Well, of course there is at least one "large uncatalouged creature" in Loch Ness. Locals often refer to this creature as "Nessie". Remember, a
large creature... even if "Nessie" isn't a pleiosaur as so commonly believed, a creature is a creature, and noone can deny the existence of a large
creature in the Loch Ness.
The first logical proof for Nessie's is legends often prove true, in the Middle Ages, ivory horns supposedly taken from unicorns were peddled to
European royalty for 20 times their weight in gold. Few if any collectors knew that these long, spiraled tusks came from an actual animal, the
narwhal, a cetacean that lives in the Arctic. Scholars believe that the remarkably human aspect that the heads of seals and manatees rising above the
waves can take on may have given rise to tales of the mermaid, the fabled half-woman, half-fish of the deep. While traveling across Arabia on his
return from China in 1294, Marco Polo heard of a bird on Madagascar that was so large it could carry elephants aloft in its talons. Baseless? Nope.
Until they went extinct about 1,000 years ago, Madagascar's elephant birds were the largest birds that ever lived. Though they couldn't lift an
elephant, they did stand ten feet tall and weigh close to half a ton. For centuries, Europeans traveling in remote areas were wont to disregard any
legend an indigenous person might have of beasts that they themselves had not seen. This was part paternalism, part justifiable caution in the face of
the possibly apocryphal. Yet indigenous people often know whereof they speak. In 1840, for example, outsiders first heard of a dwarf version of the
hippopotamus that native Liberians claimed they hunted in the jungle. But since no Europeans had seen a live one, it was not until the early part of
this century that biologists finally conceded that the West African pygmy hippo actually exists. In Africa alone, there are myriad instances of
animals that foreigners thought fabulous even as locals calmly informed them they were quite real.
The second obvious reason for this animal's existence is sometimes animals thought extinct are alive . The five-foot-long fish known as the
coelacanth was thought to have died out a full 25 million years before the dinosaurs vanished, until a fisherman caught one off the African coast in
1938. (The coelacanth has recently turned up in Indonesian waters as well.) Long-lost creatures are still found on land, too. In 1995, the French
ethnographer Michel Peissel discovered what appears to be an ancient breed of horse in a remote valley of northeastern Tibet. The Riwoche horse, as
his team named the animal for its home region, looks just like horses in cave paintings of the European Stone Age. If an ancient horse can be found in
a remote Tibetan valley, is it possible that the fabled giant sloth might one day be found in the remote Amazonian jungle?
Finally, despite common wisdom, the world has not been fully explored. In 1812, the renowned French naturalist Baron Georges Cuvier boldly asserted
that "there is little hope of discovering new species of large quadrupeds." Wrong. A short list of large mammals that have been identified since
1812 might include, in addition to all those mentioned above, the mountain gorilla, Indian tapir, black ape, siamang, gelada, Himalayan takin, Père
David's deer, Przewalski's horse, white rhinoceros, pygmy chimpanzee, and Kodiak brown bear. Surprisingly for many, discoveries of large, previously
unknown animals continue to occur. Since 1986, several new species of primate have turned up in Madagascar. In the past few years, in a single,
mountainous region on the border between Vietnam and Laos, scientists have identified a new species of giant barking deer, a new kind of pig, and a
200-pound bovid, or cow-like animal, known as the pseudo oryx. The seas, in particular, continue to reveal secret beasts, some of them quite sizeable.
Marine biologists have identified three new species of beaked whale off Japan in 1958, off California in 1966, and off Peru in 1991, respectively. And
in 1976, fishermen near Hawaii hauled up a 15-foot shark weighing just under a ton. Never before seen, this monster plankton-feeder has since been
dubbed "megamouth."
Along with all of this goes the testimonies of hundreds who have witnessed a large creature around the loch Ness. These sightings have occured since
the medevil period, and have accelearated dramatically in the past eighty years. Several instances have occured of Nessie being sighted three or four
times the same day, and different people who had no connection reported the sightings. The evidence is hear, the logic exists, there is no need for
debate, Nessie is real.
(782 words)
2nd Round Debate:Tassadar v OIMD:The Loch Ness Monster., page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 20-10-2003 @ 08:59 PM by onlyinmydreams
“I want to kiss Magestica”
Oddly enough, I’m wearing a picture of ‘Nessie’ on my tie right now… Well, actually, my tie depicts the abstract Celtic artwork Tassadar has referred to. Among the maze of exotic curves and stylized trees is, indeed, a pattern that shows the famed ‘Celtic’ or Pictish beast that, due to its presence in art and literature, my opponent says exists in the living form of the Loch Ness monster. Well, from an artistic standpoint I must say, flatly, that Tass has won, as ‘Kelpie’ has indeed existed, for centuries, within the realm of culture and imaginative works… However, so far as the matter we are concerned with goes, he has yet to make one move towards proving that ‘Nessie’ exists in the real world, as nearly all of his references and points of proof are based upon Gaelic or Pictish legend. Though legend may be colorful, it is not fact… or, to be more precise, it is often a system of unreality based upon the real. In this case, I would argue that the existence of ‘Nessie/Kelpie’ in both the Gaelic and Pictish (though both Celtic, they were separated into different regions/language subfamilies) cultures goes a long way towards revealing the legend to be based upon a variant of the eel family, as the ‘Celtic Beast’ appears in non-Pictish artworks long before the first Gael (St. Columba?) penetrated into the heart of the Highlands. To be clear, the persistence of the ‘beast’ in lands far beyond the Loch is a sign that it is not a localized creature, nor one that can only be described by a few unusual, dinosaur-esque sightings from the 1930s.
With that in mind, we are left to believe that the Celtic beast is either purely artistic in origin, having been spread throughout Celtic lands via folklore, or that it is a real creature found in these lands, but one to which a legendary status has been added.
At this point I must relate how I went about researching this topic: Assuming that Tass would present a ‘best evidence’ type argument, rather than a mythological one, I read many accounts of ‘Nessie’ that were written throughout the ages. In the ones related by credible witnesses, the creature was always described as being snake or eel like. Tales of Pleiosaurs DID NOT appear until the 20th century, by which time the sum total reports of Nessie sightings had dropped off in the years following the beginning of the scientific age. To save words: Nessie was only seen as a weird monster in the period where the eel, itself, was a mysterious creature. Afterwards, the legend went dormant until re-appearing as a dinosaur-like creature IN ONE LOCALE. So, to get back to my lead, here, were Nessie some sort of pleiosaur, the Celtic Beast would have been described as such throughout the Celtic lands, throughout history. As things are, reports of a dinosaur like creature can all be traced back to a series of hoaxes in the 1920/30s (the ‘footprints’ Tass speaks off were actually stuffed Hippo feet, of which I will talk about more later on). Thus, even Tass’ own mythological facts do not support him.
In my research into known animals that could have inspired the Celtic Beast, I quickly came across the observation that, before modern times, eels were seen as monsters of the deep. Though sold for food in some European markets, nothing was known of their origin or lives… In fact, Aristotle believed that they were a form of worm that had reached maturity in the seas. The words for ‘eel’ and ‘sea monster’ were USED INTERCHANGEABLY in many European languages, and, indeed, in literature. So, this is NOT a matter of myself pointing out that ‘Nessie’ could be an eel, it is a matter of explaining that eels were, in the past, seen as sea monsters: We are dealing only with a transition of terms, not of observations.
So, are eels found throughout the Celtic lands, especially Scotland? YES. In fact, large species that fit descriptions of ‘Nessie’ can be found. The Conger (conger conger) and European (anguilla anguilla) are large types that inhabit both Loch Ness and places like coastal Ireland. Growing, normally, up to 10 feet or more in length, with a trunk as thick as a man’s (from Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia: Volume 4: LCCCN:79-183178), they fit the mold of the Celtic Beast. When failing to spawn, they’ve also been known to suffer physical problems that cause them to swell in size (pg 165).
So, what we have is a (now) known species that inspired lore centuries ago, faded out of ‘real’ discussion when the nature of eels became known, and re-appeared (in a SINGLE LOCALE) when it was re-invented as a dinosaur.
reply posted on 21-10-2003 @ 07:09 PM by onlyinmydreams
‘W’ Captures Nessie
Well, actually Tass, I’ve only said that a large species of eel lives in the Loch… Not a super large ‘monster’ of an animal. This species fits with the majority of descriptions of ‘Nessie’, many of which pre-date the scientific ‘discovery’ of eels.
What I’ve also said was that eels were once, in the pre-modern age, directly referred to as sea monsters… that is, it is fairly apparent that ancient and medieval writers were often talking about the larger breeds of eel when they were mentioning ‘sea monsters’. To be perfectly clear, I am not saying that eels COULD have been the sea monsters of the past, I am saying that only a difference in contemporary TERMINOLOGY separates the ‘sea monsters’ of the past from the larger eels of today.
The point of my philologistic argument is that the continuation of the ‘Nessie’ legend is just a case of some people being unaware of the changes in terminology that have occurred during history.
But, to go back to the ‘large animal’ issue… Well, first off, Loch Ness does not possess a sufficient ecosystem to provide for a population of animals on the order you are proposing live there. It is a ‘dead lake’, so to speak, where only creatures like eels and pike can thrive because they are essentially bottom feeders(George,Winfield 2000). There is not enough raw food to support one ‘Nessie’ let alone a breeding population of them.
Loch Ness is also not an unending expanse like outer space. It is not even a very large lake. It is surrounded by villages, highways, and some industrial/transport nodes. To think that an enormous animal (of the type you are describing) can live in it and only have been spotted by a handful of people in the 30s is absurd. It would be, quite literally, the proverbial pink elephant in the room. To be frank, if a dinosaur type animal were really down there… it would have been caught and shipped off to an aquarium by now. Rather, what we DO HAVE is a couple of misreported eel sightings (eels do, on occasion, travel near the surface… their wakes seemingly magnifying their size), ancient descriptions which Nessie-believers have never properly transliterated, and a handful of ‘on land’ dinosaur sightings, all of which have either proven to be hoaxes or situations where the witness lacked scientific training.
The bottom line is this: No trained scientist, experienced mariner/boater, or naturalist has EVER spotted the Loch Ness monster. At most, TRAINED people have only spotted what they later determined to be eels moving along the surface. Any sonar ‘hits’ that have occurred were not coordinated with an observed sighting (sorry, but an un-collaborated sonar return means nothing… I once found a submerged car with my own submarine) and have only, oddly enough, been registered by ‘Nessie-Hunters’ who made a living off of spinning Nessie-Tales and giving Nessie-Tours.
In some ways, Tass is trying to make the argument I made with the Washington DC sightings of 1952 in the last debate… However, those sightings involved hundreds of witnesses at once, situations where multiple radars confirmed what expert witnesses – pilots – confirmed at close range to be non-human machines, and a situation where there was NOTHING that could imitate the actions performed by said machines. In Nessie’s case, however, we have, really, a dearth of expert witnesses, a dearth of witnesses in total (considering the small size of the Loch and the neighboring population), ZERO scientific readings that were performed by accredited institutions or government agencies, a situation where all historical references to creatures like ‘Nessie’ were actually just calling eels by another name, and a handful of outstanding observations that were proven to be hoaxes. Also, everything ‘Nessie’ has been said to do in the non-hoaxed reports fits in perfectly, in terms of behavior and physicality, with large Conger eels.
What we have, to be honest, is a non-issue…. A situation where a misread of ancient texts inspired some hoaxers in the 30s… Hoaxes that had the effect of making catalogued animals (large Conger eels) appear mysterious again. Really, I dare Tass to provide one authentic picture of ‘Nessie’ WHICH IS NOT A CONGER EEL OR OVERGROWN PIKE/STURGEON.
But why am I so confident that all of the dinosaur type sightings are hoaxes? Well, for one, the famous photo of ‘Nessie’ sticking his head out of the water was long ago revealed to be a puppet atop a toy sub (Nickell 1995). The ‘footprints’ Tass speaks of were also determined, by the Natural History Museum, to be stuffed hippo feet. As for that woman who saw ‘Nessie’ walking across the road, Tass has to provide more evidence as to why she should be believed… for me to even bother dealing with her.
reply posted on 22-10-2003 @ 08:49 AM by Tassadar
Well then, if the negative wishes a photo, he shall recieve:
From the official UK government sponsored Loch Ness reasearch site.
A true picture of the Loch Ness Monster. Notice the head rising over five feet out of the water?
Due to the psyioogical compsure of eels, an eel does not have the strength or iniative to lift it's head out of water. It would have to be over seventy feet long!! The theory of Nessie being an eel is illogical, impractical, and impossible.
Remember, 75% of ocean life has yet to be discovered by man, the elusive population consisting of perhaps not only tiny bacteria and deep-sea fishes, but large marine mammals and reptiles. Between 1900 and 1983, a total of 134 'new' species of both land and sea mammals surfaced. The Old Testament of the Bible contains several references to the 'dragon of the sea'. The legends of the ancient Norse races, the Australian Aborigines and the North American Indians is full of stories of sea serpents. There is no doubt that animals in the sea can grow to far greater sizes than would ever be possible for them on land, their bulk supported by the water. If huge mammals such as the blue whale, several times larger than the greatest of the dinosaurs, can survive hidden for most of their lives beneath the surface, who is to say what else may swim alongside them?
Certainly Nessie exists, however, to grow in extreme epic proportions to the smaller eels (which it is not related too) as 789 feet is nowhere close to the abyssal plane, there is still light down there. Remember, Nessie hides in underwater caverns under the Loch Ness? She has been detected on sonar before, and she does exist. In April of 1977 a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of New Zealand, netted a large carcass. They hoisted the rotting remains onto deck, weighed it and photographed it. It was returned to the water, so as not to spoil the catch. A drawing by an observer resembled a plesiosuar. In 1978, many scientists dismissed it as a basking shark, but some still belkieve it was a plesiosaur due to the the large hind fins, hard head, and the nostrils at the front of the head, decaying fat and red flesh.
Apparently, one of the biggest arguments against this is that most zoo-plankton eaters like the basking shark and other members of the whale family have gills that enable them to sift zoo-plankton just by swimming around. This of course goes against all the sightings when they are seen to be chasing fish around. Fish would be the obvious food source for any creature living in Loch Ness, but when we look at the fish counts done on the loch they vary from 1 ton to 27 tons. The Discovery Channel estimated 1 ton of fish in the loch. This was a very misleading figure as they could only trawl the centre of the Loch to a depth of 100 feet. The Loch Ness Project estimates around 27 tons of fish in the loch, but this does not include the eel population.
So, if Nessie feeds on fish then she must feed in the top 15 feet of water using natural light or her eyes could be like owls which contain more cones than rods which collect as much light as possible. Below this level she would need some other form of detection to catch her prey. This could be the use of lateral lines which fish use to shoal and detect attack by predators. The amblyopsis cave fish of Central America not only have lateral lines but have exposed neuromasts, the hair like projections which are extremely sensitive to low frequency vibrations, on their heads and bodies. With this system, Nessie could catch her food and live in complete darkness. Of course she could just sit at the river mouths and feed on the salmon who must wait for the river temperature to reach around 40 degrees fahrenheit so they can move up stream to their spawning grounds. Nessie of course could be nocturnal and again either system could apply.
Again, allow me to recap. Nessie is not an eel, as psyioloigcally sepaking, she is not strong enough to have been able to stand up and and hold her head out of water. At no time did I mention the use of the hippo's feet or the footprints as this topic is serious and childish hoaxes need to be left out of reality. Nessie does exist, and her existence is extremly likely and probable, as mythical legends often come true, only 1% of the ocean's surface has been explored, and she has been sighted well over 150 times. To denounce Nessie's existence is, initself ignorance.
(796 words)
From the official UK government sponsored Loch Ness reasearch site.
A true picture of the Loch Ness Monster. Notice the head rising over five feet out of the water?
Due to the psyioogical compsure of eels, an eel does not have the strength or iniative to lift it's head out of water. It would have to be over seventy feet long!! The theory of Nessie being an eel is illogical, impractical, and impossible.
Remember, 75% of ocean life has yet to be discovered by man, the elusive population consisting of perhaps not only tiny bacteria and deep-sea fishes, but large marine mammals and reptiles. Between 1900 and 1983, a total of 134 'new' species of both land and sea mammals surfaced. The Old Testament of the Bible contains several references to the 'dragon of the sea'. The legends of the ancient Norse races, the Australian Aborigines and the North American Indians is full of stories of sea serpents. There is no doubt that animals in the sea can grow to far greater sizes than would ever be possible for them on land, their bulk supported by the water. If huge mammals such as the blue whale, several times larger than the greatest of the dinosaurs, can survive hidden for most of their lives beneath the surface, who is to say what else may swim alongside them?
Certainly Nessie exists, however, to grow in extreme epic proportions to the smaller eels (which it is not related too) as 789 feet is nowhere close to the abyssal plane, there is still light down there. Remember, Nessie hides in underwater caverns under the Loch Ness? She has been detected on sonar before, and she does exist. In April of 1977 a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of New Zealand, netted a large carcass. They hoisted the rotting remains onto deck, weighed it and photographed it. It was returned to the water, so as not to spoil the catch. A drawing by an observer resembled a plesiosuar. In 1978, many scientists dismissed it as a basking shark, but some still belkieve it was a plesiosaur due to the the large hind fins, hard head, and the nostrils at the front of the head, decaying fat and red flesh.
Apparently, one of the biggest arguments against this is that most zoo-plankton eaters like the basking shark and other members of the whale family have gills that enable them to sift zoo-plankton just by swimming around. This of course goes against all the sightings when they are seen to be chasing fish around. Fish would be the obvious food source for any creature living in Loch Ness, but when we look at the fish counts done on the loch they vary from 1 ton to 27 tons. The Discovery Channel estimated 1 ton of fish in the loch. This was a very misleading figure as they could only trawl the centre of the Loch to a depth of 100 feet. The Loch Ness Project estimates around 27 tons of fish in the loch, but this does not include the eel population.
So, if Nessie feeds on fish then she must feed in the top 15 feet of water using natural light or her eyes could be like owls which contain more cones than rods which collect as much light as possible. Below this level she would need some other form of detection to catch her prey. This could be the use of lateral lines which fish use to shoal and detect attack by predators. The amblyopsis cave fish of Central America not only have lateral lines but have exposed neuromasts, the hair like projections which are extremely sensitive to low frequency vibrations, on their heads and bodies. With this system, Nessie could catch her food and live in complete darkness. Of course she could just sit at the river mouths and feed on the salmon who must wait for the river temperature to reach around 40 degrees fahrenheit so they can move up stream to their spawning grounds. Nessie of course could be nocturnal and again either system could apply.
Again, allow me to recap. Nessie is not an eel, as psyioloigcally sepaking, she is not strong enough to have been able to stand up and and hold her head out of water. At no time did I mention the use of the hippo's feet or the footprints as this topic is serious and childish hoaxes need to be left out of reality. Nessie does exist, and her existence is extremly likely and probable, as mythical legends often come true, only 1% of the ocean's surface has been explored, and she has been sighted well over 150 times. To denounce Nessie's existence is, initself ignorance.
(796 words)
reply posted on 22-10-2003 @ 10:38 PM by onlyinmydreams
A Known Conger Eel Tussles With A Meal Above Water
Well, as much as I’d like to debunk Tass’ ‘Nessie’ photo, I can’t because I’m not computer-savy enough to trace his photo back to the site in question. I wish that, once, Tass had provided a place where I could go and check his facts/data, but, alas, I am given no origins for his sources, and so can only provide you with a continuous stream of sources on my own…
…In regard to which I admit that I’ve favored written material over internet stuff. This may be because I work for a public library, but it’s mostly because I’ve found the very best material in print. Speaking of works in print, here is a list of books/articles that debunk ALL of the more famous, dinosaur-style, ‘Nessie’ photos:
Binns, Ronald. 1984. The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 96-100. -- . 1995. Letter to Joe Nickell, December 11.
Genoni, Tom. 1994. "After 60 Years, the Most Famous of All the `Nessie' Photos Is Revealed as a Hoax," Skeptical Inquirer 18:4 (Summer), 338-40.
Hoggart, Simon, and Mike Hutchinson. 1995. Bizarre Beliefs. London: Richard Cohen Books, pp. 196-99.
Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 170-71.
Smith, Richard D. 1995. "The Classic Wilson Nessie Photo: Is the Hoax a Hoax?" Fate, November, 42-44.
And, while we’re at it, here’s more info on the study I said shows that Loch Ness does not have enough living matter in it to support a huge animal:
‘Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of Zooplankton and Fish in Loch Ness, UK’ by George, DG:Winfield, I.J: Freshwater Biology 43: no 4 (2000) 557: ISSN 0046-5070
So far as accessibility goes, I found most of this info at my own library… and only had to order a few books from other libraries in the system… for those judges who are worried about checking sources. In fact, doing a basic FirstSearch/ArticleFirst search at the library (on its database computers) came up with dozens of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES that said (like the one listed above) that Loch Ness has, essentially, an ecosystem that cannot support anything above a large eel… But which CAN support a large eel.
But, going back to the issue of ‘Nessie’ photos… Notice how Tass first built his argument around stories from the 1930s, but has now moved away from that? Notice how he’s telling you how ‘Nessie’ MIGHT look, but is wary of presenting you reports of it outside of this 1920s/30s range? Hhmm… One wonders if he realizes that all of the dinosaur style sightings from that era have been proven to be hoaxes, while, outside of that, all other ‘Nessie’ sightings reveal an eel-like creature : )
To be frank, Tass has yet to provide us with a comprehensive list of Loch Ness sightings that support his extraordinary claims regarding a non-eel interpretation of ‘Nessie’, while I have given you info (and photos) regarding the large species of Eel that thrive in Loch Ness and, sometimes, reach extraordinary lengths (the one with ‘W’ is actually smaller than maximum length. I just thought the photo was funny). As such, Tass has just given you a lesson in mythology, while I have discussed biology…
…But, as for lessons, Tass seems intent on showing off his knowledge of the Loch with you. Well, I can play that game, too. Did you know that Loch Ness was once known as the lake of ‘floating islands’ because peat is often shed from neighboring mountains during storms and, as such, forms floating islands of moss and peat that drift about the lake? Sounds like tales of ‘humps’ in the wonder, no? Also, did you know that… Ah… eels like to come up to the surface to feed off of such ‘humps’ because they contain what little new nutrition is added to the lake? Forms a neat picture, eh?
I await the noble Executor of Aiur's concluding statement.
Well, as much as I’d like to debunk Tass’ ‘Nessie’ photo, I can’t because I’m not computer-savy enough to trace his photo back to the site in question. I wish that, once, Tass had provided a place where I could go and check his facts/data, but, alas, I am given no origins for his sources, and so can only provide you with a continuous stream of sources on my own…
…In regard to which I admit that I’ve favored written material over internet stuff. This may be because I work for a public library, but it’s mostly because I’ve found the very best material in print. Speaking of works in print, here is a list of books/articles that debunk ALL of the more famous, dinosaur-style, ‘Nessie’ photos:
Binns, Ronald. 1984. The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 96-100. -- . 1995. Letter to Joe Nickell, December 11.
Genoni, Tom. 1994. "After 60 Years, the Most Famous of All the `Nessie' Photos Is Revealed as a Hoax," Skeptical Inquirer 18:4 (Summer), 338-40.
Hoggart, Simon, and Mike Hutchinson. 1995. Bizarre Beliefs. London: Richard Cohen Books, pp. 196-99.
Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 170-71.
Smith, Richard D. 1995. "The Classic Wilson Nessie Photo: Is the Hoax a Hoax?" Fate, November, 42-44.
And, while we’re at it, here’s more info on the study I said shows that Loch Ness does not have enough living matter in it to support a huge animal:
‘Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of Zooplankton and Fish in Loch Ness, UK’ by George, DG:Winfield, I.J: Freshwater Biology 43: no 4 (2000) 557: ISSN 0046-5070
So far as accessibility goes, I found most of this info at my own library… and only had to order a few books from other libraries in the system… for those judges who are worried about checking sources. In fact, doing a basic FirstSearch/ArticleFirst search at the library (on its database computers) came up with dozens of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES that said (like the one listed above) that Loch Ness has, essentially, an ecosystem that cannot support anything above a large eel… But which CAN support a large eel.
But, going back to the issue of ‘Nessie’ photos… Notice how Tass first built his argument around stories from the 1930s, but has now moved away from that? Notice how he’s telling you how ‘Nessie’ MIGHT look, but is wary of presenting you reports of it outside of this 1920s/30s range? Hhmm… One wonders if he realizes that all of the dinosaur style sightings from that era have been proven to be hoaxes, while, outside of that, all other ‘Nessie’ sightings reveal an eel-like creature : )
To be frank, Tass has yet to provide us with a comprehensive list of Loch Ness sightings that support his extraordinary claims regarding a non-eel interpretation of ‘Nessie’, while I have given you info (and photos) regarding the large species of Eel that thrive in Loch Ness and, sometimes, reach extraordinary lengths (the one with ‘W’ is actually smaller than maximum length. I just thought the photo was funny). As such, Tass has just given you a lesson in mythology, while I have discussed biology…
…But, as for lessons, Tass seems intent on showing off his knowledge of the Loch with you. Well, I can play that game, too. Did you know that Loch Ness was once known as the lake of ‘floating islands’ because peat is often shed from neighboring mountains during storms and, as such, forms floating islands of moss and peat that drift about the lake? Sounds like tales of ‘humps’ in the wonder, no? Also, did you know that… Ah… eels like to come up to the surface to feed off of such ‘humps’ because they contain what little new nutrition is added to the lake? Forms a neat picture, eh?
I await the noble Executor of Aiur's concluding statement.
Pages: ^^TOP^^
