Dinobot
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- May 19, 2015
- Messages
- 4,436
- Location
- Broadcasting from the moon...
And after being fed at midnight...Only before midday.
And after being fed at midnight...Only before midday.
I once knew a Scotsman who, for a good half hour, explained the lifecycle and habits of the wild, three-legged mountain haggis, the reasons they couldn't be kept in captivity, and how to hunt them. Natural bards, those celts.I once met a man from Scotland, he said his mother still lived in their home overlooking Loch Ness. Her kitchen window faced the Loch, and she claimed to have seen the monster many times, his long neck coming up out of the water, and swimming around. From what this man said, the residents in the area know there is something in the Loch.
Have the residents ever publicly made any statements?
? I don't understand your point of view.Good. We dont need academics messing in this.
There is no evidence for aquatic reptiles in Loch Ness.
Well, no-one has proven that Nessie doesn't exist...Its hard enough educating the public on real subjects without pulling pseudoscience into the mix.
Museums, particularly big ones have a scientific duty.
... Scientists really should have open minds, after all some of the subjects they study change and evolve over the years.
I am not a biologist nor zoologist and don’t know much about the history of the loch Ness monster. With that being stated, I don’t know what orthodox science thought about it 60 years ago, when Dr. Tucker was writing about the monster, or what the range of orthodox opinion was about it back then. I would assume that academic biologists or zoologists weighing in on this would be a welcome point of view, even if their opinion was later proven wrong.Its hard enough educating the public on real subjects without pulling pseudoscience into the mix.
Museums, particularly big ones have a scientific duty.
True that, and it brings to mind the Sandra Mansi photo of 1977 of a long-necked creature in Lake Champlain in Vermont.Well, no-one has proven that Nessie doesn't exist...
I think it's worth remembering that all this happened just 20 odd years after the first modern sighting, claimed or otherwise. Scientists really should have open minds, after all some of the subjects they study change and evolve over the years.
True that, and it brings to mind the Sandra Mansi photo of 1977 of a long-necked creature in Lake Champlain in Vermont.
Until her death in 2018, Ms Mansi insisted her photo was genuinely of a prehistoric type animal in the lake.
I think that most people now would think it unlikely that the monster was an aquatic reptile (although the Galapagos Islands have them).
I am not a biologist nor zoologist and don’t know much about the history of the loch Ness monster. With that being stated, I don’t know what orthodox science thought about it 60 years ago, when Dr. Tucker was writing about the monster, or what the range of orthodox opinion was about it back then. ...
Watched this one just the other night on Blaze Channel.True that, and it brings to mind the Sandra Mansi photo of 1977 of a long-necked creature in Lake Champlain in Vermont.
Until her death in 2018, Ms Mansi insisted her photo was genuinely of a prehistoric type animal in the lake.
I was being sarcastic when I wrote that “The Natural History Museum where he was employed certainly did its scientific duty by firing him.”I am not a biologist nor zoologist and don’t know much about the history of the loch Ness monster. With that being stated, I don’t know what orthodox science thought about it 60 years ago, when Dr. Tucker was writing about the monster, or what the range of orthodox opinion was about it back then. I would assume that academic biologists or zoologists weighing in on this would be a welcome point of view, even if their opinion was later proven wrong.
I think that most people now would think it unlikely that the monster was an aquatic reptile (although the Galapagos Islands have them). I have no idea if this seemed unlikely 60 years ago. I always assumed that a weird, natural phenomenon was responsible for at least some of the sightings, and that it was not all just an invented scheme.
Dr. Tucker paid dearly for his unpopular opinion, and perhaps for his cranky personality. The Natural History Museum where he was employed certainly did its scientific duty by firing him.
I'd be thrilled with a large, previously unidentified species of eel. Anything, really, for Nessie to show that cryptids represent the unknown rather than just misidentifications, attention seeking and tourist baiting.I would love it if the monster was a huge plesiosaur, but alas I think this is not the case. I think, in addition to lies, news media hysteria, and mistaken identity (the Forteana trifecta), the remaining causes are large eels. But if only! Oh but if only….. I'd certainly take even a little plesiosaur.
I'm alarmed to see such views being propagated - and Liked - on a forum such as this.Good. We dont need academics messing in this.
There is no evidence for aquatic reptiles in Loch Ness.
I can't speak for @Kondoru, but my take is this. I've no longer any time or respect for science deniers. After wasting years debating them online, I've realised nothing can be done with them. Yet they continue to proliferate. Scientific institutions need to be focusing on these things now. There is much that science can and has contributed to the Loch Ness phenomenon, and any academic who wishes to weigh in is, of course, welcomed (by forteans, at least, though not by those people who assume that 'science is a turtle that says that it's shell encloses all things', ironically). But the fortean playground is those phenomena which provide little for academia to study, leaving it open to speculation. Things some scientists may deride, we take great pleasure in. I'm fine if scientists wish to involve themselves in strange and rare phenomena if they see a basis on which to build hypotheses and a method of gathering data, but where that data is lacking, can't be reproduced, or is anecdotal, there's really little they can do. They have bigger, grimmer hills on which to die.I'm alarmed to see such views being propagated - and Liked - on a forum such as this.
I particularly loathe the tabloidesque line about `academics messing in this`
Don't get me started! But, no, I don't suppose that would be very constructive.What about scientists who have a faith and believe in God or Allah without supplying evidence? Should they be sacked from public posts also? Where does it end?
I'm not labelling Dr Tucker a science denier; he was just a man with an opinion.Peter: the fact remains that the New Scientist - a respected academic journal - saw fit to publish Dr Tuckers writing. This would imply to me that his views were not considered beyond the pale were within mainstream science that time. So to label him a `science denier` is something of a stretch.
it was the meatheaded tone of Kondoru's post more than anything else which grated. One should never be cavalier or gleeful about someone else's loss of livelihood and position (unless they are some kind of heinous criminal, that is).
Good. We dont need academics messing in this.
There is no evidence for aquatic reptiles in Loch Ness.
However to be sacked because of this belief is obviously unfair and against natural justice
Hmmmm. I would have said sea snake, iguana or sea turtle.Some people might disagree with that, I've been listening to the 'Terrible Lizards' podcast (Izzy Lawrence and David Hone) and they had a paleontologist (I'm sorry I cannot remember her name off the top of my head) and she was asked what is the best example of a modern marine reptile and she said an Emperor Penguin. That said i don't think that Nessie is an extinct or living Marine Reptile
Loch Ness Monster sightings get one simple thing wrong, say fossil experts
Unless it’s evolved differently. ...
SOURCE: https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/18/loch...-one-simple-thing-wrong-say-experts-15938569/Nessie is often depicted as a sort of plesiosaur, with its long neck and head emerging from the water, as seen in the famous ‘surgeon’s photograph’ of 1934.
But now a study of a fossilised elasmosaurus – a type of plesiosaur – has turned the idea upside down; revealing that these prehistoric creatures didn’t hold their heads that way.
Instead, the elasmosaurus held its head below or level with its body, said Paul Scofield, a curator at Canterbury Museum in New Zealand. ...
The theory that the Loch Ness Monster is a living elasmosaurus was promoted by Denys Tucker, once a prominent zoologist at London’s Natural History Museum.
He was fired in 1960, allegedly because of his beliefs, and died unrepentant in France in 2009.
But the new research throws up a contradiction between the Nessie of popular imagination and the real elasmosaurus.
Dr Scofield said: ‘The ‘traditional’ posture shown in many a popular article on Nessie – like a sock puppet – is not something elasmosaurs were in the habit of adopting.
‘The idea of it lifting its head up like a sock puppet is extremely unlikely.’ ...
It’s thought that the prehistoric creature held its head down this way to feed from the seabed. ...
‘It has been hypothesised that they floated on the surface and dredged the seafloor blowing the dirt out through their teeth and leaving just the clams." ...
This all replies on it being a elasmosaurus. What if it isn’t? It could be anything (or nothing).Here are some relevant excerpts from the article ...
SOURCE: https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/18/loch...-one-simple-thing-wrong-say-experts-15938569/
Here's another thing to bear in mind in light of the conclusions about elasmosaurus feeding - the shape and depth of the loch would not allow an elasmosaurus floating at or near the surface to reach its head to the loch's lakebed.
Here are some relevant excerpts from the article ...
SOURCE: https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/18/loch...-one-simple-thing-wrong-say-experts-15938569/
Here's another thing to bear in mind in light of the conclusions about elasmosaurus feeding - the shape and depth of the loch would not allow an elasmosaurus floating at or near the surface to reach its head to the loch's lakebed.