thought you said there was a picture you lying sack of.....

This has been posted thousands of times, remember to use the search funtion.

for these so called mosnters (nessie, champ et al) to survive for as long as they have and still continue to be an unproven entity is what makes me think the accounts of their sightings are all false.

first off, these are large creatures. real large. there would have to be more than one of them to reproduce. we aren't talking about vast oceans where they can go undetected at depths beyond our ability to attain.

let's assume there are a pair of these things living in the lake and that they have some offspring to continue the species. what are they eating? there's that loch ness clip of a dead deer. I highly doubt an animal on flippers can catch a deer. I've seen deer. they move fast.
that leaves fish for food, or plants or both. with a couple of gigantic animals living in the lake, possibly even more, the food source would probably disappear.

Lastly, we have found remains of many large sea faring animals in the past. they wash up on shore, they get caught in nets.

not one animal gets caught? not one corpse? nada? this isn't some ocean with vast miles and insane depths and even then, we still find gian t squid from time to time.

just not possible in my most humble opinion.

Lake Champlain is connected to the ocean. And could be many of these creatures...the lake could just be a breeding ground. It is again 400 feet deep.

Joseph W. Zarynski
He said he seen the Lock Ness Monster I don’t think we can believe this guy

Originally posted by Boatphone
Lake Champlain is connected to the ocean. And could be many of these creatures...the lake could just be a breeding ground. It is again 400 feet deep.

Then the chirping is a whale, simple, there whales in the St. Lawerence River, so the possibility of whales swimming up to a lake are not impossible or improbable.

The photo on that one page, is probably a hoax, just like the loch ness monster photos were an admitted and confessed hoax.

Just because an animal is large and elusive doesn't negate its existance. The giant squid is confirmed to be a real animal and yet a live one has never been caught, and dead ones are few and far between. Divide the giant squid population by about a thousand and that is how many of these giant "Champs" there could be, which would explain the sparse sightings.

I am sure when people first told stories of giant squids they were discredited and laughed at by many, I don't think this is any different. Even fish like the Coelocanth (sp?) which were thought to be extinct for hundreds of years turn up later simply because their population levels dropped to dangerously low levels. I won't dismiss the animal, but I can't say that I buy into it either. I wouldn't be surprised if positive evidence ever did turn up, but I also wouldn't be taken aback if they conclusively said it never existed either.

Whatever whatever, its all up in the air.

Great points Captain! I agree I wish someone would take a sub under the waves of Lake Champlain to search for this monster!

Captain, the key thing with each of your examples is that real, hard evidence of their existence, either current or prior, has been found.

dead animals and fossils proved they once exist and, for a long time, the ceolecanth was thought to be etinct until one was found again.

so, if you want to go with some kind of seafaring dinosaur, fine. However, until a carcass or live animal is captured or found or caught on tape by multiple people at the same time, it is merely a myth which helps lure tourists to the area.

Originally posted by rawieaThe first paragraph on the page says [color=Blue]"Over 250 lakes worldwide are the reputed homes of these large, unidentified creatures"[/color]
I'd say that anything with that much terrirory must be a real creature, proven or not.

or they are trying to capitalize on the potential tourism dollars that a mythical beast brings to the area.

Originally posted by Crakeur
Captain, the key thing with each of your examples is that real, hard evidence of their existence, either current or prior, has been found.

dead animals and fossils proved they once exist and, for a long time, the ceolecanth was thought to be etinct until one was found again.

so, if you want to go with some kind of seafaring dinosaur, fine. However, until a carcass or live animal is captured or found or caught on tape by multiple people at the same time, it is merely a myth which helps lure tourists to the area.

I just love seeing stuff like that because thats what everyone said about Giant Squid. It's just a silly myth. How hard can it be to believe that a plesiosaur(sp) can survive for so long in the ocean without being detected. If a giant squid can do it I believe a creature such as Loch Ness or Champ can do it too. You might say "But we have evidence of Giant Squids", and yes we do but we didn't always. It took us a while to find Giant Squid evidence so maybe this is just taking us a little longer to find because its that big of a concern to most people. And yes there is evidence of plesiosaurs(sp) once existing so that disproves your theory of having to have evidence current or prior. Do you believe that dinosaurs existed? Have you actually ever seen or felt a carcass of a T-Rex or a brontosaurus? No but you know it exists bcause of fossils. So thats why I believe it is probably a plesiosaur because just like the ceolecanth everyone thought it was extinct but it just had a low population.

9890

Originally posted by GrayWolf
Joseph W. Zarynski
He said he seen the Lock Ness Monster I don’t think we can believe this guy

Zarzynski claims to have seen the Lake Champlain Monster, not the Loch Ness Monster. Why can't we believe him? Do you know Zarzynski? I do. He was my science teacher in the 8th grade.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by mattison0922]

By looking at the shrubbery at the bottom photo it appears that the photographer was really close to this thing. It cant be more than 20 yards away.

There was a theory about nessie. Apparently there was a type of eel living in loch ness and there was a fairly common condition which made the males infertile. This meant that they would never leave the loach and go to sea to mate and would not die because of this. So the eels which stayed in the lake would live for a long time and would grow to huge sizes. I think the article i read said about 20ft. Thats the reason why they were never detected when they did a sonar test and thats why you never see them coming up for air. They don't breath air, so the sonar wouldn't find them and they don't come to the surface for air.

If memory serves the whole loch ness monster thing started about the time that king kong movie came out. Some guy was driving home near loch ness and said he saw something crossing the road which looked exactly like the plesiosaur (sp) type monster in king kong. Eels can go on land, so maybe he saw one of the 20ft eels slithering across the road and because he had just seen a plsiosaur in king kong, thats how his mind interpreted it.

I'll try and find a link to this story, but i'm not sure if i will because i read it in a paper a long time ago.

Originally posted by Vulcha
There was a theory about nessie. Apparently there was a type of eel living in loch ness and there was a fairly common condition which made the males infertile. This meant that they would never leave the loach and go to sea to mate and would not die because of this. So the eels which stayed in the lake would live for a long time and would grow to huge sizes. I think the article i read said about 20ft. Thats the reason why they were never detected when they did a sonar test and thats why you never see them coming up for air. They don't breath air, so the sonar wouldn't find them and they don't come to the surface for air.

If memory serves the whole loch ness monster thing started about the time that king kong movie came out. Some guy was driving home near loch ness and said he saw something crossing the road which looked exactly like the plesiosaur (sp) type monster in king kong. Eels can go on land, so maybe he saw one of the 20ft eels slithering across the road and because he had just seen a plsiosaur in king kong, thats how his mind interpreted it.

I'll try and find a link to this story, but i'm not sure if i will because i read it in a paper a long time ago.

Twenty-foot-long Eels slithering across a road?? I want an MPEG of that!

Originally posted by Vulcha
Thats the reason why they were never detected when they did a sonar test and thats why you never see them coming up for air. They don't breath air, so the sonar wouldn't find them and they don't come to the surface for air.

Some fishing boats use sonar to look for fish, I think you have a wrong idea of the functioning of the sonar.

If memory serves the whole loch ness monster thing started about the time that king kong movie came out. Some guy was driving home near loch ness and said he saw something crossing the road which looked exactly like the plesiosaur (sp) type monster in king kong. Eels can go on land, so maybe he saw one of the 20ft eels slithering across the road and because he had just seen a plsiosaur in king kong, thats how his mind interpreted it.

The first of the "modern" sightings is from May 1933, the "King Kong" premiere was in March 1933, but there are sightings since 565.

They used sonar are found nothing. They put a bag of air in the water to test it. It may have been something else but they didn't find anything which looked like the air bag. And thats what they said about the 20ft eels. I've been trying to find the article but hjaven't yet.