Is the Plesiosaurus the explanation behind the Loch Ness Monster?

I think the Plesiosaurus theory is the most accurate, personally, comparing the descriptions of the two, and the similarities contained therein. But who knows?


Mr. M

Since the loch is only 10,000 years old, where did the plesiosaurss live before that?

I concur with StarChild, I believe that the loch ness monster is a pleseasaur, we must remember that: firstly, the pleseasaur and other such dinosaurs ARE NOT REPTILES, there was blood found on fossils proving them to be warm-blooded, we must also remember that we are talking about a lake that at one time connected with the ocean, so could nessie have lived in the ocean until this time? I hold strongly to my opinion that nessie exists because I have NEVER seen ANY infallible defense against nessie.

Originally posted by DRdino
I concur with StarChild, I believe that the loch ness monster is a pleseasaur, we must remember that: firstly, the pleseasaur and other such dinosaurs ARE NOT REPTILES,

They are not reptiles??? that is a new one.

(BTW, the plesiosaur is not a dinosaur, My son knew that when he was 4.)

there was blood found on fossils proving them to be warm-blooded,

Fossils have NO organic components whatsoever.

edit: BTW, even reptiles have blood.

I hold strongly to my opinion that nessie exists because I have NEVER seen ANY infallible defense against nessie.

Oh, man, the best sig line yet.

I love a logical fallacy



[Edited on 29-5-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by DRdino
I concur with StarChild, I believe that the loch ness monster is a pleseasaur, we must remember that: firstly, the pleseasaur and other such dinosaurs ARE NOT REPTILES,

Plesiosaurs are, infact, reptiles. They are not dinosaurs. Some dinosaurs may very well have been warm blooded tho, yes.

there was blood found on fossils proving them to be warm-blooded,

No, there wasn't. Mary Schwitzer (i beleive thats how her name is spelled) found some of the chemicals found in blood cells preserved in fossilized dinosaur bone. Neither actual -blood- (dried or otherwise) nor actual blood cells have ever been found associated with dinosaur fossils.

Furthermore, even -if- a quart of dinosuar blood was found, it would -not- indicate either way if the organism was 'warm or cold blooded'. These are attributes of metabolism, and are completely and totally unrelated to blood products.

The reports made by the paleontologists working on the above mentioned fossil do -not- state that the organism was warm blooded because of the blood. I don't know where you got that information from, but its completely wrong.

we must also remember that we are talking about a lake that at one time connected with the ocean,

Loch Ness didn't even exist until relatively recently (in geologic terms)

so could nessie have lived in the ocean until this time?

No, it could not have. This would require large populations of the animal (which, keep in mind, is air breathing, must surface, and therefore can't hide at depth) to have existed for 65 million years without leaving any carcasses or, more importantly, any fossils. Before 65 million years ago one finds plenty of aquatic reptile fossils, especially plesiosaurs. Afterwards, none. Not one, for 65 million years worth of strata. Why? If they were around in large numbers and all throughout the earth's oceans (which they would have to be, they probably wouldn't have survived in northern oceans during ice ages, so would've had to have come from somewhere else) without leaving any evidence at all as to their existence. And then, this thuroughly ocean going animal for some reason swims into a tiny freshwater lake in scotland? No.

I hold strongly to my opinion that nessie exists because I have NEVER seen ANY infallible defense against nessie.

And what exactly would that be? If it doesn't exist, how can their be evidence against its existance? If it did exist, then one could at least find evidence, hypothetically anyway. But if it does not exist, then they'r'll never be any evidence to testify to this.

All the info there is extremely interesting!
and will help me write my report on unsolved mysteries!
But, i found that the Plesiosaurus the best theory. Other than that, there really is no other theory with alot of information to go for or against it.

the pleseasour is a water dewlling dinasour, not a monster like most people think. Oh, and what is with this 10,000 year business that you are talking about?? the world was created by God about 8,000 years ago. I can prove it 'cause when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, the dust on the moon was about a foot deep. So that ment that the moon was a few thousand years old. The dust would of had to of been more than a foot deep for the moon to of been around 10,000 years ago. And the earth was created when the moon was, so that means that the world was made a few thousand years ago. If you don't believe me, look it up in the Bible!

The problem with the plesiosaurus is that the area would need a population to keep on reproducing. There is not enough food in the Loch, and sonar would of discovered a few of them. It is possible one did wander into Loch Ness from the ocean (which could account for some sightings), but a population in the area is highly unlikely. I think it may be a large eel or even a sturgeon.