Loch Ness Monster mystery explained ?

[Hum]

The legend of the Loch Ness Monster has persevered for more than 200 years. But could tales of a prehistoric sea creature located in a deep Scottish body of water be explained by science?

That?s the source of a new theory, which speculates that the Loch Ness Monster may actually be a fault line lying underneath the Scottish lake.

Even after 200 years of technological advances since the first reported spotting in 1806, rumors of the Loch Ness Monster continue to persist. In fact, technology has played a role in spawning some Nessie theories.

For example, in 2011, local boat skipper Marcus Atkinson produced a sonar image of what he described as a large object following his boat for several minutes at a depth of 75 feet.

And in 2012, George Edwards shared a photo of an unexplained image in Loch Ness. Skeptics have said the image was likely of a log floating atop the water.

Scientific American reports that Italian geologist Luigi Piccardi believes the Great Glen fault system is actually responsible for mysterious bubbles and the shaking ground commonly associated with supposed creature sightings.

"There are various effects on the surface of the water that can be related to the activity of the fault," Piccardi told Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

And he has some compelling evidence to back up his case. For example, he notes that many of the alleged sightings have happened at times when the 62-mile fault was experiencing an active period.

"We know that this was a period [1920-1930] with increased activity of the fault. In reality, people have seen the effects of the earthquakes on the water."

So, what do you think? There have been strange reports near Loch Ness going all the way back to the 7th century. Are the numerous sightings over the years proof of the creature?s existence, mere coincidence, or even a self-fulfilling prophecy continued on by people who want to take part in the legend? Or, could it all actually simply be explained by a natural phenomenon found across the planet?

source

[FiB3R]

Yep, looks like an earthquake to me...

 

[vcfan]

got ya!

 

[SiCKX]

A more detailed look.

 

[Hum]

^ That little black & white photo was a hoax played on a doctor visiting Loch Ness.

 

The object is a wood carving.

[JJ_]

Was it doctor Parker by any chance?

 

[Draconian Guppy]

Was it doctor Parker by any chance?

 

Fellows, we struck gold, GOLD I tell ya! Gold!

[FloatingFatMan]

Yes, of course it's explained.. Years and years ago, in fact.  The entire thing is nothing but a hoax, simple.

[compl3x]

Nessie is pushing 80. How long to Loch Ness monsters live these days? As long as they draw tourists I would suppose.

 

 

If you're going to go to Scotland, go for the whisky.

[Hum]

Most animals can reproduce -- if there was some plesiosaur type creature, it may have had offspring.

 

It is also clear that there would have to be some underwater tunnel leading to the open sea.

 

Doubtful that there would be enough of whatever Nessie would eat in a relatively small loch.

 

A tunnel could also explain why Nessie sightings are rare.

[FloatingFatMan]

There is on Nessie, no plesiosaur, and no tunnel.  I didn't think you were this gullible, Hum... :p

[MikeChipshop Member]

Any normal person knows it's a hoax, however that doesn't stop the endless tourism, which is a good thing and should continue.

The main draw is that the Loch is damn majestic and has a quality in the air that makes it feel like it could be true.

[Hum]

There is on Nessie, no plesiosaur, and no tunnel.  I didn't think you were this gullible, Hum... :p

 

I am not. I pointed out that the original picture was a prank.

 

I'm simply open to the possibility that there could be some unknown creature living in Loch Ness (and Lake Champlain for that matter).

 

Other previous unknown creatures have been discovered before.

 

I don't believe that everyone claiming to see something unusual is a liar.

 

Dismissing everything out-of-hand is not sensible, nor 'scientific'. ;)

[HawkMan]

 

 

Dismissing everything out-of-hand is not sensible, nor 'scientific'. ;)

 

 

Granted for your plesiosaur tunnel theroy to be correct at the shortest you would need a tunnels that's AT LEAST 10Km and big enough for a plesiosaur. they would have found this. and if it was that "short" it would end up right outside Inverness with another 15-20Km of "fjord" to go before open sea. and of course to breed you need a lot of plesiosaus. these aren't exactly easy to hide "animals". 

 

ochams razor says that the theory can scientifically be dismissed by any sensible person. and science would say you would have to prove, not disprove such a ridiculous notion ;)

[compl3x]

Most animals can reproduce -- if there was some plesiosaur type creature, it may have had offspring.

 

 

You also need a minimum breeding population. There's no credible evidence for 1 monster, let alone a breeding population large enough to sustain the species.

[TAZMINATOR]

Reminds me of the movie: