Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Archive 2

message: 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 There 05:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: frankyboy, cold you put a link to those pdfs? Totnesmartin 01:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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... Totnesmartin 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Bodies??

message: Is it just me or is the section badly written? it looks more like a pub argument than an encyclopedia entry. Totnesmartin 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plesiosaur theory section 

message: 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?
*Why not? It doesn't exist, so it could be anything. :) Wahkeenah 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your grounds for this continuous assertion?Totnesmartin 12:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wahkeenah 16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Logic tells you one thing, but there are many witness reports to say otherwise. Totnesmartin 17:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Totnesmartin 18:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to the doubts is that the descriptions of Nessie often contradict each other. Wahkeenah 19:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. There haven't been many sightings by trained observers expecting to see something, so there's a lot of vagueness and imprecision. Totnesmartin 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanystropheus 

message: (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. Wahkeenah 20:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Totnesmartin 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). Wahkeenah 21:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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...Totnesmartin 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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....... Frankyboy5 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Totnesmartin 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Frankyboy5 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wahkeenah 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "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:  - 
 - . This is why I can't accept that a sighting of humps is a sighting of a monster. It has to stick its neck out (if it is a neck).Totnesmartin 11:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reminded of Criswell's statement at the end of Plan 9 from Outer Space: "Can you prove it didn't happen?" Wahkeenah 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Frankyboy5 16:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 | Talk 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My original point was about waves reflecting off the shore, returning to the centre and recombining in a hump-like manner.Totnesmartin 17:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | Talk 19:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Totnesmartin 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wahkeenah 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boat wakes

message: 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). Frankyboy5 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.) Totnesmartin 11:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was around the time when Britain, first at Heav'n's command, arose from out the azure main, yes? Wahkeenah 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.Totnesmartin 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See verse 1 of Rule Britannia -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Loch still is connected to the sea by the River Ness. Totnesmartin 11:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious thing to do, then, is to monitor that river. Wahkeenah 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: should be do-able, it runs through Inverness, capital of the Highland region Totnesmartin 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 | Talk 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Loch and the Azure Main 

message: (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. Wahkeenah 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Missing socks - definitely paranormal! Perhaps nessie eats them?Totnesmartin 20:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Nessie's made from them. Its head looks kind of like a large sockpuppet, don'cha know. Wahkeenah 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So THAT's why close-up witnesses describe it as repulsive!Totnesmartin 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. Totnesmartin 13:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wahkeenah 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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". Wahkeenah 13:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: interesting sighting reports. What are the sources? We need properly sourced material in the Nessie debate.Totnesmartin 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assertion, discussion and evidence

message: (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. Frankyboy5 05:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wahkeenah 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Bravo 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he won't answer my question, I continue to assume it's a joke. Wahkeenah 15:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You continue to play this game, so I continue to assume it's a joke. Wahkeenah 16:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ban TV Show Loch Ness Monster: Search for the Truth as well as webcam and fan club ('''This is 100% serious''')

message: 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. Frankyboy5 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "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...! Totnesmartin 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: my school library had Erich von Daniken. Totnesmartin 11:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what ol' Erich had to say about Loch Ness? Maybe Nessie is an "ancient astronaut"? (speaking of which, see next section). Wahkeenah 13:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd rather not know. I only mentioned him to point out that school libraries are just as fallible as anywhere else. Totnesmartin 16:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Wahkeenah 16:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other mysteries of Loch Ness

message: Someone's categorised this article as "nautical lore". Does nautical include inland waters such as this? Totnesmartin 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautical lore 

message: 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. Totnesmartin 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like the hoax was based on the Spicer and Armstrong sightings I just put up. Even though they aren't especially plesiosaurish... Totnesmartin 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sightings 

message: 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 Dragon 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). Totnesmartin 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but needs a hydrologist to see if I understood it right (physics - eeek!) Totnesmartin 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standing Wave 

message: This talk page is now pretty big. I'm going to archive the old stuff on Saturday unless there are any reasonable objections. Totnesmartin 21:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. I'm not going to delete anything, just archive all the discussions that have finished. Totnesmartin 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Totnesmartin 10:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: 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 Discovery Communications, Loch Ness Discovered, 1993 and then vanished into the murky waters of the loch in what was the first major sighting of the year http://www.strangemag.com/nessie.sightings.html.
"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 . 
"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  . 
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 ." 
"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 . 
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 .
Then, the article cut off and skipped some part of the Surgeon's Photo section. 
The sections See also, References and External links are gone for no reason!! Stupid glitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankyboy5 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the problem. You had missed out a /. --Guinnog 03:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glitch

message: 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  and will have to be rewritten to avoid copyright violation. I'll try to put this right before the Americans wake up. Totnesmartin 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DoneTotnesmartin 12:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three sightings in one night 

message: 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)
replies: text: It has its own section in the article, so we could say "although claimed to be a hoax, it remains controversial (see article)". Totnesmartin 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info botch 

message: 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? TheHungryTiger 15:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for Surgeon's Photo'

message: 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?
Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.125.72.42 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix "doesn't exist", first paragraph 

message: 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)
References
Further reading
Get as much source material as you can, including photos, film stills, sonar pics...illustrate it! Carajou 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know where to get the old classic pics, including the first one, and the uncropped Surgeon's photo.  Carajou 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents arrangement

message: 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. --MacRusgail 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--MacRusgail 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, some lochs are not lakes. Loch Long for instance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two points 

message: Who is Bengt Sjogren and what is the citation for his theory in the plesiosaur theory section? Totnesmartin 19:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bengt Sjogren 

message: 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. :) Wahkeenah 12:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Totnesmartin 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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?  Carajou 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another hypothesis 

message: Found both versions of this photograph on this page , 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.  Carajou 08:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Carajou 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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?  Carajou 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | Talk 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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.  Carajou 09:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gray photo

message: Why was the article protected, and with such a weak lead at that? --Guinnog 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realised it was only s/protected. --Guinnog 04:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Repeated vandalism. Carajou 06:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: 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! Carajou 09:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Guinnog 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plesiosaurs, et al 

message: There aren't enough banners on this page. I only had to click the slidebar once to get halfway past them. Wahkeenah 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! Carajou 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners