Loch Ness Monster: True or False?

-->

Loch Ness Monster: True or False?

Loch Ness, located in the Scottish Highlands, has been the location of many sightings of a strange animal lurking in the water. Its long neck and snake shaped head led people to believe it is not a fish, but rather a massive, mysterious creature that has eluded being sighted for long periods of time. Pat Linse of Junior Skeptic Magazine argues against the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. In the article, she states that the animal thought to be the Loch Ness monster is a Plesiosaur, a dinosaur that lived millions of years ago. Linse draws the conclusion that the monster doesn’t exist because the lake, formed far inland, couldn’t support the fish life necessary for a plesiosaur, is too cold a living environment, and because the plesiosaur is a air breather, it would have to come to the surface many times an hour to take a breathe, meaning it would have been sighted more times than it has been (Linse 76). The animal could very well be a new species that has developed a way of surviving in the frigid lake environment.

Roy P. Mackal is a retired University of Chicago biologist best known for his interest in the Loch Ness Monster and other crypto-zoological (the study of “hidden” animals) entities. According to Mackal “there are at least 10,000 known reported sightings at L[och] Ness, but less than a third of these are recorded” (Campbell 25). In these sightings, the monster was said to be “about fifty feet long, having a number of bumps, with a long, thin neck, a tapering tail, a head like a seahorse, and able to travel at considerable speed” (Cray 258). Mackal’s 10,000 known reported sightings describe a similar beast living in this same body of water. This vast supply of conclusive evidence supports the existence of this mysterious creature living in Loch Ness.

           

Image of an “animal-like” object floating in the water

(Object in question cannot be a rock, as the sonar waves cannot pass though rock; this is why the bottom of the photo is a thick solid image of the lake floor, while the object floating about is thin and slightly transparent, indicating the ability of the sonar to pass through the objects body.)  

Beside the eyewitness recounts of the Loch Ness monster, scientific studies have been done on the lake in search for the animal. One such experiment was conducted on the Rival III, a boat used for its sonar equipment. On December 3rd 1954, the boat’s sonar picked up an object that was “floating 30 fathoms [50m] from the loch bed”, was 50ft long, and was made of “animal matter” (Campbell 80). In addition, it is known that sonar waves cannot pass through a rock the way it passed through this object, meaning it had to be an animal. The picture looked like an animal that had a long neck, a football shaped body, and a tail-like flipper appendage. This illustration draws a stark similarity to the description of the animal recounted in Ed Cray’s journal about the Loch Ness monster.

Loch Ness monster’s flipper. (Image captured by the Rival III)

The original driving force for the Loch Ness Monster was “The Surgeons Photograph.” This photo is arguably the most famous of all those taken of the Loch Ness monster, and thus has created the most hype over the creature. This photo has been analyzed so heavily, in the hope that the way the ripples formed by what looks like the monster head, gives evidence that the photo is real and that it has not been altered in any way (Dinsdale 58).

The Surgeon’s Photo

Those who oppose the legitimacy of The Loch Ness monster’s existence seek to disprove it by saying the photos capturing the animal are either fake, doctored photos, or are other objects completely. Many have said that the object seen in the photo is actually just dirt on the lens of the camera (applies more to photos with the object in the far distance), a piece of dark driftwood, and the most outlandish of the accusations being people playing a prank and dressing like the monster and swimming in the lake. These are all creative ideas, but they all fail to take into account that back when these photos were taken, the cameras used usually had poor lens quality, meaning when taking a photo, an object that was far off in the distance could be mistaken as a bit of dirt on the lens. This doesn’t outright disprove the existence of the Loch Ness monster

In order for any animal species to survive for long periods of time, two members of said species need to mate. Because the estimated size of the Loch Ness monster has led researchers to believe that it doesn’t reproduce asexually, it would make sense that on the different occasions the animal has been sighted; the object in view is not the same animal. The descriptions of the animal all share a common appearance: snake-like head, long neck, flipper-like tail, and boat shaped body. The different sized objects photographed have led researchers to believe there is a breeding population of Loch Ness monsters (Coleman 140). Not only does the scientific information saying that in order for the monster to survive this long it must have mated, not disprove the Loch Ness monster’s existence, but it actually supports the idea that there is such an animal living in Loch Ness. The slightly different recounts of sightings support this idea of a family of “Nessies”.

Image of Loch Ness monster swimming though the water’s of Loch Ness. Image shows the animal’s snake like appearance.

 http://www.nessie.co.uk/htm/the_nessie_hunters/hunter1.html

This website shows evidence, already used in this blog post, as well as a live webcam of the lake.

Bibliography

Campbell, Steuart. The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence. Edinburgh: Prometheus Books, 1997. Print.

Coleman, Loren. “Loch Ness Monsters.” Crytpto-zoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authetic Mysteries of Nature. 1999. Print.

Cray, Ed. “Loch Ness Monster.” Western Folklore. 18.3 (1959): 258-259. JSTOR. Web. 5 Novmber 2012.

Dinsdale, Tim. Loch Ness Monster. London: Unwin Brothers Limited, 1961. Print.

Bigfoot: Examine Before You Doubt

The debate over whether or not Bigfoot is real has existed for many centuries. Many people have a similar story of their encounter with this large, hairy “ape man,” but for some reason his existence is denied and belief in his existence if often ridiculed. Many people label encounters with the beast pure coincidence and made up stories. They refuse to accept even the possibility that some unknown primate exits somewhere in the world. Many people may not have seen him physically, however there is evidence that strongly supports the fact that Bigfoot does actually exist.

According to Bigfoot--A Contemporary Belief Legend by Joyce Bynum, Bigfoot is just a legend that has existed for centuries and has transformed throughout the years. Stories of hairy man-like creatures date back to the 19^th century and are believed to have impacted the accounts of encounters with Bigfoot today. It wasn’t until the first report of Bigfoot that sightings of Bigfoot began to increase (352). Some people believe that Bigfoot stories arise from the stories of others, and this is said to be the reason why there are so many similarities in the reports of Bigfoot encounters. It is a known fact that as a society many of us tend to deny things that we can’t see for ourselves, and we call others crazy when they come across things that we cannot simply explain. As a result, people tend to keep their supernatural experiences to themselves out of fear of what others might think of them. Bigfoot encounters may have been occurring long before the first sighting was reported, but it wasn’t until afterwards that people felt comfortable enough to share their experiences.

Bigfoot’s existence isn’t accepted because there isn’t “concrete” evidence to prove that he is real. There is evidence that supports his existence, but a carcass is the only form of evidence that will satisfy everyone. “The only ‘hard’ evidence we have of Bigfoot's existence consists of casts of large footprints, some poorly-focused photographs, and some hair, blood and feces samples” (352). If Bigfoot was just a made up character based on legends of the past then how exactly did these pieces of evidence come into existence? You can’t just make fake blood and feces and expect no one to know about it. In any other instance a photograph of a person caught stealing would be enough for people to believe the person is a thief, and blood samples taken from a crime scene is enough to convict a suspect, but why isn’t it enough to prove that Bigfoot is out there somewhere?

“Ray Wallace… started the whole Bigfoot phenomenon. Wallace… had a love of practical jokes, and in 1958 he had a friend carve a pair of 16-inch-long feet, then he put them on and made some footprints” (Goldman 25). The first Bigfoot sightings were reported in the 1800’s so there’s no way possible that Ray Wallace could have started the whole phenomenon. Bigfoot is also spotted in many different parts of the world and the size the footprints are very large, but they vary in length and width. It is impossible for one man to travel around the world and lay down false tracks, especially when some were made even before he even began his pranks, and also before he was even born. “They [members of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization]… also obtained some hair samples that an independent lab found to belong to an ‘unknown primate’” (25). This proves that the world isn’t exactly as we know it, and that there are species out there that exist and haven’t been come across. If the world was what we knew it to be, the hair samples would have been easy to identify and matched to some creature. This is one of the reasons why we should neither throw away the beliefs of others, nor poke fun at people when they claim to come across things that we haven’t experienced or that we cannot explain.  Anything is possible, and it is definitely impossible for us to know every single detail of life, especially when the universe in which we live is so enormous.

The number one explanation for Bigfoot existence is tales of the past. This explanation is prevalent among many of those who deny Bigfoot’s existence. “Hufford asserts that ‘large hair-covered bipeds’ re-ported in different parts of the world under a variety of names might actually exist” (Milligan 83). The name Bigfoot was given not too long ago to describe the creature because of the size of his large feet, and the amount of tracks found as evidence to support his existence. “This consistency cannot always be explained through tradition since many of his informants were un-aware of traditional accounts elsewhere and even were ignorant of the various names given the creature” (84). Tales differ from place to place, and if Bigfoot was simply made up and based on folktales then the stories of his encounter would do the same. Many people that come across Bigfoot have no knowledge of the tales that existed of creatures that may have been similar to Bigfoot. Some people just happen to come across a being that they know as far different from anything they’ve ever seen.

 

The debate over whether or not Bigfoot exists will probably never be settled. Although evidence of his existence highly favors that he is real, admitting he is real years sown the line can cause a lot of disappointment in the world of science. The fact that the universe is so large and no one can possibly know every single detail of it should be the reason why scientists should not cast so much doubt on the existence of Bigfoot. Proving them to be wrong can result in a huge loss of faith by many because if they can be wrong about the existence of Bigfoot, just imagine the great number of other debatable topics they could also be wrong about.

Many pieces of evidence support the idea that Bigfoot does actually exist. Many encounters that people have with Bigfoot contradict the explanations that those who do not believe in Bigfoot make. It is possible for people to dress in Bigfoot costumes, but Bigfoot moves faster than any human and animal that we know today. Bigfoot is large enough to rule out the possibility to mistake him for another animal, especially if he is sighted clearly. Witness account may not be the most credible source, but when there is a great amount of witnesses who are having pretty much the same experience with the same beast, their stories are way more believable. Evidence is the largest and most important factor when supporting Bigfoot’s existence, and although there is a great deal of evidence supporting his existence, unless its Bigfoot's dead body, scientist throws it away.

 

Work Cited:

• Bynum, Joyce. “Bigfoot—A Contemporary Belief Legend.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics 49.3 (1992): 352-357. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012
• Goldman, David. “Bigfoot or Big Fake?” Biography 7.6 (2003): 25. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Nov. 2012  
• Milligan, Linda. The “Truth” About the Bigfoot Legend. Western States: Western States Folklore Society, 1990. 83-89. Print. Between Pulpit and Pew: The Supernatural World in Mormon History and Folklore. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2011. Print