to here? No specific town is mentioned prior to this point in the article. My educated guess would be Drumnadrochit but this clearly needs to be tidied up by somebody more informed on the topic than myself. IP 20:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent and principal sightings

message: I propose splitting off all the popular culture into its own article. It is messing up the article just now, and I don't want to just delete content which might be interesting to some users Guinnog 16:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danielos2, thank you for doing it for me. Guinnog 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture

message: It has been suggested that Loch Ness be bombed with Depth Charges to force out whatever is in it out of the Loch. In some areas, fishermen and poachers throw explosives in a lake or river to obtain fish that are killed or stunned by the shock waves. I hope this is not carried out. This has been proposed to find out once and for all time what is in Loch Ness. Martial Law 03:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so but that will only work if Nessie is caused by something in the loch. If Nessie is caused by something outside the loch, such as weather conditions, explosives will have no effect other than to kill a lot of fish. And I can't see the local landowners being too happy about that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shocking Suggestion

message: "Confirmed to be a hoax?"  I've heard that the confession itself was the hoax... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.160.163 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 May 2006
: Somehow I don't think it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 June 2006
It was actually the claim that the confessed hoax was a hoax that was a hoax - although this is rumoured to be a hoax. In any event, if it has seriously been suggested that the confession was not genuine then this should probably be included and any evidence for it cited. Davkal 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I heard that it was a hoax that the rumour that the claim that the confession was a hoax, was a hoax, was a hoax. --Oscar Bravo 09:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers mate! Totnesmartin 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgeon's Photo 

message: Perhaps it's better off that we never find out. What I mean to say is that if scientist do find something they won't let it, go and it will die in captivity. And then poachers will be after the rest of them for money or trophies. It's just not safe for endangered animals these days. Won't take man kind long to kill off the giant squid, I bet ya'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.11 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 June 2006
:youre right in fact its probably best to imagine i mean if it is real its not a good idea to have a 50ft animal in an aquarium or being mounted on a  wall because if it is real scientist would do anything to get their hands on one even kill a mother and take the babies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.167.89 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 July 2006
Good reason. But then....
The monster may one day become extinct before we discover it!!!!!!!!!!!!! About 2 species of living things become extinct everyday. That's everyday. Ranging from small microbes to undiscovered animals, and don't forget about plants, fungi, and protozoa.  The reason why future sonar scans might not show anything is because the monster did exist but it's now extinct. There have only been 2 sightings this year and we're already at the 4th quarter. Frankyboy5 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it best not to know?

message: I have changed the statement from "before the hippy era" to "before the late 1960s". I presume this is what/when is meant. I have done this because "before the hippy era" seems a peculiar way to describe a date  in an article not directly (not even indirectly) associated hippy culture.
I also think that the section this quote comes from "History of sightings" is in need of some work. At the start it says that people have questioned the legitimacy of rumours of a monster in the loch prior to the late 1960s (hippy era) but then goes on to mention the post 1930s history and subsequently details the newspaper stories published in the 1930s. If what is meant is that people have questioned the legitimacy of the ancient accounts then this needs to be stated more clearly. As it is the passage seems completely contradictory.     Davkal 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: some changes

message: Moving the "earliest report" to "History of alleged sightings" caused the first two paragraphs not to flow together; it jumps to mention of _Life_. Any idea how to arrange it better? Ralphmerridew 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: flow of first paragraphs

message: The morphology of the thing in the "Surgeon's Photo" does not look very natural for a fish, reptile, or any real creature.  In terms of skeletal and bone structure, it looks more like an abstract representation of a horse head with a skinny neck.  The proportions and overall structure just are not consistant with natural animal forms.  I would like the name "Guy with Zoology PhD Photo" better, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.190.3 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 August 2006
*That stands to reason, since it actually was a toy submarine with a fake neck-and-head attached. Wahkeenah 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hippoformus? 

message: I read a kids book on the monster and they talk about a person who is going to find the monster(perhaps Robert Rines???) They said before he took picures he saw a skeleton of what looked like a plesiosaur. Frankyboy5 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeleton in Rine's Expedition??

message: A veterinary student named Arthur Grant was motor cycling when he nearly collided with a creature that he described had a long neck and a small head. Later people examined the tracks and they looked like they were caused by flippers. Here is a sketch (Bottom right of page). Here
is a small description (Above the Surgeon's Photo.).Frankyboy5 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Grant Sighting

message: The article on "Champ", the creature commonly sighted in Lake Champlain, states: "The reason some scientists believe that “Champ” may be a plesiosaur like “Old Nessie” is because the two lakes have much in common ... both lakes support fish populations large enough to feed a supposed sea or lake monster (Krystek 1)." However, the Loch Ness article states: "The loch simply does not have enough food to support animals as big as a plesiosaur, particularly a breeding population of plesiosaurs." These two statements are in conflict with each other. I don't personally know which statement is correct. I have posted this same observation in both articles, so if the conflict is fixed, my comment should be removed from both places.
*The key phrase might even be a plesiosaur. What, is there a single plesiosaur, in each lake, that's somehow immortal? There are certainly enough fish to sustain whatever plesiosaur might be in the lakes, which is none. Wahkeenah 22:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict With the "Champ" Article

message: Some artist's impressions of plesiosaurs support this.
An artist's "impression" of how a dinosaur might breathe is not a supporting fact of anything other than the artist's imagination.
I meant to say that some drawings of plesiosaurs/elasmosaurs(bigger, more advanced species) show their nostrils much closer to the eyes, just in front. Some have theorized that they only needed to stick up a portion of their head to breathe. Frankyboy5 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure how helpful this is, but i recently saw a seal doing just that. Only its muzzle was visible above the water. Totnesmartin 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You gotta be kidding me?

message: I added this. Not very well I admit, still learning the ropes here. Still it's a compelling video clip. I am unclear about its provenance but anyone interested in this subject will be fascinated I think. I think the video clip is public domain. SmokeyTheFatCat 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well can someone give clarification on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97WDNIvnlgA I know it is probably fake but you can't be sure.195.137.109.177 14:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recent video 

message: Someone changed this to the "3rd century", which is absurd considering Columba lived 521-597. The original had "6th century" (ie, the 500s) which is also impossible considering that its author, Adomnan, died in 704. Maybe he meant "in the 600s" - this is more likely, but then that's the 7th century, so that's what I've put. --Oscar Bravo 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6th century is correct. Think about it - a 7th century author, St Adomnan, was writing the biography of a 6th century figure, St Columba. So he's writing (in the late 600s) about events that took place a hundred years earlier (in the late 500s) That's like a 20th century author writing the biography of a 19th century figure. Quite an ordinary thing really. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date for ''Vita Columbae'' 

message: Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment