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.

 

Nessie debunked?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Did anyone else watch the National Geographic special about the Loch Ness monster? It was pretty insightful and informational. If anyone watched it and has any rebuttals to their findings please reply. I do have it on DVR so if I need to verifiy any statements I can, not to prove anyone wrong but to make sure my facts are right.




posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
?

What evidence do they offer to debunk it? What is the most compelling arguement in the dvd?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I've seen many things to debunk Nessie for myself, not sure if i'd seen the National Geographic one though. Perhaps at one time a creature did live in the loch, but it's been proven to me that it couldn't have survived in current times. There is hardly any vegetation on the sea bed and fish are scarce, so Nessie with its size couldn't possible have enough food to survive. Plus the original photograph that started all the hype has been proven to be a fake. The originator admitted it before he died and still had the original model of it. It was a toy submarine with a poxy-type clay molded to it. The picture was taken a few feet off shore. The toy was not even a foot long.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
For me Nessie was debunked long ago. When the surgeon photo was proven a fake it was the last nail in the coffin IMHO

content.answers.com... -Lochnessmonster.jpg


Wig

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I don't see how Nessie can be debunked just because a photo turns out to be faked. There have been lots of eye witnesses.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
SWAMPCRICKET :

can you give us some bullet point claims / assertions from the DVD that you wish our comments / opinions on ?

FAUST :

there is a LOT of shigh in loch ness , R P Mcakal shows this in the book " the monsters of loch ness " - giving tables for the tonnage of resident and migratory fish in the loch

the lack of vegitation on the bottom of the loch is a strawman - the important flora of the lock is in the shallow shore areas and " free floating " as algea etc

WIG :

agreed the debunk of one pic does not affect the veracity of any others - BUT the evidence for the others being a genuine cryptozoo creature is universaly weak - and nessie believes play the " argument from numbers " game flawlessly



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
For me Nessie was debunked long ago. When the surgeon photo was proven a fake it was the last nail in the coffin

I remember that happening, that was the end of it for me too. The only really convincing bit of evidence, and it was a fraud, and a fraud that had been seen as so honest for so long too. It really brought the house of cards down.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
SWAMPCRICKET :

can you give us some bullet point claims / assertions from the DVD that you wish our comments / opinions on ?

FAUST :

there is a LOT of shigh in loch ness , R P Mcakal shows this in the book " the monsters of loch ness " - giving tables for the tonnage of resident and migratory fish in the loch

the lack of vegitation on the bottom of the loch is a strawman - the important flora of the lock is in the shallow shore areas and " free floating " as algea etc

WIG :

agreed the debunk of one pic does not affect the veracity of any others - BUT the evidence for the others being a genuine cryptozoo creature is universaly weak - and nessie believes play the " argument from numbers " game flawlessly


The tonnage of the fish is only large enough to support around 10 500lb creatures. For the species to have survuved since the Priest saw one there would need to be at least 40 plus to keep the gene pool right.

There is very little algae in the Loch, very little algae means very little plankton which means very little fish(for a lake this size), which means no ecosystem capable of supporting a "monster"

There is more but I need to watch it again. Post more questions as needed.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I dont rememeber if it was on the Discovery Channel or TLC, but they had a special not too long ago where they trapped a couple of eels from the Loch. Now these eels were huge black,slimy, and they were at least 4 feet long and pretty darned fat too.
I cant remember all the claims made by the scientists and biologists but they did identify the eel to be of a fairly common genome. Anyhow, these eels could account for some of the strange sightings on the water. As far as outside the water, well thats another story. To me this just adds more evidence to the hoax, on top of the fake "original" picture.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pjpuas
I dont rememeber if it was on the Discovery Channel or TLC, but they had a special not too long ago where they trapped a couple of eels from the Loch. Now these eels were huge black,slimy, and they were at least 4 feet long and pretty darned fat too.
I cant remember all the claims made by the scientists and biologists but they did identify the eel to be of a fairly common genome. Anyhow, these eels could account for some of the strange sightings on the water. As far as outside the water, well thats another story. To me this just adds more evidence to the hoax, on top of the fake "original" picture.



I saw the eel episode also, I agree totally on the hoax theory.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I like the giant eel theory myself. Supposedly it's comes onto land in the winter and eats things like deer. That'd explain where it gets enough food...

But then again that would contridict many of the eyewitness reports over the years.

[edit on 11/8/2005 by Flinx]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I like the giant eel theory myself. Supposedly it's comes onto land in the winter and eats things like deer. That'd explain where it gets enough food...

But then again that would contridict many of the eyewitness reports over the years.

[edit on 11/8/2005 by Flinx]


Can you find any scientific of any eel coming inland from the water? Never heard of such. The whole thing is a hoax to me.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
For me Nessie was debunked long ago. When the surgeon photo was proven a fake it was the last nail in the coffin IMHO

content.answers.com... -Lochnessmonster.jpg


I would agree with you, if it wasnt for the MANY sightings before this in the past 100+ years.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by swampcricket
Can you find any scientific of any eel coming inland from the water? Never heard of such. The whole thing is a hoax to me.


Well, I heard the eel theory on Coast to Coast AM so I don't really know who the researcher was who put forth the theory. But doing a search, I found these things:

www.cryptozoology.com...

www.emediawire.com...

Edit: Actually the guy in the second article was the one on C2C.

[edit on 11/8/2005 by Flinx]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
For me Nessie was debunked long ago. When the surgeon photo was proven a fake it was the last nail in the coffin IMHO

content.answers.com... -Lochnessmonster.jpg


I would agree with you, if it wasnt for the MANY sightings before this in the past 100+ years.


Eyewitness testimony is a notoriously unreliable form of evidence. Its really sad people are convicted in courts of law by eyewitness evidence alone. The surgeon photo was hard evidence or so we thought. So its just put the nail in the coffin of the Loch Ness monster for me. That along with the fact of size of the Loch available food and the needed size of a breeding population of these things.Plus there have been massive sonar sweeps of the entire Loch that turned up nothing.

Loch Ness is really not that big 23 miles If it was the ocean it would be a different story but the Loch is like a puddle compared to it.

Some big freak eels maybe Ill buy that but something like Nessie not a chance IMO



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
For me Nessie was debunked long ago. When the surgeon photo was proven a fake it was the last nail in the coffin IMHO

content.answers.com... -Lochnessmonster.jpg


I would agree with you, if it wasnt for the MANY sightings before this in the past 100+ years.


Eyewitness testimony is a notoriously unreliable form of evidence. Its really sad people are convicted in courts of law by eyewitness evidence alone. The surgeon photo was hard evidence or so we thought. So its just put the nail in the coffin of the Loch Ness monster for me. That along with the fact of size of the Loch available food and the needed size of a breeding population of these things.Plus there have been massive sonar sweeps of the entire Loch that turned up nothing.

Loch Ness is really not that big 23 miles If it was the ocean it would be a different story but the Loch is like a puddle compared to it.

Some big freak eels maybe Ill buy that but something like Nessie not a chance IMO



Amen, I agree.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join