It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lochness Monster Theory

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Okay, here's a theory I've got:

What if someone has proof that Nessie doesn't exist, but won't release it because the locals don't want it to hurt tourism. Or if anyone does have such proof, but the locals shut him/her up. After all isn't tourism the way that most of them make a living?




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I don't know how you could have proof Nessie doesn't exist. What you could have is proof that every sighting and photograph of her are hoaxes or mistakes. Which is basically the status quo as it is


It probably wouldn't do a whole lot. While the people in the surrounding area would want to keep the tourism, I seriously can't imagine someone coming forward with this would put too much of a dent in their economy. Most of the people that go there probably don't believe in Nessie anyway, they just go because it's an oddity. And after all, we've seen time and time again showing that there is no evidence for a monster's existence has no bearing on belief in it



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
If anything if it did exist, id say they would want to loudly publicise the fact, tourism is big $$$



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
If anything if it did exist, id say they would want to loudly publicise the fact, tourism is big $$$

I think you misread, he's talking about proof Nessie does not exist.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It's always easier to prove something does exist than to prove something doesnt exist. To do so, you just catch one. But if you were to say categorically that there is no Nessie, it would be difficult to prove it, unless you searched the whole world and found nothing.

I heard that the Nessie legend has been around since the sixth century, so it certainly didnt begin as an advertising scam. Maybe it is now, but 1400 years ago ? I don't think so.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Read my post in a recent topic or go here and look at the Loch Ness monster section.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I'm still of the mind that the giant eel theory is the best one so far....

Fits the majority of described encounters....



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I say just drain the lake and see if anything comes out to see you. But first block the link to the sea



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
dude, i dont know if the lockness monster is real, but i have seen pictures and videos that were homemade, but im not sure that its true. but you gotta think, after all of these years, dont you think someone would have found this monster, or divers would have gone diving looking for it? i really dont know, but if you do find anymore information about it, i would like to hear about it.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Yes, but the Loch is quite deep and very murky. They did those sonar things a long while ago but I'm sure that now with newer technology there's some way to scan and find something...like a sort of X-ray or some sort of radiation perhaps.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Please, if Loch Ness was drained it could hold the worlds population 5 times over. Seriously. It be deep and big. But saying that I generaly don't belive that there is a monster there now (May have once been) my reasons why are on the "Man plans to harpoon monster" thread



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
loch ness creature creates massive revenues for the village, and scotland.
it probably does exist. you have to take into consideration that there were dinosaurs, there were aquatic dinosaurs, and when the meteor hit earth creating a suffocating atmosphere and killed off all the land lizads, that there were still underwater creatures that could survive perfectly, because their existence had nothing to do with land. even if there was massive amounts of silt and dust into the water, i'd imagine some of them could rough it out, evolve and manage to be with us today.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
To matey who posted above me, weren't all the aquatic dinosaurs air breathers anyway?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Depends on what you call a dinosaur.

There were "dinosaur" fish, "dinosaur" reptiles, "dinosaur" amphibians, and "dinosaur" birds. Certainly any amphibious dinosaurs would have had gills.

Though, if correct, you certainly make a good point.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Having cruised down the Loch a number of times I can say that draining it would be impossible. It's not just the fact that it's long and deep but there's 20 miles of hills down either side filling the loch with rainwater from the wet Scottish climate.

One time we went out in a boat that was still kitted out with the equipment from a previous sonar expedition. Unfortunately as much as we twiddled with the knobs, we didn't find anything, but then if a team of trained scientists can't find proof, what hope does a bunch of adolescent scouts have?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Nessie exisit. He has powers to turn invisable. He usually gots to the loch for vacation via secret underground waterway. He stays at his true home in the depths of the oceans which is how he can avoid being discovered. Very few of them exisit.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I agree that the loch could never be emptied, at nearly twenty three miles long and supposedlyup to 800 feet it would be quite an undertaking!
Bigfoot, Nessie and the other creatures that frequent websites and oddly, the west, are figments of an imagination from a tourist board.

I know there will always be dragons, mermaids and such in everyone's hearts and minds but as it has been said many times... proof, real hard proof, that's what you need.

But, the chances of a person being right greatly increases by the amount of people trying to prove them wrong.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Does proof itself not need to be proven?...

However I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, I'd like to, but to be honest what the hell would he be doing in a loch? Come on!

Unless he's the size of an ameoba!

But then again, who's to say he isn't??????



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Here's a few links (so I don't have to post the entire articles). I really don't have an opinion on loch ness myself. Links take from author Steve Alten's Loch Ness page-----www.thelochness.com...

www.lochness.co.uk...

www.lochness.co.uk...
If Loch Ness exhisted---possible food source?

www.lochness.co.uk...
Wendellion--a really big amoeba from radiation??lol



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
It is scientifically impossible to prove a negative.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join