Good day to all you sasquach spotters, chupacabra chasers, and oogy boogy observers
As it has already been covered in this thread
but in case you haven't heard, the
loch Ness Monster could very well be a monster eel.
Now when we think of sea monsters, unleash the Kraken! No one looks at the media starved Super eel, and its story.
While reports of sea serpents have dated back centuries, it started to enter the realm of cryptozoology when a Belgian zoologist named Bernard
Heuvelmens, who cumulated dozens of eyewitness reports and categorised said creatures.
Here is his description from my archaic text* (a book)
Super-eel (12 sightings)
Size: 10 to 30 metres, suggesting two or more species.
Habitat: widespread in deep cold waters.
behavior:has been observed fighting sperm whales
Ok the last one sounds a little too Michael bay for me, but thanks to the work of Heuvelmens, his influence gave the field of cryptozoology a booster
Now back to the Super eels-could these results of eel DNA posthumously validate Heuvelmens research and the eyewitnesses accounts? I'm going to pull
out the ol' oxymoron and say yes and no.
Yes because we know just how big animals Can get in the right environment, in the Amazon (or what's left of it)
the snakes eat the crocodiles, not
the other way around.
No because it suffers the same problem as Bigfoot, so many sightings, so little evidence. Finding eel DNA in water samples is not finding anything but
'there are eels in there' live specimens need to found on camera and tracked.
What do you think? Would you prefer Heuvelmens super eel or the aqautic dinosaur theory? Or do you believe it's something else...?