- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
Virign sacrifice for Nessie
kevwitch.co.uk/ad3.html
Link is dead. The MIA webpage is quoted in full above. It can also be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040820151610/http://www.kevwitch.co.uk/ad3.html
Discussion here:
yachtingmonthly.com/cgi-bin/forums/showflat.pl?Board=ym&Number=557894
Link is dead. The Yachting Monthly thread addressing this solicitation is accessible at:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?43259-Virgin-Wanted-NB(mostly)
Perhaps they'd accept Richard Branson - it sort of works and t would be fun throwing him to some huge lake monster
Link is dead. The MIA webpage is quoted in full above. It can also be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040820151610/http://www.kevwitch.co.uk/ad3.html
Discussion here:
Link is dead. The Yachting Monthly thread addressing this solicitation is accessible at:
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?43259-Virgin-Wanted-NB(mostly)
Perhaps they'd accept Richard Branson - it sort of works and t would be fun throwing him to some huge lake monster
Last edited by a moderator:
F
FraterLibre
Guest
This Is What Happens
...in a Liesure Society.
...in a Liesure Society.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
I personally believe that Nessie is one of those creatures who managed to survive from prehistoric times, but is now relatively rare. In all of the supposed footage that I have seen of the monster he looks like a brontosaurus, but to be fair I havn't seen that much. However, I still think it makes sense that it is a prehistoric creature, possibly a dinosaur, and there is no conclusive evidence of its existance because there are not that many of them. it could easily be a reptile that lives under water, like a sea turtle. I have also heard that there are quite a few lakes with so called monsters. Loch Ness just seems to be the most famous. Anyway, its 3 in the morning and I'm rambling, but thats my theory.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Not That It Matters
But you realize, of course, the reason for that hypothesis being rejected by virtually all who have looked into the Nessie situation is that these cold freshwater lakes spanning that globe at that general latitude vary greatly in size and parameters and there is simply not a consistent supply of food to feed even a small colony of animals that big.
Further, animals that big get noticed even in waters the size of Loch Ness and natives tend to know all about them. In these cases, it's myth and legend and no conclusive evidence. While it's true that cryptozoology does have its occasional surprises it's also true that the bigger the animal the less likely it is to have remained missing.
But you realize, of course, the reason for that hypothesis being rejected by virtually all who have looked into the Nessie situation is that these cold freshwater lakes spanning that globe at that general latitude vary greatly in size and parameters and there is simply not a consistent supply of food to feed even a small colony of animals that big.
Further, animals that big get noticed even in waters the size of Loch Ness and natives tend to know all about them. In these cases, it's myth and legend and no conclusive evidence. While it's true that cryptozoology does have its occasional surprises it's also true that the bigger the animal the less likely it is to have remained missing.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
Thats true, but not all prehistoric animals and/or dinosaurs were big. I'm not saying it is definetly a brontosaurus, I'm just saying that I've always thought it looked like one. It could easily be a smaller prehistoric animal.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Other Problems
Okay, if it's not big then it's not what's in the photographs and films, and not what's being reported, which is big.
Further, there is no brontosaurus any more. It's an apatosaurus and was a land-dweller anyway.
Further still, why would this category of animals be immune from evolution? Ordinarily a species isolated in a lake, or on a continent such as Australia, or the Galapagos archipelago, undergoes individual evolutionary changes. Thus Darwin found finches, for example, with differing beaks, depeding on which island they'd been stranded.
This means a species of fresh water aquatic animals in cold lakes at that general latitude world-wide would vary widely from lake to lake. It's unlikely these variances would all contribute to maintaining secrecy for the species.
Yet that's what we're asked to believe.
Okay, if it's not big then it's not what's in the photographs and films, and not what's being reported, which is big.
Further, there is no brontosaurus any more. It's an apatosaurus and was a land-dweller anyway.
Further still, why would this category of animals be immune from evolution? Ordinarily a species isolated in a lake, or on a continent such as Australia, or the Galapagos archipelago, undergoes individual evolutionary changes. Thus Darwin found finches, for example, with differing beaks, depeding on which island they'd been stranded.
This means a species of fresh water aquatic animals in cold lakes at that general latitude world-wide would vary widely from lake to lake. It's unlikely these variances would all contribute to maintaining secrecy for the species.
Yet that's what we're asked to believe.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
Ok. First of all, I was reading earlier on this thread that there have been reports of a monster that was big, but not as big as media and such made it out to be.
Second of all, again, I never said it was actually a brontosaurus (or whatever its called these days) or that the creatures in every lake were exactly the same. There are animals around that have been around since prehistoric times, but if we are going to talk about evolution, then maybe it IS a brontosaurus and it evolved to live in water (like whales did) out of neccessity.
Second of all, again, I never said it was actually a brontosaurus (or whatever its called these days) or that the creatures in every lake were exactly the same. There are animals around that have been around since prehistoric times, but if we are going to talk about evolution, then maybe it IS a brontosaurus and it evolved to live in water (like whales did) out of neccessity.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,533
- Location
- East of Suez
I believe Rainy is thinking of the pleisosaur (the one with the long neck small head and diamond shaped flippers.)
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Well MY Theory?
It's obviously a Secret Member of Tony Blair's Swimming and Nation Disembowling Club.
Now, more seriously: Pleisiosaur, sure. Been covered so often it's amazing. Not a theory, merely a hypothesus, and damned nearly a hypotenuse, really. Why? Lack of evidence whence said "theory" springs.
On to damper ground: Evolution does indeed mean change, but it doesn't mean chance convient to explain away internal contradictions.
And yes, I realize what's going on here and I'll stop wasting time on it, but really, merely raising a balloon doesn't mean you're flying, n'est pas?
Oh, and I can't resist: If they are each different in every lake...
Oh nevermind.
*abandon logic, all ye who enter here*
It's obviously a Secret Member of Tony Blair's Swimming and Nation Disembowling Club.
Now, more seriously: Pleisiosaur, sure. Been covered so often it's amazing. Not a theory, merely a hypothesus, and damned nearly a hypotenuse, really. Why? Lack of evidence whence said "theory" springs.
On to damper ground: Evolution does indeed mean change, but it doesn't mean chance convient to explain away internal contradictions.
And yes, I realize what's going on here and I'll stop wasting time on it, but really, merely raising a balloon doesn't mean you're flying, n'est pas?
Oh, and I can't resist: If they are each different in every lake...
Oh nevermind.
*abandon logic, all ye who enter here*
ignatiusII
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 343
Despite the fact that it was Nessie that got me hooked on cryptozoology in the first place, I must say that it appears the plesiosaur/zeuglodon/giant salamander theories are all dead in the water ( no pun intended ), no matter how much I might wish to believe otherwise. After most of the credible sightings have been taken into account, the picture that emerges suggests either errant seals, monster sturgeon or oversized eel. For a 'lake monster' that more closely conforms to the mesozoic reptile model, Lake Champlain's Champ comes closest in terms of described morphology ( as well as several fuzzy home videos which appear to show a small head atop a long neck, as well as the infamous Mansi photo ). However, nothing would please me more than to turn on the evening news and hear that Nessie was indeed a plesiosaur and was presently in transit to the Edinburgh zoo. Not holding my breath, though.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Slug
I'm still holding out for some unknown but large form of slug; no bones, no likely bodies of dead ones, and a life perhaps spent mostly NOT in the loch.
I'm still holding out for some unknown but large form of slug; no bones, no likely bodies of dead ones, and a life perhaps spent mostly NOT in the loch.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
Ok guys, I don't really want to argue about it. I just wanted to tell you all what I believe. Anyway, Caroline, I was thinking of a brontosaurs, but that makes more sense. I probably would have suggested that if I had known about it. I don't really know my dinosaurs.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
The Clash
To believe is to pretend.
The clash comes when those of us who choose to know or live in doubt seek evidence for things others are content believing in without any supportive material.
We are not, for example, arguing, nor stating our beliefs. We're discussing various hypotheses that may or may not, to a better or worse degree, explain the sightings or claims thereof centered on Loch Ness and other similar lakes at similar latitudes.
As to not knowing your dinosaurs, why then proffer one?
Ach, there I go again. Good night and pleasant dreams.
To believe is to pretend.
The clash comes when those of us who choose to know or live in doubt seek evidence for things others are content believing in without any supportive material.
We are not, for example, arguing, nor stating our beliefs. We're discussing various hypotheses that may or may not, to a better or worse degree, explain the sightings or claims thereof centered on Loch Ness and other similar lakes at similar latitudes.
As to not knowing your dinosaurs, why then proffer one?
Ach, there I go again. Good night and pleasant dreams.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: The Clash
On the other hand, the seeking of evidence is ultimately driven by a preference for logic and by a desire to be right, both of which are based in emotional gratification rather than in rationality.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Hm..
Let's examine that.
Seeking evidence is rational because it provides one with support for what one then chooses to believe.
Logical and rational are not the same thing at all.
Further, on what evidence does the statement, "seeking evidence is ultimately based on a preference for logic..." based? Why would this be so? Evidence is not logical, nor is logic any kind of evidence. Logic is a special set of sequential propositional structures that does not even address content, for example. In logic, evidence is irrelevant.
Another statement: that seeking evidence is based on a desire to be right. Hm. Right meaning accurate, yes. Right meaning morally or ethically closer to some dogma, certainly not.
Evidence is all one has to go on, and if being wrong is at best useless and silly and at worst harmful and potentially fatal, a preference for being right most of the time would be bred into those of us who have survived millennia of evolution. Those who believe otherwise tend blithely to walk off cliffs, having not learned from observing the lemmings.
Finally, the attempt to ground all this in some emotion or another, left unnamed, remains a non sequitur given the fractured presentation of the thesis. Gratification, delight, or mere dogged survival might server, but there is no evidence for any of them.
Summation of analysis of the message:
Virtually meaningless as a critique, but as a bleat of discomfort it will probably do as well as anything else.
Let's examine that.
Seeking evidence is rational because it provides one with support for what one then chooses to believe.
Logical and rational are not the same thing at all.
Further, on what evidence does the statement, "seeking evidence is ultimately based on a preference for logic..." based? Why would this be so? Evidence is not logical, nor is logic any kind of evidence. Logic is a special set of sequential propositional structures that does not even address content, for example. In logic, evidence is irrelevant.
Another statement: that seeking evidence is based on a desire to be right. Hm. Right meaning accurate, yes. Right meaning morally or ethically closer to some dogma, certainly not.
Evidence is all one has to go on, and if being wrong is at best useless and silly and at worst harmful and potentially fatal, a preference for being right most of the time would be bred into those of us who have survived millennia of evolution. Those who believe otherwise tend blithely to walk off cliffs, having not learned from observing the lemmings.
Finally, the attempt to ground all this in some emotion or another, left unnamed, remains a non sequitur given the fractured presentation of the thesis. Gratification, delight, or mere dogged survival might server, but there is no evidence for any of them.
Summation of analysis of the message:
Virtually meaningless as a critique, but as a bleat of discomfort it will probably do as well as anything else.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
If we are not arguing then why do I feel like my opinion was being attacked? I'm sorry if I was being over sensitive (I know I am sometimes) but it seemed like an argument to me.
Also, the video mentioned in the above article, do you know if it is online anywhere?
Also, the video mentioned in the above article, do you know if it is online anywhere?
ignatiusII
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 343
Technically speaking, the sauropod dinosaurs commonly referred to as 'brontosaurus' & 'apatosaurus' were of a different line from plesiosaurs, which weren't dinosaurs in any case; I hadn't read the previous posts on this page and jumped in after the post which immediately preceeded mine - I hadn't meant to create the impression that I was arguing with you - if that was indeed the impression I left, then my sincere and humble apologies.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
Don't worry about it. It was not you who I felt was attacking my theory.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Attack Theories
Attacking theories is allowed, encouraged, and a good thing. Attacking people is not.
That's how progress is made in discussions, and in science, and in much else as well.
If one's theory is susceptible to attack, it must then be modified to answer those critiques that seem most valid. In this way it is strengthened.
There is nothing personal in any of this.
As for the video, it's not yet available that I know of and is admittedly foggy anyhow, so it shan't amount to much, I'm betting. If he tries selling it, look out for a definite hoax, although hoaxers certainly don't all do it for possible money. Most are content to fool others; bucks up a weak ego.
Attacking theories is allowed, encouraged, and a good thing. Attacking people is not.
That's how progress is made in discussions, and in science, and in much else as well.
If one's theory is susceptible to attack, it must then be modified to answer those critiques that seem most valid. In this way it is strengthened.
There is nothing personal in any of this.
As for the video, it's not yet available that I know of and is admittedly foggy anyhow, so it shan't amount to much, I'm betting. If he tries selling it, look out for a definite hoax, although hoaxers certainly don't all do it for possible money. Most are content to fool others; bucks up a weak ego.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
Nessie's relatives 'found in Arctic'
02/09/2004 - 14:28:10
"Norwegian researchers on a remote Arctic island have recovered rare fossil remains of two giant marine reptiles, one of them reminiscent of the fabled Loch Ness monster.
The well-preserved fossils of the extinct ichthyosaur and plesiosaur were found on the Svalbard islands, north of the Norwegian mainland.
Team member Hans Arne Nakrem said “The find is really quite unique. What is completely new is that we have the cranium of an ichthyosaur for the first time.”
Plesiosaurs were adapted to life in the ocean, with very long necks and tails, plump bodies and legs that had evolved into flippers. They could be up to 50 feet long.
“They look like we imagine Nessie of Loch Ness,” said Joern Hurum, a dinosaur expert who led the team. He said with their huge jaws they were at the top of the food chain and were the killing machines of the sea.
“Their jaws could cut anything else into small pieces,” Hurum said from Svalbard.
Ichthyosauria, which is Latin for “fish reptiles”, looked like fish, with a dorsal fin, tail fin and legs that worked like paddles.
The animals lived roughly 160 million years ago, and became extinct about 65 million years ago."
Article from today's breaking news on this site
02/09/2004 - 14:28:10
"Norwegian researchers on a remote Arctic island have recovered rare fossil remains of two giant marine reptiles, one of them reminiscent of the fabled Loch Ness monster.
The well-preserved fossils of the extinct ichthyosaur and plesiosaur were found on the Svalbard islands, north of the Norwegian mainland.
Team member Hans Arne Nakrem said “The find is really quite unique. What is completely new is that we have the cranium of an ichthyosaur for the first time.”
Plesiosaurs were adapted to life in the ocean, with very long necks and tails, plump bodies and legs that had evolved into flippers. They could be up to 50 feet long.
“They look like we imagine Nessie of Loch Ness,” said Joern Hurum, a dinosaur expert who led the team. He said with their huge jaws they were at the top of the food chain and were the killing machines of the sea.
“Their jaws could cut anything else into small pieces,” Hurum said from Svalbard.
Ichthyosauria, which is Latin for “fish reptiles”, looked like fish, with a dorsal fin, tail fin and legs that worked like paddles.
The animals lived roughly 160 million years ago, and became extinct about 65 million years ago."
Article from today's breaking news on this site
I have taken several series of pictures off the Loch Ness cam of something moving the disappearing then moving again. It is very, very likely to be a boat however as the camera is a long way from the Loch.
I have however, taken some very weird weather pictures during a snowstorm earlier this year which I will post when I can find them.
P.S. I don't know if anyone has already posted the link to Nessie live so i apologise if I have duplicated it. It is very addictive though!!!
I have however, taken some very weird weather pictures during a snowstorm earlier this year which I will post when I can find them.
P.S. I don't know if anyone has already posted the link to Nessie live so i apologise if I have duplicated it. It is very addictive though!!!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
A
Anonymous
Guest
Protect Nessie...
...from idiots like this:
Monsterous plan upsets Nessie fans
22/01/2005 10:00
An American's plans to harpoon Nessie this spring have upset the monster's fans and Loch Ness sailors. Submariner Dan Taylor says he wants a sample of the mysterious beast's tissue to prove she exists, but her supporters are threatening legal action!
For over a millenia, the question of what lies beneath the murky waters of Loch Ness has baffled and enthralled those who come to it's shores.
Dan Taylor believes he can reveal the answer, but Nessie fans fear his methods are more monsterous than the mysterious animal herself.
The 64-year-old's become a local celebrity in South Carolina after building his own submarine to take into the waters at Drumnodrochit this Spring.
No-one minds another enthusiast joining the hunting pack but his plans to take a slice out of the creature with a harpoon have appalled the community.
Nessie's already evaded the thousands of tourists who flock here every year to simply catch a glimpse of her. And experts who sail these waters all the time say the chances of actually getting hold of her are very slim.
Rod Michie's been sailing tourist cruises on the Loch for over twenty years and knows every inch of it. He doubts anyone could accurately target a moving object below the surface.
Dan Taylor could also face the wrath of the law. Loch Ness and its inhabitants, including Nessie are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Related Links
Beaufort Gazette
Link: http://northtonight.grampiantv.co.uk/co ... ewsid=5734
Hopefully the murky waters will delay his progress long enough for local law enforcement to seize him and all his equipment. :furious:
...from idiots like this:
Monsterous plan upsets Nessie fans
22/01/2005 10:00
An American's plans to harpoon Nessie this spring have upset the monster's fans and Loch Ness sailors. Submariner Dan Taylor says he wants a sample of the mysterious beast's tissue to prove she exists, but her supporters are threatening legal action!
For over a millenia, the question of what lies beneath the murky waters of Loch Ness has baffled and enthralled those who come to it's shores.
Dan Taylor believes he can reveal the answer, but Nessie fans fear his methods are more monsterous than the mysterious animal herself.
The 64-year-old's become a local celebrity in South Carolina after building his own submarine to take into the waters at Drumnodrochit this Spring.
No-one minds another enthusiast joining the hunting pack but his plans to take a slice out of the creature with a harpoon have appalled the community.
Nessie's already evaded the thousands of tourists who flock here every year to simply catch a glimpse of her. And experts who sail these waters all the time say the chances of actually getting hold of her are very slim.
Rod Michie's been sailing tourist cruises on the Loch for over twenty years and knows every inch of it. He doubts anyone could accurately target a moving object below the surface.
Dan Taylor could also face the wrath of the law. Loch Ness and its inhabitants, including Nessie are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Related Links
Beaufort Gazette
Link: http://northtonight.grampiantv.co.uk/co ... ewsid=5734
Hopefully the murky waters will delay his progress long enough for local law enforcement to seize him and all his equipment. :furious:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2002
- Messages
- 374
Help find missing nessie tooth
I found this and thought it might be worth posting:
Lochness Tooth
Is it a spoof tooth? FreeRepublic.com also have a page on it. Someone there suggests the 'tooth' is part of a crab claw and others that it is part of an antler or horn.
I found this and thought it might be worth posting:
Lochness Tooth
Is it a spoof tooth? FreeRepublic.com also have a page on it. Someone there suggests the 'tooth' is part of a crab claw and others that it is part of an antler or horn.
Human_84
Somewhat human
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 1,330
(positive) Pretty interesting. If they are making it up, whats the motive tho? I dont think they'd make it up as they arent any further ahead than anyone else associated with loch ness without proof.
(negative) The video, i cant even see any tracks. Dont you suppose if they had some real tracks they would of zoomed in on them?
I'm not saying these guys are fakes, I cant decide because i see evidence for and against them at the same time. Cool storey either way.
(negative) The video, i cant even see any tracks. Dont you suppose if they had some real tracks they would of zoomed in on them?
I'm not saying these guys are fakes, I cant decide because i see evidence for and against them at the same time. Cool storey either way.
the alleded tracks are as if a large eel or snake slithered accross the ground, they are not the kind of tracks a four legged animal would leave.
If not a hoax then it's probably a mite too cold for a very large snake but there has been at least one sighting last year of something that looked like a giant eel in the loch...
If not a hoax then it's probably a mite too cold for a very large snake but there has been at least one sighting last year of something that looked like a giant eel in the loch...