2nd Round Debate:Tassadar v OIMD:The Loch Ness Monster.

OK,We are into the 2nd round.Both have proven their mettle.


Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.
No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom.Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only 1 image or link may be included in any post.Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

The Debate topic is:A very large uncatalogued animal inhabits the depths of Loch Ness in Scotland.This animal is commonly known as The Loch Ness Monster.

Tassadar will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
OIMD will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Defaulters will not be excepted in the next Tournament.The winner will receive 5000 ATS points the loser(on condition of completion)will receive 2500 ATS points.This on top of generous points allocation for Debate forum posts.

This Topic will be opened on Sunday Oct 19th Evening GMT and the debate may start.

I wish you both goodluck.

The winner of this bout will face the winner of the Gazrok v Loki contest and will fight off to find our official Challenger to our Champion,Ktprktpr.

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, P�re 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)

There are certainly lifeforms on this Earth that have yet to be catalogued by humanity... Creatures for which no taxonomic information exists. Many of these, indeed, live in the black depths of the world's oceans and lakes... in realms where no man has gone before.

Yet, when a seemingly unknown animal is encountered, care must first be taken to rule it out as being a known, quite documented organism. Such is the case with 'Nessie' or 'Kelpie', a beast which is rumored to live in Scotland's Loch Ness... Which, as i will show in this debate, is a REAL animal, though not a 'monster', but, instead, a member of the eel family.

However, before we go into our main arguments, it is necessary to define the definitions and parameters of this debate. It must be very clear that, as the topic says, we are discussing a creature which is "commonly known as the Loch Ness Monster." That is, this debate must be about the serpentine creature the public thinks of when 'Nessie' springs to mind. Should Tassadar prove the existence of some weird bird, bug, or mammal in the Loch Ness region, he will not have proven the existence of the 'monster'.

Also, as we are tasked with debating whether or not Nessie is a catalogued creature, Tassadar cannot also just say that it's (like I will) a giant eel. In so doing, he would be 'proving' the existence of the monster by making it something other than the monster. This would be like proving that a certain UFO was 'real' by demonstrating that it was a Cessna -- Rather, should Tass argue that 'Nessie' is just a large individual from the eel family he will be doing my work for me. In the end, he must convince you that Nessie is of a genus yet to be encountered by man -- and so deserving of the 'monster' title.

What will I be doing? Well, I'll be providing you with scientific data regarding eels... I will present you with information regarding their migration, spawning, eating, and other habits. Off the bat, did you know that Loch Ness is a major spawning area for eels? Did you know that there are large, ocean-going eels which sometimes make their way into Loch Ness? Did you know that EEL LARVAE have been discovered that are over SIX FEET in length?

It would be easy for me to just shrug and say, "Oh, Nessie is an eel." Alone, this is a reasonable comment. However, I will be taking the time to show that, in terms of physical description and living patterns, 'Nessie' is undoubtedly an eel and that sightings of such should never have caused the legend of 'kelpie' to continue into the modern era in the first place.

As a man who has actually been onboard submarines and looked out into murky depths, I can atest to the fact that bodies of water, no matter they be ocean or lake, can distort one's sense of what one is seeing. They can make the familiar become alien. They also hide many things. So, let me reiterate that I appreciate and realize the probabilty that the water's of the world hold many creatures which are unknown to man... However, in the case of 'Nessie', we are dealing with a known species that has only become a 'monster' through the effects of Scotch... and the profits of tourism.

Well then I take it the issue over Neesie's existence has already been accepted in this debate, but OIMD, don't make a fool out of yourself. Eels do not breed in the the Loch Ness, eels breed in the Sargasso Sea. As per your large "catalouged animal" issue, mind you there are large versions of almost every species of animals on this planet. Nessie is infact an uncatalouged creature who does exist below the surface of the Loch Ness. Nessie has never been defined as one definite species. as all of her sightings tend to variate. Nessie has more commonly been defined as a pleiosaur (a non-existent mythical creature). One last issue to note, uncatalouged clearly translates too unrecorded, undefined, or unknown.

When the Romans first came to northern Scotland in the first century A.D., they found the Highlands occupied by fierce, tattoo-covered tribes they called the Picts, or painted people. From the carved, standing stones still found in the region around Loch Ness, it is clear the Picts were fascinated by animals, and careful to render them with great fidelity. All the animals depicted on the Pictish stones are lifelike and easily recognizable -- all but one. The exception is a strange beast with an elongated beak or muzzle, a head locket or spout, and flippers instead of feet. Described by some scholars as a swimming elephant, the Pictish beast is the earliest known evidence for an idea that has held sway in the Scottish Highlands for at least 1,500 years -- that Loch Ness is home to a mysterious aquatic animal.

In Scottish folklore, large animals have been associated with many bodies of water, from small streams to the largest lakes, often labeled Loch-na-Beistie on old maps. These water-horses, or water-kelpies, are said to have magical powers and malevolent intentions. According to one version of the legend, the water-horse lures small children into the water by offering them rides on its back. Once the children are aboard, their hands become stuck to the beast and they are dragged to a watery death, their livers washing ashore the following day.

The earliest written reference linking such creatures to Loch Ness is in the biography of Saint Columba, the man credited with introducing Christianity to Scotland. In A.D. 565, according to this account, Columba was on his way to visit a Pictish king when he stopped along the shore of Loch Ness. Seeing a large beast about to attack a man who was swimming in the lake, Columba raised his hand, invoking the name of God and commanding the monster to "go back with all speed." The beast complied, and the swimmer was saved.

Public interest built gradually during the spring of 1933, then picked up sharply after a couple reported seeing one of the creatures on land, lumbering across the shore road. By October, several London newspapers had sent correspondents to Scotland, and radio programs were being interrupted to bring listeners the latest news from the loch. A British circus offered a reward of �20,000 for the capture of the beast. Hundreds of boy scouts and outdoorsmen arrived, some venturing out in small boats, others setting up deck chairs and waiting expectantly for the monster to appear.

Remember, the first recorded sighting of "the monster" was in 1933 of the monster walking towards the loch carrying a carcass. Correct me if I'm wrong, however, I do not believe monsters can walk... Now I suppose several of the members and judges are wondering why I have not sounded off on the ever so controversial issue of sonar? Well infact, "large marine creatures have been detected with sonar.

Although zoologists have yet to conduct the full-scale investigation Rines hoped to trigger, the loch continues to yield intriguing sonar hits. In 1987, an expedition called Operation Deep Scan used a flotilla of 20 sonar-equipped boats to sweep the loch with a curtain of sound; the operation yielded three underwater targets that could not be explained. In the early 1990s, the BBC's Nicholas Witchell helped organize Project Urquhart, the first extensive study of the loch's biology and geology. Although they weren't looking for monsters, the expedition's sonar operators detected a large, moving underwater target and followed it for several minutes before losing it. And during a 1997 expedition, Rines and his longtime colleague Charles Wyckoff detected yet another puzzling underwater target. According to the expedition's sonar expert, marine biologist Arne Carr, it was a moving target, appeared to be biological in nature, and was about 15 feet long -- the size of a small whale.

Let's review: a creature that can swim deep underwater, can travel on land, swims at over 30 knots, and most importanty, "large". Doesn't sound like an eel to me. What about you?

(790 words)

�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.

Well OIMD, if you wish to continute this debate, so be it. First off I must thank you, for you have already excepted the fact that a "large creature" exists in the Loch Ness , and now it is simply a matter of whether it is catalouged or not. Therefore, I've already won two-thirds of this debate. Now, obviously Nessie is not catalouged, however, several animals are not catalouged and are discovered each new year.

May 2, 2003 marked the 70th anniversary of what is considered the world's formal introduction to the Loch Ness Monster. On May 2, 1933, an Inverness newspaper ran an article called "A Strange Spectacle on Loch Ness" that described how Mrs. Mackay encountered the creature on the Scottish lake ("Loch" is Scottish for "lake"). This was not the first sighting of the Loch Ness creature, but it was in that year that it was dubbed a monster and the report was widely circulated. Although Nessie is not taken seriously by skeptics and many mainstream scientists, there is some evidence that a large, unknown creature really does live in Loch Ness. There have been numerous sightings by reliable witnesses, photographs (both above and below the water's surface), film and video footage, and interesting sonar readings. Nessie lives in a strange envioremntL Loch Ness is located in Northern Scotland, running southwest to northeast sized at approximately 23 miles long and about 1 mile wide; it is 786 feet at its deepest point; it is the deepest and one of the largest bodies of fresh water in Britain. These animals inhabit the Loch: Atlantic salmon, charr, eels, minnows, large pike, sticklebacks, sturgeon, trout and various other fish. Seals and otters also live in Loch Ness, but are rarely seen. Nessie is believed to have a long neck, horse like head, along with a humped back. This supposedly 2500 pound monster is dark or elephant gray and is approximately 15 to 40 feet in length

Now don't get all excited OIMD, remember how giant squids, sharks, eels, and other "larger than normal creatures" live at the bottom of the ocean? in the Abyssal Plane? This is well below 6,000 feet of water, whereas the deepest point in Loch Ness is 786 feet deep (excluding the caverns and such at the bottom of the Loch) in which a larger than normal version of it's species would exist. Now, Nessie is not larger than most members of her species, as she is not an eel, and is the only live specimen of her species left. However, if you truly desire evidence here are just five of the hundreds of sightings of the Loch Ness Monster.

In April of 1933, Mrs. Aldie Mackay reports seeing a whale-like creature in the loch near Aldourie Castle (where Nessie has been sighted on other occasions). The account was written up for the Inverness Courier by water bailiff Alex Campbell and the excitement about a monster in the loch was born.
On July 22, 1933, Mr. and Mrs. Spicer saw Nessie on land! While passing the loch on their way to London from Northern Scotland, the couple saw the large creature crossing the road in front of them. Mr. Spicer told the newspaper that it looked like a large prehistoric creature and was carrying a small lamb or some other animal in its mouth. He described it as being about 25 feet long with a long neck. He believed it disappeared into the loch.
During November of 1933, The first photo of the alleged monster was taken by Hugh Gray. 1934 - Brother Richard Horan saw the neck and head protruding from the water at only 30 yards away. He said it reached about 3-1/2 feet above the surface, and the creature was looking at him.
During 1963, Mr. Hugh Ayton claimed to have seen the creature from shore. He and three friends jumped into a motor boat and followed it for about a mile. He said he could never forget its large oval-shaped eye looking at him from its horse-like head.
In 1972, A monk at the Fort Augustus Abbey, Father Gregory Brusey, was walking with an organist when they both saw the neck and head of the creature protruding about 6 feet above the loch's surface. They said it moved through the water, turned on its side and submerged.

I hope you are satisfied with the overwhelming evidence for Nessie, the uncatalouged large creature at the bottom of the Loch Ness, and against this giant eel rubbish. No eel can walk on land, no eel can raise it's head over six feet above the water, only Nessie could, the monster we will never see or undestand because people like you have no desire to prove the truth, when it is already there before our eyes.

(799 words)

�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.

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)

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.

Thankyou Gentlemen.Closing Statement now please.

If it is true sightings you desire, then sightings you shall have. All of these from trustworthy sources, many of which occured upon the same day.
Observer: D Mackenzie
Time: 1200
Date: October 1871
Motion: Slow, then moved off at speed
Description: Log like, then up-turned boat

Observer: Roderick Matheson
Time: Unknown
Date: 1885
Motion: Forward
Description: Described as the biggest thing I ever saw in my Life, neck like a horse with a mane.

Observer: Alexander Macdonald
Time: Early morning
Date: 1888
Motion:
Description: He called it salamander-like.

Observer: Miss N Smith
Time: 1400
Date: August 5th 1933
Motion: Moved circling, submerged
Description: 1 hump, size of a rowing boat

Observer: Miss P Keyes, R.A.R. Meiklem and Mrs Meiklem
Time: 1500
Date: August 5th 1933
Motion: Moved back and forth, submerged
Description: 1 hump,(4-6ft) seen end on with ridge (size of cart horse)

Observer: Mr A. H. Palmer
Time: 0700
Date: August 11th 1933
Motion: Disturbance, wake, saw head, moved off
Description: Head set low in the water, front view, mouth opening and closing. Width of mouth 12-18 inches, opened 6inches

Observer: Mr and Mrs Geoffrey Craven and 2 children
Time: 0920
Date: August 6th 1969
Motion: Disturbance, surfaced, submerged
Description: 2 humped object, 25-30ft by 3-4ft

Now for some actual modern time sightings:
Observer: Captain of the Royal Scot
Time: 14.00
Date: 1st June 2003
Motion: Moving
Description: Travelling at 30 to 35 miles per hour.
Loch was flat calm at the time

Observer: 25 passengers and crew on Royal Scot
Time: 20.00
Date: 1st June 2003
Motion: Drifting Hump
Description: Saw hump 4 to 5 feet long about
5 or 6 inches out of the water. Drifting along with the water.

Observer: A Fisherman
Time: 22.00
Date: 1st June 2003
Motion: Motionless then disappeared under the water
Description: The fisherman saw something resting on the surface of Borlum Bay for three or four minutes before it did a surface roll underwater and disappeared.

All seen 1 Jun 2003 on the Loch. Not to mention there have been hundreds more in the past century. Nessie is not an eel, the notion is foolish nonsense. To believe that on eel could have been responsible for hundreds of sightings over the past 1500+ years is impossible. It couldn't happen. Now, everyone take carefuel note of this as OIMD will either ignore this statement or change his whole debate during the closimg statement with some argument such as there are more than one giant eels (which has never been said). I tell you OIMD, the evidence is overwhelming; twelve sightings, real life photo, perfect logical explanation. Whereas there has been no countering to the fact giant (larger than normal creatures or mutants) live below the Abyssal Plane. There IS a large uncatalouged creature lying within the Loch Ness which is not an eel. Again, remember the negative has already agreed with two thirds of the topic, therefore two thirds is already mine, plus the fact that OIMD has not catlouged the monster yet serves as the final completion of the puzzle. I have seen no giant eel capable of fitting these descriptions. Would you be so kind as to enlighten us?

(484 words)

To modify a common phrase, if it swims like an eel, eats like and eel, and looks like an eel � It�s an eel.

Tassadar says that I�ve agreed with 2/3rds of his position� well, what I HAVE said was that the ancients used terms for eels and �sea monsters� interchangeably, that, in fact, eels were, in the past, simply referred to as sea monsters, and so using ancient/medieval texts as a source for �Nessie� reports is an error that does not factor in proper translation/transliteration. What I�ve ALSO said was that all �Nessie� reports that paint a picture of a dinosaur-like creature (and accompanying photos) have been proven as hoaxes. As such, I have pointedly argued that any and all credible �Nessie� sightings describe what is easily identified as an eel� and that any association between these eels and �Nessie� is due to the tendency of some people to buy into a legend before they take the time to look up basic scientific information.

Tass also says that I have yet to provide the name of a catalogued animal� Well, from the onset of this debate I have identified the CONGER EEL (scientific name:Conger conger) and EUROPEAN EEL (Anguilla anguilla) as the Loch Ness �monster�.

But, now Tass has new (still uncited) information. Sorry, but an eel swimming at the surface DOES, in fact, due to the oscillation of its body, appear to have humps (notice how the ones recently described WERE NOT the massive mounds of flesh Tass originally alluded to). Conger eels, it should be noted, can also grow what appear to be �beards� or manes near their heads, as, in old age, fat/tissue deposits can collect under their skin there (see my Grzimek notation above). These new reports walk, talk, and look like eels to me.



To conclude, now, let me go into a short warning concerning boating: On the water, things often seem closer or farther away than they appear. Submerged objects may go unseen� or, the water itself can play tricks of light and shadow and generate illusory masses before your eyes. The waves and the sun they reflect can hypnotize, while detachment from the shore can momentarily horrify or panic. In many ways, a boater is transported into another psychological environment when away from land. This mental change makes it hard for the inexperienced to judge what is going on around them� In short, just as this brain fog can make dangerous rocks appear more distant than they are, it can also make a ten foot eel, traveling swiftly at the water�s surface, appear to be a twenty foot �hump� or �neck�. Speed, shape, and size can only be told with extreme accuracy by a person who is aware of the effect�s of the waves and, so, can self-consciously counteract them.

Notice, then, that the only skipper Tass reports as a �Nessie� witness is, in fact, the master of a tour boat that makes its money looking for the monster : )

OK,Guys thanks.Great job.

I'll set about getting a result.

I will open a topic in Chitchat later for results.