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.
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.
Loch Ness Monster? False. Anyone who thinks this myth is true is overly susceptible to the nonsense that’s been thrown around. Where do I even start debunking? Early on you present the research of Pat Linse, a contributor of Junior Skeptic Magazine. Her claims discrediting the phenomenon actually seem more reasonable than your own claims and your examples. You refute her claim stating that the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist because the lake is too cold and can’t provide the fish life necessary to feed a being of its size. So how do you explain how this monster, if it is in fact a new species, could have evolved to survive such conditions? Check your biology. I’d like to see an expert who has researched the matter back you up on this. Furthermore, how do you suppose the Loch Ness Monster has been living in the lake for hundreds of years? If it exists, it would have to reproduce to keep its species alive. The lake is barely adequate enough to support one Loch Ness Monster, let alone a whole family of them. So whether it’s one monster or several living in the lake, things just don’t add up.
ReplyDeleteThere also seem to be some holes in your “sonar” example. This account is from 1954. Why should we trust research that is almost 60 years old? People need to see new evidence found by modern researchers to be convinced, which you fail to present. The Rival III had outdated sonar equipment that could have misidentified a mass of seaweed or another living plant mass as animal matter. But with modern technology, scientists are more likely to accurately discover if such a being exists. Researchers have lost interest in this bogus phenomenon, though, and that’s why you haven’t been able to find new evidence. People have wizened up, and so should you.
The Loch Ness Monster is a popular myth, and nothing more. It achieved world-wide popularity in the early 1900’s, and has withered out since then. It is commonly known that the Loch Ness Monster is simply a fantasy creature that even the most die-hard believers would have a hard time defending. In fact, a BBC-sponsored expedition in 2003 that used 600 separate sonar beams and satellite navigation technology to ensure that none of the loch was missed surveyed the waters said to hide Scotland's legendary tourist attraction but found no trace of the monster. I mean, if this doesn’t prove that “Nessie” doesn’t exist, that I don’t know what more you need. It is pretty irrefutable evidence.
ReplyDeleteIn your essay you cite the Surgeon’s photo, which has been widely accepted to be a toy boat as proof of the Loch Ness Monster. You sir are in fact shooting yourself in the foot with that photo. Also, the Loch Ness Monster can’t be real, the Loch is too small. How could an animal said to be 50 feet long fit into a Loch that is 21.78 sq miles long? It is simply too much of a stretch to say that a 50 foot monster has been swimming in a body of water that in today’s standards isn’t very big for hundreds or thousands of years and hasn’t been seen, shot, or photographed clearly. Also, The Weekly World News covered it so it can’t be real.
This is a topic that I find very interesting. Personally I believe it is possible, and I felt that your argument did strengthen my belief, but only slightly. You definitely put a lot of interesting information about the monster and possibilities of what it could be. I would have liked to see information from a researcher expressing what this new species could possibly be, or if it is in fact an older animal how it could have evolved to survive in the Lock. Also a lot of your research is very old; you mention the sonar taken from 1954. That is fifty eight years ago, to strengthen your argument I would have used some more recent research. The one thing that you did that I didn’t really agree with was you gave a lot of examples of people arguing against the existence of the monster. I feel this greatly weakened your argument, and made it seem like you were skeptical yourself. You could have given a lot more examples of people and accounts that could prove that it is a strong possibility that this huge monster could be living in the Lock. Maybe get an interview from a scientist or someone who can give enough evidence to prove that it might be possible for the monster to exist. I think the information you gave was very interesting, and well written. If I was a skeptic and was reading this I don’t think this would convince me that it might be possible, but for someone who already believes in its existence, it definitely would strengthen their belief.
ReplyDeleteI found your post to be quite the entertaining read. The Loch Ness monster is a subject that has been highly debated for years and years. There are many that argue in favor of the creature existing while others stand on the side that believes the creature to be work of fiction and nothing more. Now though I found your article to be convincing for the most part, there are still a few things that hinder it from being truly persuading. For one, Mackal states that there have been over 10,000 sightings of the creature, but there has been no physical proof that those sightings hold any weight or validity. These sightings are just eyewitness accounts of what certain individuals saw and they could easily just be made up stories to seek attention. Not to be too cruel, but the fact you say that these sightings are conclusive evidence is just a little silly no? All the accounts contain are a general description of the creature with no actual photos or videos to support it. Also, the Rival III sonar picture was completely unconvincing. All it is a blurry picture of a shadow in the water and could be a number of animals that inhabit the area, not the Loch Ness monster. The description that goes along with the picture is also inconclusive in the regard that it could describe a number of animals that live in that particular kind of habitat. In addition, the “Surgeon’s Photograph” is also not very convincing in my opinion. It could simply be a picture of a wide variety of sea creatures and there is also no concrete proof that the picture was not altered in any way, other than a claim that no such editing was done to the photograph. I have an open mind and maybe one day soon there will be actual evidence of the creature’s existence that will make me fully believe, but as of now I remain on the side of the nonbelievers. I did enjoy reading your post though.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of the Loch Ness Monster should not even be considered a theory. There are so many statements that can be used to debunk this belief. You used a lot of information, including the research from the biologist stating that there are "10,000" known reported sightings of the Loch Ness Monster; however how can you prove that these sightings were the actual monster? These sightings could have simply been a fish or another sea creature. The pictures that you provided in your blog, such as The Surgeon's Photo, is possibly the worst photo that could be used to convince the audience that there is a Loch Ness Monster. This photo can simply look like a shadow of a bird skimming the water. The characteristics that the Loch Ness should possess are not shown in any of the pictures, especially this one. The image of an “animal-like” object floating in the water, is also a very inaccurate picture. All that the picture shows is a thin green strip of nothing, there is no way that someone can perceive that picture as the Loch Ness Monster. You also stated information of an experiment that was conducted on the Rival lll. Number one, this information was presented in 1954, it is almost 50 years later, and there isn't any new information. That should say a lot of the theory of the Loch Ness. Number two, they state that whatever was picked up by the sonar equipment had to be an animal; there are many animals in the ocean. This information is used to try and convince the audience that the Loch Ness Monster exists, yet I don't think that it does that. Most people don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and I don't think that this blog will start to make the readers believe in it.
ReplyDeleteThe Loch Ness monster does not exist, one because it is just a myth and two because there is no real evidence. There is no way that it can be a dinosaur that lived millions of years ago. Reread that statement, a dinosaur that lived million of years ago. Nothing has a life expectancy of a million years. Also before the lake was a lake it was solid ice during the Ice Age.
ReplyDeleteLike Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster would have been found already if it did in fact exist. It is in the same lake, doesn’t go anywhere. Scientists and people have looked for years and years and have found no concrete evidence. Not even a little bit of evidence that might hint at the existence of Nessie. That’s not a good sign. There is also no family of Nessies living in the Loch. Again, just like Bigfoot multiple Nessies would have been easier to find than one. Also as stated in your article, Nessie is supposedly a dinosaur, not a fish. Nessie would have to come up for air to survive. But it is rarely seen. It does not make sense. The Loch Ness monster is a myth used to attract tourists. The surgeon’s photo is undeniably fake. The proportion is all mixed up. The ‘monster’ looks like it is tiny. Even if this picture was taken from afar, then the water would look completely different.
You do a good job of rebutting other people's rebuttles, but offer no supporting evidence of your own. So what if the Loss Ness picture might not be a fake due to age? Do we have any evidence it's not a fake? Has there been any attempt to enhance the picture quality? And what of the sonar? Sure it's picking up "animal matter", but what evidence is there that that's the Monster?
ReplyDeleteYou also touch on it needing to mate sexually but don't explain how two giant monsters could possibly fit in the lake, or any evidence of a second monster.
Perhaps most baffling is the first paragraph, where not only do you offer an incredibly weak rebuttal, but you do so in response to a children's magazine. Sure, the animal could be an as-of-yet undiscovered species but even this fails to explain how it's possible to have escaped notice. If sonar really did find it, why hasn't more sophisticated equipment?
And moreover, what possible way do we know of having that these thousands of reported sightings aren’t frauds? Quantity and quality are not the same. Nor do you cite any sources I might feel inclined to believe—if you’re going to postulate an entirely new life form survived on its own undiscovered for centuries in a lake, you’d do well to cite more than one biologist, or anyone who could call themselves an expert on how animals live and why this is plausible.
I thought your piece was very interesting to read. Although the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is a very debatable topic, I am not sure if I believe that it does in fact exist. You talk about how the Loch Ness monster is thought to be a Plesiosaur, which was a dinosaur that existed millions of years ago. That fact alone causes me to continue to believe that the Loch Ness does not exist. The Monster could just in fact be a sea creature or other type of animal that is very rare. Although the pictures of the creature are usually seen as not real, or fake, I do not believe that it could be dirt on the lens of the camera. That to me is just a silly accusation. It is possible that from far away that driftwood, rocks, or other things can be mistaken for the Loch Ness. You also bring up the experiment done in 1954 that was conducted on the Rival III. With an experiment that was done such a long time ago, I do not think that it could be given a lot of credit as a useful experiment. Although I still do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster, I really enjoyed reading your post.
ReplyDeleteyes the lockness monster is real because acording to the news the lockness monster survived in the water no spinosaurs were deep anough to survive but lockness monster was more deep in the ocean or deep in the lake
ReplyDelete