loch ness monster

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 07:37 PM
link   
let the debate begin on one of the most controversail things the lochness monster and it's exsistance




posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I mentioned this on another thread about Mokele Mbembe...

Where the hell are the rest of them?

However, the main problem I see with the "long lost dinosaur" theory is, where the hell are the rest of them? Anyone who knows much about biology will know that for a specific population to exist for any extended period of time (and this would be over 65 million years!) it takes more than just one reproducing pair.



The specific size of the survivor population depends on many variables, such as proclivity for reproduction, average number of offspring, survivability, suitability of environment, longevity, ect. Therefore, a survivor population could range from dozens to hundreds. For a population to survive for 65 million years, it would take hundreds to thousands.

Then comes the question of why wasnt it discovered before? I can buy that some populations may remain unknown for extended periods, based on size of the animal, the specific environment, and its average intelligence (I personally believe that it is very possible for a survivor population of Sasquatch to exist, as they seem to exhibit considerable intelligence and live in very secluded and hard to access environments).

However, an animal this size, requiring a very sizable survivor population for that long a period, I find it VERY hard to believe they wouldnt have been found long ago. There is also the fact that Brontos had very voracious appetites: If a survivor population did exist, they would have denuded large swathes of vegetation, thereby giving themselves away. Also, I find it hard to believe that ANY population is going to exist for 65 million years without some very substantial mutation/evolution, essentially changing thier very form.



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 02:17 AM
link   
We have no information about the supposed loch ness monster. It could have live for 10 years or it might live for 200 million years.



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 06:24 AM
link   
with anything water based we can never asume it doesnt exist, untill recently kraken where believed a myth, but just last month NZ scientists were studying a baby squid whitch at adult size would infact be big enough to take down a ship the size of one of the roman empires war galleys, so with the lochness monster who knows maybe they migrate? lochness has access to the sea so it is plausible.



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 10:35 AM
link   
just because we cant see them doesnt mean they arent there. Your arguement dragon is that we should be able to find them since there should be alot of them. I am sure that if you went into some uncivilized very native part of africa in the jungles somewhere there would be a tribe of some sort. And there might be alot of them in their tribe or whatever but they would be able to hide themselves from you. What makes you think that something like the lochness monster hasnt been extremely adept at hiding itself completely. That prolly didnt make much sense....I dont know why i bother posting on here when i just wake up lol.



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Maybe it is a group of species capable of joining together to make a larger creature... kinda like the mini M&M's," you know where they become a hammer and a hand, ets."

It could be a good survival tactic, a bunch of small creatures coudn't take down a large fish, but if they cooinced with each other to make a large creature "Nessie" they could easily take it down.

OK that could possibly be the most far fetched theory on ATS, it must be a Monday...lol

_____________________________________________
Be Cool K_OS



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Have to admit...don't believe in a Loch Ness Monster!

There may have been something living in the Loch many years ago but now...nah...nothing!

I think the most dangerous thing around Loch Ness and that area is the drivers and the local firewater!

This is coming from a scot..so trust me!



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 10:44 PM
link   
lochness has access to the sea so it is plausible. Posted by Seedy Sid

I dont have any information supporting this, but if you do, please let me know, would like to see it.

I know it has been floated that there is the possibility that there may be an underground connection between Loch Ness and the ocean. To my knowledge, this is only a theory and has never been proven or disproven (although we have the technology to do so, but would be expensive. If someone wanted to foot the bill, I would love to do the seismic survey to find out!)

(Besides, would give me an excuse to visit friends in the UK!)

For the record, I do believe that there likely are species we think extinct or have never seen before in the ocean. It is considerably easier to hide in the ocean, as well as to find sustenance than on dry land. However, as mentioned above, we have no proof that Loch Ness is connected.

My statements regarding the required minimum population to sustain throughout time is perfectly valid however.

I am sure that if you went into some uncivilized very native part of africa in the jungles somewhere there would be a tribe of some sort. And there might be alot of them in their tribe or whatever but they would be able to hide themselves from you. Posted by Osobad28

Actually, that would be very hard to hide something like that. If you use the Mokele Mbembe example, you are talking about what is thought to be a Brontosaur (which are about 2.5 times as big as an African Elephant), which required at least 3 x its body weight in vegetation every day in order to stay alive. Consider that you would need say 500 individuals to keep up genetic diversity to survive to today:

Assuming that a single individual weighs 25 tons, and ate 75 tons of vegetation a day X 500 = 37500 tons of vegetation disappearing every day for the next 65 million years. That is assuming the population remained stable.

Now, it is also the norm for animal populations to expand uncontrolled until brought into check by either predation or lack of food (which would likely be the limit here, but we would know that as the entire continent would be denuded). Animals, the last I heard, dont practice birth control...

So, yes, it is possible for such animals to possibly survive in the open ocean, but NOT confined to a lake, or on dry land, at least not without being found by now.



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 05:24 AM
link   
The links to the sea are underground it was proven on a discovery channel show i was watching they found one of the underground tunnels with sonar when searching for nessie, I believe it was in 2001 or it may of been 2000.



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 08:44 AM
link   
In a word, "Myth"..!!



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Here's an ok image. It's not very clear.




posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I am convinced that there are huge creatures living in Loch Ness. I feel it might be a bit intelligent and actually avoid human contact, from my Scottish ancesters with painted blue faces throwing stones and spears at them. So they've opted for the quiet life and hide in caves when they feel sonar or whatever going past.



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I doubt Nessie exists. If it(?) did exist, I think we'd have a clearer picture by now. I just posted the pic above because I happened to be on a site with the pic while I was browsing this thread.



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The links to the sea are underground it was proven on a discovery channel show i was watching they found one of the underground tunnels with sonar when searching for nessie, I believe it was in 2001 or it may of been 2000. Posted by Seedy Sid

As I have never been to Scotland, and am somewhat ignorant as to the exact geology of the region, I am at a disadvantage with this discussion.

However, at least this link does point out a few facts that make a LOT of sense to me (very logical in terms of geologic aspects of the lake).

The main problem with this theory is that Loch Ness is a full 15 meters higher in surface elevation over the surrounding sea level. If a direct opening to the sea existed, the lake would equalize to sea level, dropping a full 15 meters.

Also, as pointed out on this link, I highly doubt that any cave or underground tunnel would remain open and accessible over very long periods. It would tend to collapse, be closed by sedimentation, or other debris, or conversely, would open up due to erosion and collapse at the surface, forming a giant bay in the interior of the land.

Again, we *do* have the technology to find if such a link did exist, and I would love to do so (could probably publish a cool paper on seismic reflectivity surveying, and would probably go over big due to the sensational nature).

www.lochnessinvestigation.org...



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 07:38 PM
link   
what bugs me is the fact that we havent found a dead body yet. Many were skepticle about giant squid, but we eventually found a corpse washed up on shore. Many are skepticle of Loch Ness Monster and i think its very understandable due to the fact that we havent found even 1 body yet.



posted on Apr, 29 2003 @ 08:04 PM
link   
yeah with the giant squid that legend has been around for centuries upon centuries, but how long has the legend of nessie been around, also we dont know what nessies life span would be, so its life span may be 200 years



posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 12:58 PM
link   
on a fishing boat somewhere in japan they picked up this creauture that apeared to be a nessie of some kind.I forgot the site but it was very convincing



posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:10 PM
link   
You could just as easily say that, if you can't see God he doesn't exist. There is no way for anyone on this planet to say what does or doesn't exist on this world...



posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGFOOT
on a fishing boat somewhere in japan they picked up this creauture that apeared to be a nessie of some kind.I forgot the site but it was very convincing


Ah, the infamous "plesiosaur" capture. This was actually proven to be a misinterpretation I believe, or it was generally concluded to be one. It is actually the rotting corpse of a basking shark, a species that because of its biological structure, can decay and form what appears to be a plesiosaur. That is what most skeptics say anyway, but the believers can choose whatever they want...

Click me for more info



posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Lets see.....
We can believe in aliens
We can believe in paranormal activities
We can believe in the capabilities of HAARP
We can believe in God
We can believe in a Devil
We can believe in evolution
We can believe in countless things........!
But
We can't believe that the possibilities of some type dinosaurs may still exist?

I don't have "proof" of anything but one does have to wonder......
www.anzwers.org...

www.anzwers.org...

www.anzwers.org...

And countless other sites can be given. One can continue to be skeptical, really doesn't matter in the end, but one must also be aware that there are many (!) things that cannot be explained....as of yet....and may not ever be explained.

regards
seekerof





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join