Let's say (for argumentative purposes) that the flood is what killed the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs who lived underwater would have survived, right? This explains the sightings of the Loch Ness Monster, and the giant squids, etc.


Mr. M

reasonabe, especially with the ammount of assumption...

The description of the Loch Ness Monster fits the description of the Plesiosaurus perfectly. In my opinion, it is the most reasonable answer. Dinosaurs still roam the Earth, just underwater...


Mr. M

this is the most logical explanation if it exists but next time use search cause this has been talked about before

really really really old discussion but like me, u failed to use the search option
i seriously doubt that a dinosaur is in loch ness. if dinosaurs who lived underwater survived, y didn't it evolve like the rest of the animals? a dinosaur that big wouldn't be able to surive in the loch for long since it requires a huge ecosystem. also, there would be more than 1 and probably more than 2 since it had to reproduce and according to the hardy-wienburg principles, a small population will evolve faster than a huge one.

actually a dino in loch ness is possible because in 1935 of the coast of south africa a fish called the coelacanth was caught in a fishing net thought to be extinct for millions of years and it existed before dinosaurs. since this happened 60 more have been caught

Yeah, considering the world is 75% ocean, and most of it has not been explored, it could be a possibility. If it were a flood that killed the dinosaurs, then it could quite possibly be true they are still alive. Most people do beleive the comet/meteor blast theory though, so I will explain the problems with that.

The problem with the extinction of dinosaurs is, that when there was the initial blast and covering of the atmosphere with clouds, it creates a detremantal effect on the plankton living in the oceans, and all bodies of water. As you all know, the food chain starts at microscopic organisms, mainly plankton, which almost all small fish eat.

So yeah, I don't know, maybe the marine/aquatic dinosaurs went extinct inderectly from any meteor/comet or what not.

Originally posted by silQ
really really really old discussion but like me, u failed to use the search option
i seriously doubt that a dinosaur is in loch ness. if dinosaurs who lived underwater survived, y didn't it evolve like the rest of the animals? a dinosaur that big wouldn't be able to surive in the loch for long since it requires a huge ecosystem. also, there would be more than 1 and probably more than 2 since it had to reproduce and according to the hardy-wienburg principles, a small population will evolve faster than a huge one.

silq is right because he is cool. there is no such thang as a lokniss monster and if there were hed be dead because he is so old. and because of the huge ecosomething like silq said.

*

[Edited on 5/4/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

hahahaha lol anilamomega i seriously think that you maybe drunk

But what about the whole evolution thing? Don't you think that some of these dinosaurs would have evolved onto land. Especially since the world's lakes and such are always changing. There were also probably many aquatic dinosaurs and one would have probably been found and scientifically proven to exist.

There were actually a few undersea dinosaurs that survived the ice age, thought the names of them evade me.

peanut gallery: technically, Plesiosaurs aren't dinosaurs, or at least they wern't in my day, just like the Pterodactyl isn't. Plesiosaurs are defined as aquatic reptillians and Pterodactyls as flying reptillians

Uhhh...


They are prehistoric. I think that is the point here. Whether or not they are "classified" as dinosaurs doesn't matter...


Mr. M

I'm relatively new here so to me this topic is compelling.
I have always held a keen interest in the legend and lore of Loch Ness. Methinks the possibility exists that there is a paranormal aspect to Nessie sightings. Meaning, a grand and perhaps ghostly tease. Certainly, the legend of Nessie dates back centuries, but we must consider that the region around Loch Ness was a relative hotbed of strange religious practices and witchcraft long ago. So much so, certain renowned advocates and practishoners of witchcraft and sorcery have been so drawn to the Loch as to take up residence there.

While this possibility does sound like quite a reach, we must remember that Loch Ness has always been associated with strange if not queer happenings.

For those that believe in the possibility of ghosts, could not a ghost of a long-extinct creature still haunt the Loch, periodically teasing onlookers and residents?

Why was Allister Crowley so enamoured with Loch Ness?

Whatever the case, anything to do with Loch Ness will always certainly command my attention!

BTW - A few things about the infamous pleasiosaur, as I see it.

Supposedly, these so-called extinct creatures (species!) were reptiles. Would they not gravitate to warmer waters with sandy beaches (much like we Canadians!)?
Would they not be a danger/threat to humans (Canadians included)?

If the military has the ability to make the oceans transparent with their sonar technology, would they not be aware of the existence of said pleasiosaur among other so-called extinct creatures? I mean, submarine traffic can be murder these days!

Does it not seem odd that several plesiosaur fossils have been located in and around Scotland/England over the last few years?

Loch Ness is but one hotbed of so-called sea serpent activity. Apparently, Australia and New Zealand have had their fare share of long neck sightings by scores of fisherman for centuries.

On that note, the carcass that washed ashore in Nova Scotia (Canadians!) in the Summer of 2002 looked strangely like remains of anything but a Basking Shark (but then - don't they all!!!). Why did investigating scientists not give the carcass a second thought without even so much as visiting the site to view it in person???

Science so arrogantly dismisses the unlikely out of hand all too often. Regardless, there have been zen lessons over the last 100 or so years yet still science has failed to learn to keep an open mind.

Of course, their could be an agenda but we all know that appearances can be decieving.

Well, judging by all descriptions of this animal that I have ever read, primarily the fact that it had many rows of very sharp teeth, most scientists feel that the Plesiosaurus was a carnivore. Now, we all must understand that obviously "Nessie" is not 65 Million years old herself so that must mean that Plesiosauruses had been populating the area all this time. If you see one now there had to have been 2 before it right? Could a carnivore of that size survive in what is basically a large lake? I highly doubt it. Think of how much your pet cat eats per month of cat food, and then keep in mind that this little guy could range anywhere from 10-60 feet. Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot more fish etc being eaten than a lake system could support? And again, there would have to be more than one of them or there wouldn't be any for very long. I don't see this as being possible in that environment. Perhaps in an ocean I would be more inclined to believe it but in a lake? Impossible.

Djarums, you make some valid points but part of the loch legend holds that there are underwater passages that lead to the ocean. It is not completely inconcievable that the creature is migratory in nature, returning to the loch sporadically.

Other veins of legend such as the "Hollow Earth" hold that there is a definite underwater tunnel network from the Atlantic ocean through Europe down to Malta. One such legend refers to a vengeful serpent that traverses this passageway throughout time, trolling in search of prey. They hold that the only "break" in this passage system is Loch Ness!

Whatever!

For every rational reason that such a large so-called extinct creature cannot possibly exist in the loch, there seems to be compelling and oft unavoidable suggestion that inspite of it all - it does!