Talk:Loch Ness Monster/Archive 3

WP:OR

Any statements regarding the monster's existence that are not sourced are original research and should not be included. WLU 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC) To find out more about Loch Ness Monster

Please identify the genuine of the photo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noir blade (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why it does not exist

Concidering the total amount of fish in the lake (about 20 tons I think), they could really stick it into a large animal that size couldn't live forever either, so there would have to be a whole population of it, which is even less likely. The only large animals om earth are vertebrates and giant squids. Only vertebrates can live in freshwater. If it is a reptile or some kind of whale, it would have to breath sometime (if warmblooded, they would also need a lot of food). The lake was frozen during the last ice age, meaning it must have arrived from the ocean. This again says there is some populations of unknown sea creatures in the sea, still not known to man, but who have managed to adapt to Loch Ness. Not very likely. If not breathing with lungs, it would have to be a large fish or a totally unknown form of amphibians with functioning gills. Because there are very little neutrition in the water, and it is very murky, it couldn't have lived as a filter feeder either (which means it would have to swim near the surface anyway). The final alternative is that it is a vegetarian, grazing near the shore and in shallow waters, but then people would definitely see it. And why would a creature from the sea seek to freshwater to feed on plants while hiding from humans? It is probably just some large sturgions who has entered the lake by a mistake. To be small enough to live there and find enough to eat, and be able to breath under water, there is only one answear left; fish. Which I wouldn't call a sea monster at all.Nessie is fake we just found out from John Finklmier straight from Lake Loch Ness 193.217.193.210 23:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are most definitely right. Anyone who believes in this garbage needs to get a real science course. I watch the page to make sure there are no edits that actually claim it exists. This is an interesting article about a legend, and that fits well with WP:NPOV. But it really is pseudoscience. Orangemarlin 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POV comment about it being garbage is either extremely distressing, or straight-out disgusting. Completely rational people have reported something with a head moving in a way that no "log", or other inanimate object, ever could. That they are not trying to get their name in lights is telling, just as those 1993 reports are telling. --Chr.K. 11:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Monster does exist, and a team of Irish scientists have recently discovered the Loch Ness Monster's favourite drink is Nescafe. It has thus been shown to be a cultured beast worthy of living in a Celtic country like Scotland or indeed Ireland where it has been known to holiday.

Rowano Kenny - Dublin, July 2007

This monster has been sighted since st. columba's time. This would mean either that it is immortal or that their is a big population in the water. If there were a big population, people would be seeing it all the time. That's just a little fact. I am not saying it doesn't exist, just that it would be illogical for it to exist.--Onceonthisisland 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't quite cover all the bases. Sometimes things which are not real can be seen. For instance consider rainbows. Most of us have seen them at one time or another, yet they do not actually exist outside of the head of the individuals who see them at a given time. They are a form of optical illusion giving the impression of a real object, to the extent that more than one person can see them at the same time. The Loch Ness monster could be a similar phenomenon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be that people like to believe that there is still unknown monsters out there.--Onceonthisisland 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true too. And strangely enough there are still unknown "monsters" being discovered out there all the time. Luckily this is most unlikely to happen to Nessie as it is almost certainly not an animal. -- Derek Ross | Talk

There are possibilities that it does exist and it does not exist. I don't think calling it 'garbage' will really help the article, and you should respect others' opinions just as we respect your's.

There indeed are reasons that the animal could not exist. However, there are an equal amount of reasons the animal could exist. Although I respect your opinion, the article cannot dismiss the existence of the animal until there is concrete evidence that there is no larage animal in Loch Ness. Elasmosaurus (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in reply to a post at the beginning of this section:

Considering the total amount of fish in the lake (about 20 tons I think), they could really stick it into a large animal that size couldn't live forever either, so there would have to be a whole population of it, which is even less likely. Actually, the loch is connected to several other lochs, so the creature could move about between and have enough space.

The only large animals om earth are vertebrates and giant squids. Only vertebrates can live in freshwater. If it is a reptile or some kind of whale, it would have to breath sometime (if warmblooded, they would also need a lot of food). Obviously, if it is real, the creature is not one we have yet discovered; therefore, it very well could be another type of vertebrate. Also, there is no edvidence to suggest that it must be a whale or reptile.

The lake was frozen during the last ice age, meaning it must have arrived from the ocean. This again says there is some populations of unknown sea creatures in the sea, still not known to man, but who have managed to adapt to Loch Ness. Not very likely. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but there very well could be unkown sea creatures in the ocean. A few years ago a Japanese fisherman found a large carcass resembling a plesiosaur. Certain data reveals that it could not have died more than four months prior to its discovery. The pictures of the creature fit several discriptions of Nessie.

If not breathing with lungs, it would have to be a large fish or a totally unknown form of amphibians with functioning gills. This is a good possibility.

Because there are very little neutrition in the water, and it is very murky, it couldn't have lived as a filter feeder either (which means it would have to swim near the surface anyway). As I mentioned before, Loch Ness connects to other lochs whose nutrition content may be better. Also, we do not know what sort of nutrition this creature would require.

The final alternative is that it is a vegetarian, grazing near the shore and in shallow waters, but then people would definitely see it. And they have! There are numerous documented sightings of the monster, dating back hundreds of years.

And why would a creature from the sea seek to freshwater to feed on plants while hiding from humans? Perhaps it cannot go back to the sea for some reason. The way it came in could be blocked, or it may not know how to get out, or that it can, if its ancestors were the ones who originally entered the loch.

It is probably just some large sturgions who has entered the lake by a mistake. This possibility has been explored by use of sonar. Nothing to support this theory was detected.

To be small enough to live there and find enough to eat, and be able to breath under water, there is only one answear left; fish. Perhaps it is a type of large fish. Fish are not just clownfish, swordfish, etc; they are also creatures like sharks. What about the whale shark? That is a very large fish. I am not saying it is a whale shark - in fact, I seriously doubt that - but it demonstrates that fish can be very big and do not have to look like fish!

Which I wouldn't call a sea monster at all. Nessie is fake we just found out from John Finklmier straight from Lake Loch Ness. If this man were so convincing, people would not be still debating this.

I respect your oppinion, but there is more edvidence behind what you presented, and it should be considered equally. -Anonymous 08:43, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Reasons why it does exist

Upon reasoning with my collegues we have collected a small amount of evidence that the Loch Ness Monster does exist upon the accusations the person above has made, we have researched them and found that they were wrong because the Loch Ness Monster has most possibly adapted like all other animals upon the earth I mean we adapted to alot of things but this does not mean that the Loch Ness Monster hasn't adapted to the earth as we have —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whoru36 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Riiiight... Totnesmartin 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

dude you dissin me dude coz i know were you live —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.90.21 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

No you don't. Prove you do. And I yawn at your empty threat. Totnesmartin 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt as to the veracity of your personal position on the creature, and in POV terms, I likewise have no doubt as to the existence of the creature itself. Please publish, however, your materials in a peer-critiqued scientific journal (and this is not a "diss," being in fact eminently serious), and it will be instantly available for quote by Wikipedians in helping determine the nature of the sightings. --Chr.K. 11:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have existed once, but then died.Although some people today still believe.

Wow, I always had the impression the sonar scans revealed nothing! I don't know how much fish a 20ft animal eats and all that... and I don't have the knowledge to wrestle with arguments provided by biologists (as to why such a creature cannot exist). The question is, how they responded to those findings (I mean the late 60 - early 70 sonar data) which indicate strange activity on more than one occasion?!. Clearly it was a living (or at least moving) entity... a 20 ft fish rarely (if ever) coming to the surface, moving at amazing speeds and producing those peculiar sounds?! Yeah, right! Or maybe teenage pranksters dived in… The fact that later scans revealed nothing could suggest the animals might have died. After all more than 30 years elapsed... 81.96.126.218 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't just pick a piece of data that supports what you want then ignore all other pieces. In one case, like the so called flipper, the expedition enhanced the data to look like a flipper, when the original source data did not. Sonar technology 40 years ago is a lot different than today's technology. The BBC did an expedition in the past couple of years and found nothing. Nada. Zilch. There is no Loch Ness Monster. Searching for it is pseudoscience. Junk science. People are always inventing things to explain something that was not readily explainable at the time. I don't believe in alien visitors, bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, because all of them are not science. They are myths, legends, and delusions. Orangemarlin 00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sadly, Nessie is probably nonexistant. He was rather implausible to begin with, but given the massive amounts of time and money spent trying to find him, at this point I'm pretty sure it is obvious he is non existant. That being said, people believe he is real, and that is (and should be) documented in the article. Is the article having NPOV problems? Titanium Dragon 00:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"You can't just pick a piece of data that supports what you want then ignore all other pieces"... First of all, it's not A PIECE of data; there have been at least 3 independent events as the article reads. Repeatability is a must criterion for any scientific experiment. Second, what do you mean by "all other pieces"? Hoaxes, pranks or forged data aren't arguments against the creature's existence either. "Sonar technology 40 years ago is a lot different than today's technology" Could you please expand on that? I am particularly keen to understand why all the "old data" is rubbish and the most recent one not. You are talking so much about the difference between science and pseudoscience, yet you are very quickly and virulently willing to discard scientific evidence ... not for a humped sea monster, but for a large mid-water creature at least. Why, because it fuels a myth you're irritated about? 81.96.126.218 01:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Searching for it is pseudoscience. "Er, no, searching is science. Believing in something against the evidence is pseudoscience - which the article doesn't do. I, personally, believe in the LNM, but I don't twist the article to suit my belief. I've put in reputable sightings (eg by multiple witnesses, or trained observers), and counter-theories and hoaxes. My aim is not to push a POV but to make a better article. If anybody here doesn't believe in Nessie, please add whatever sources you can to support your view. We're here to make a good article (even, I dare to hope, a Featured Article?) - let's work together instead of arguing. Totnesmartin 11:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's real (save for one of the explanations). My problem with the article is the undue weight given to what it might be. Just in sheer volume of words, you'd think most of the evidence points to it's being real. Yes, the searches themselves are not pseudoscience. In fact, the recent BBC search was filled with as much science as you can get--and it showed absolutely nothing. At that point, believing in the LNM is the same as believing in Noah's Ark or Intelligent design. Nice stories, but they are myths. So, going with your point about making it a better article, it is way over to the "it is real" POV, when most of the evidence is "it's bogus." The NPOV for this type of article is starting with the lead--this thing either doesn't exist or at best is unsubstantiated (which makes it seem like it we just haven't found the right piece of evidence to prove it). I don't know if I'd say this article is even close to FA status. Orangemarlin 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to distance myself from the creationists... I believe in Nessie because a lot of people have seen it, even on land. I don't believe in it because it supports anything else I might happen to believe. Totnesmartin 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I hope you didn't think I was making the claim that you were or were not a Creationist nor using this as evidence. In fact, do some people do that? I guess if we "prove" a dinosaur is alive, that might have some effect on Evolution. But back to Nessie, herself (or himself)--I would have to say the sightings data is a bit weak. Legends or myths prior to the advent of cameras are suspect. Remember, medieval maps would point out into the Atlantic and state "here be dragons." In the past, when people couldn't explain something, they immediately went to the supernatural (or in this case a monster). If this organism lives, then the proof would be there by now. I think the scotch whisky produced in the area was the underlying reason for so many reports. But back to discussing WP:NPOV rather than if it existed or not. My point remains that the neutral position should be an equal description of why it is a myth (or misinterpreted data) along with a description of the myth (and the "facts" backing up the myth). Orangemarlin 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok . . . Nessie looks like it's a legend as well as a myth and even a fact, as some believe. My point is that some believe in it while some don't. So we cannot state that it is just a myth, neither can we state it as a fact or a legend. We should state it as all of those things since Nessie is still a mystery.

What if the monster population migrate to the Loch from the ocean to bred and give their young a relatively safe nursey but then return to the ocean once this has finished, much like salmon do?

I have a theory that it has a small body compared to it's neck, and that they are so small the can easily reproduce in a small space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.59.216 (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Surgeon's Photo

GUYS SOMEBODY EDIT THIS LOCHNESS MONSTER PAGE! THE SURGEON PHOTO WAS A FAKE1 IT WAS A TOY SUBMARINE OUTFITTED WITH THE HEAD OF A SEA SEARPANT! I TRIED TO EDIT BUT COULDN't figure it out.

I agree that this needs to be fixed; beyond people figuring out it was a hoax, the confession seals it. Quite simply put, there's no credible sources anymore claiming that photo is real, probably because once you see the whole photo the "creature's" extremely small size is quite apparent. It is a toy sub. Titanium Dragon 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I always felt it was somebody's arm and hand doing a "goose's head" silhouette; the size of the ripples is a bit of a giveaway too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I have to disagree. There was a confession but that could have been done just to create controversey and publicity, there was plenty of doubt in the confession. I know it's more likley that it was a fake but this site is neutral and i think directly putting that its a fake would be a bit bias - Sparhelda

It has been admitted BY ITS CREATOR to be a fake. Being NPOV does NOT mean giving equal credence to all points of view. There's a huge difference between the two, and weaseling around it is definitely not allowed. Titanium Dragon 09:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the hoax was faked by its creator is simply untrue. The "confession" was revealed by a newspaper reporter shortly after the death of the stepson of a man who was acquainted with one of the photographer's patients. Saying it's a hoax entirely due to this confession is quite the stretch. Chamale 09:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Chamale, what's your source? I think this photo needs to be deleted immediately. M4390116 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pervasive problem with article

I seem to recall reading this article a while ago and it being better; it may have just been my imagination. In any event, this article has severe NPOV and credibility problems; it looks like someone quite guillible/convinced in the monster's reality has gone through and pretty much screwed up the NPOV of the article. In particular, several well known (and obvious) hoaxes are not included, the Surgeon's Photo is given far more credibility than it deserves given it has been admitted to be a hoax, the "enhanced" (read: Photoshopped) flipper photograph is shown rather than the actual unenhanced photograph (which shows what looks remarkably like a rock...), ect. The whole article gives undue weight to a fringe who believes throughly discredited photographs and films to be real, generally without citation. That many of these are hoaxes or, at best, wishful thinking, is very widely accepted, even by experts in the field! I like Nessie as much as the next guy, but this article needs some serious work. Titanium Dragon 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I've given up wasting my time battling the Creationist fringe on various articles (and because editors like you seem to have disappeared from those articles), I thought I would have fun taking a closer look at Nessie. I've been carefully reading each citation, and some of them were written by, well, fringe elements. And the BBC expedition that did a completely thorough sweep of the loch, found nothing, gets barely a line in this article. Almost every photo was discredited, from what I have read in verifiable cites. This really has NPOV problems. Orangemarlin 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Submersible Investigations

This section makes no sense. How can an investigation with a submarine be treacherous and plagued with technical problems but routine? It has to be one or the other, folks. I don't know enough about WHICH it was to rewrite the section though. It is also uncited. Titanium Dragon 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I presume they mean 'routine' in the sense that they didn't run into any monsters :). I'm sure the phrasing could be improved if that's the intention. Mark Grant 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is routine not to run into monsters, but it seems very awkward in the context it is in. I think there's a better phrasing possible. I just didn't want to change it in case it was referring to something else. Titanium Dragon 02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and change it. "Treacherous" in particular makes no sense - bodies of water have not sworn loyalty and therefore cannot commit treason! The use of the word in this sentence is needlessy dramatic. Perhaps "difficult" would suffice. Totnesmartin 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling reverts

This is annoying. According to WP:STYLE#National varieties of English, Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. Unless I misread the map, Loch Ness is located in Scotland, which, once again according to the same map, is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. As such, so-called British spellings are words should be used in this article. So, if you're going to make changes to Americanize the spelling, it's going to get reverted. Orangemarlin 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That should read "Americanise" not "Americanize".  ;) Bazonka 09:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Americanism but Americanize.Chemical Engineer 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Monster hoax by sir Peter S"

I'm trying to find a citation for this famous story. The trouble is it was back in the seventies, way pre-internet, and it's all a bit vague. a couple of websites cite Nicholas Fairbairn, while others simply mention "The London newspapers" or even "crossword enthusiasts"! can anyone help? Totnesmartin 22:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, even without a citation, it could be an amusing anecdote to add to the article. We'd need a source to actually state that the so-called latin name was created as an inside joke. I like it whichever way it goes. One day, I'll have a final Jeopardy question for $1 million, and this will be the answer!!! Orangemarlin 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a great anecdote! Personally I feel that Sir Peter S was trying to confer respectability on the beastie - at the time he was probably Britain's most highly regarded naturalist. Having said that, the tortuous "real name" compared to its simple anagram is curious... Totnesmartin 11:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How vexing - the anagram isn't mentioned in any of my books! Totnesmartin 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bummer. Honestly, I thought it was going to be a fairly interesting story to tell. I hope you run across something in your search. I've been looking too, but nothing.Orangemarlin 16:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted requests at the Paranormal and Cryptozoology wikiprojects. Maybe somebody there knows. Totnesmartin 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm watching this page, so I can't wait to see something show up. Even if the story isn't true, the anagram is still quite a coincidence. The random probability of that many letters showing up like that seems low, but who knows, maybe you can do that with any complex name. Orangemarlin 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah. It's the other way round. The more letters you have to play with, the easier it is to make up an appropriate anagram. Any good anagrammatist (or anybody patient equipped with the Anagram Artist program) should be able to make up some good alternatives using the same letters. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I started playing around with long scientific names, and it does appear you can create some funny anagrams that way. But I was hoping for the cool story, and using it to impress girls. Orangemarlin 09:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

<splutter>Dream on mate! :)</splutter> Totnesmartin 09:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Well, I can't rely on my good looks!!!! Orangemarlin 16:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Found it! It's in Loch Ness Monster (1976 edition) by Tim Dinsdale, which I just bought today. I'll write it up in the morning. Totnesmartin 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding. It really is true? Did you see the video Nessie. What is your humble or not so humble opinion? Orangemarlin 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the book exists and has the story (waves book triumphantly at monitor). I am, though, in denial about travelling twenty miles to a town with one bookshop that used to specialise in such books when i lived there years ago.

I've seen the video, and two thoughts occur: is it one of Maurice burton's jet-propelled tree trunks? And, it looks a lot like the Ogopogo film shot in 1968. For me, even though I'm a believer, i need more than this. It needs to stick its head out. Totnesmartin 11:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This was added to our anagram article (now under Notable Anagrams) on 6 March, by User:Unidyne, with a citation. -- JackofOz 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is honestly coincidence. Is there any evidence that the flipper photo was fake? I'd say keep the anagram out until there is solid proof of the flipper photo being fake.

It's just like how you can spell sex from Tyrannosaurus Rex. It's ridiculous. 67.164.0.50 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Grammatical Error

In the paragraph just about hoaxes on television investigations (2003-4), the article uses the word 'insure' instead of 'ensure'. Being new, I'm not sure if this is an error worth noting because the meanings are similar and I'm also unsure as to what could be done if anything should be. Guidance would be appreciated. --A Gian 01:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted that (hopefully). Thanks for pointing it out. Totnesmartin 11:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify:

insure-- to make sure that, when something does (or doesn't) happen, you will receive compensation; eg: I insured the house against lightning strikes by taking out an insurance policy with the Handy Home Insurance Co.

ensure -- to make sure that something will (not) happen; eg I ensured that the house would not suffer lightning strikes by building it inside a cave.

These are confused far too often. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Surgeon's photograph(s)

We now have the same photograph in the article twice. surelay we can do better than this; either by using the uncropped version (out there somewhere), or the second photo (more blurred and with the "head" lower in the water. Totnesmartin 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. However, I also think having the Surgeon photograph at all as the lead image is a bit rum, considering it is probably the most obviously faked photo I've ever seen. I'd suggest the Cockrell or MacNab pictures for the lead. Of course, both of those images have also been questioned, especially MacNab's. HairMachine 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't come across any photo that someone hasn't questioned, and quite rightly - nobody should accept a claim without checking it. Even though the "surgeon's photo" (actually he was a gynaecologist, but it wasn't "respectable" to mention that in a newspaper then) is mainly now accepted as a hoax, it is still the iconic Nessie image, and so I feel it should stand. Remember the article isn't here to say "there is a Nessie" or "there isn't a Nessie", but to present the evidence and arguments of both sides, and let the readers decide for themselves. Totnesmartin 10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I just can't quite escape the feeling that leading with a proven fake subtly suggests the whole phenomenon is completely silly, especially with the caption the way it is. Still, can't deny it's a fair summary of the photograph! I won't change anything; you've put a lot more into this article than I have, so if you say the "gynaecologist's photo" (nice bit of trivia incidentally) stays, then stay it shall. HairMachine 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Stuffed, not Petrified

A prankster had used a petrified hippopotamus foot umbrella stand to make the footprints [4]. Claim of "petrified" is not supported by source. jiHymas@himivest.com 216.191.217.90 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have stuffed the petrified foot. Totnesmartin 17:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New Video

Someone might wanna add the latest sighting - which is apparently the best footage filmed yet:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/05/31/britain.lochness.ap/index.html

Andrew Carroll's sonar study (1969)

The entry about this study provides no references, nor does it present possible explanations for the findings. For example the sonar equipment may have been flawed or the results faked. Additionally, the conclusion that the sonar contact was clearly a living creature of over 20 feet seems to be a leap. The entry is not NPOV. -- wrote someone who didn't bother to sign with ~~~~

"The entry is not NPOV" Including thier findings and thier POV is what citations are supposed to do. If we took the opinions of an expert and then added "but that's not true" then that's our POV and that's a problem. So please yes let's keep our POV out and only report the POV of the cited experts. --70.210.46.131 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly how the NPOV policy is supposed to work. Well, said. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Loch Lomond

"But not all lochs have monster legends; the lochs with pinewoods on their shores have the legends, but Loch Lomond -- the one with no pinewoods -- does not."

Not sure about this. Lomond is not known for monster stories, but there have been tales about six foot pike in there for years, and I think it has had monster sightings of its own.--MacRusgail 17:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I know of one sighting in Loch Lomond. There may be more. Perhaps Burton didn't know about the Loch Lomond sighting when he wrote his theory. Totnesmartin 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokemon Lugia???

I thought of something.The pokemon lugia in the movie pokemon the movie 200 lugia underwater looks like fottage of the monster underwater.And at the end of the island episodes when the baby lugia and mother goto to sea it looks like the loch ness monster above water.So could the loch ness monster be a giant aquatic bird?????What do you think.user:Lugiamonster 03 June 2007

Yes of course! Nessie is a Pokemon! thank you for opening our eyes to this excellent explanation. Totnesmartin 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No you're missing the point i think that he's saying nessie could be a bird. Otu don't have to be rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.59.216 (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Largest lake

"Totnesmartin (Talk | contribs)(Largest lake in Scotland --> largest lake in Great Britain (just saying Scotland implies there's a bigger one elsewhere in GB, which there isn't))"

Loch Lomond is the largest which probably why Loch Ness was not described as largest but as the "most voluminous". --jmb 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing I changed was about it being in Great Britain. The Loch lomond debate is something I didn't comment about. Totnesmartin 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Loch Lomond is larger, but Loch Ness is deeper Stewiechewie (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Joke on Grant

"However some believe this was only a joke to a friend of Grant." - the link to this leads to [1] a website with strange "explanations". "he had a tadpole in his binoculars"? Is this a reliable website? I think we can find a better source for our counter-arguments... Totnesmartin 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

YANV (Yet another nessie video)...

Anyone seen this...? comments?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e40_1181940619

Amendezg 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An obvious fake - see below. It was just introduced to the article [2] . The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep will no doubt lead to similar stuff. --Rumping (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another fraud

My connection is too slow to see it. There are two new vidoes, both frauds.

See [3] or [4] for info on the well-known fraud Gordon Homes's latest scam; someone above linked to [5].

The other is a teaser for a new movie. Apparently available at [6], as a teaser for a new movie, The Water Horse; see [7].

ESkeptic (The Skeptics Society's electonic newsletter; they grant permission to "print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment"; contact at < skepticssociety@skeptic.com >) observes,

The solution turned out to be just as straightforward, and even easier to find. When I first viewed the new Nessie video on several sites, the clip ended with the monster re-entering the water. However, this abbreviated version omits the last few seconds. The full version, posted on YouTube, gives the game away: it ends with the url for the official website for an upcoming Sony Pictures film!

The new video turns out to be a viral ad campaign for The Water Horse, a film about the Loch Ness monster. A trailer for the film further confirms this: the creature design for the movie is clearly the same as that in the new online video.

A confirmed skeptic I am, and I have major pissed off a few Wikipedia New Agers in my day. In fairness, none of this says "The Loch Ness Monster does not exist." But the two recent videos are not evidence.

dino 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why the dinosaur explanation is dismissed so. After about sixty-five million years (so you all say), couldn't plesiosaurs have adapted to the cold environment? Scorpionman 13:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case they must have adapted to Loch Ness freezing solid during the ice ages. And if they adapted that much, they wouldn't be plesiosaurs any more. In fact they wouldn't even be dinosaurs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me say first that plesiosaurs were never dinosaurs. Second, I agree with Scorpionman that there is a massive time gap between 65,000,000 years ago and now. Plesiosaurs could have evolved anything in that time. They could have evolved sonar, blubber, a tail fin, etcetera. I personally believe that Nessie is a plesiosaur. I'm not saying they are, I just believe. Elasmosaurus (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They could even have evolved wings and black and white feathers, and swum off to the Antarctic. Gosh, that might explain penguins. I think we're onto something here... Derek Ross | Talk 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wondering...

The last time I signed on to Wikipedia was so long ago that I almost don't remember it. In the interim much has been said and done, and the talk page unsurprisingly remains a bitch-fest inundated with opinions that people perceive to be fact because they spat them out of their own mouths. So what else is new? My concern is only that the article has been negatively affected by this maternity ward of infants crying in unison (so-called 'editors'). Undoubtedly many of the individuals commenting here have pinched out their steaming points of view on the article itself, leaving their streak marks to stain what otherwise could be a legitimate catalogue of scientific research into something that as of yet remains unexplained. If I may ask, what the hell do you all know about it?

I think that if you want to comment on the factual accuracy of the article, you'd better have a damn good reason to do so aside from watching the Discovery Channel or having recently paged through a National Geographic in search of pendulous native breasts. If you have x, y, or z to say about the subject, why don't you prove you know what the frig you're talking about by explaining your expertise in the matter. Degrees, anyone? Experience? You all seem to know a great deal about ecology, evolutionary biology, paleontology, and psychology, among other things, but the collective tone smacks of armchair research. Is there one scientist among you? Do you have any idea how damaging your ignorance can be to professional research into phenomena of the natural world? Of course you don't. Forteans versus Detractors, that's how it always is. *Yawn* Too busy with the glory of the argument to say anything worthwhile. Lords of speculation. Sweet fancy moses, is it too much to ask that a discussion of a scientific subject be devoid of your incessant skullduggery and dubious claims? Don't you understand that your wacky, uber-polarized hypotheses make a total mockery of the scientific method? Is it at all possible for any of you to sit down and shut your fat mouths for just a single moment and consider an opinion that didn't spurt from the loins of your own cerebrum?

So, my question is for all of the regular contributors to the article and this talk page: could you possibly inform us of your expertise in these matters? Seriously, what makes your statements on the subject of value to anyone?

Cupbearer 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Times 2007-09-29

In a story called Has scepticism done for the Loch Ness Monster?, the The Times reports today on a steep decline in sightings in recent years, which I have used for a brief mention at in the section History of alleged sightings. There is more in The Times which might be used elsewhere in the article: if anyone wants to use it, the citation is <ref name="Times20070929" />.

Personally, I regard the The Times story as a reflection of the current fashion for Nessie-denial by shamelessly heretical non-believers, but per WP:NPOV that's no reason to ignore it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Holmes Video Enhancement

You guys might want to look at this... http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/holmes-nessie-6/ An enhancement of Gordon Holmes' video shows what appears to be a plesiosaur-like neck and even a mouth. Should we add this to the article? Elasmosaurus 06:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.59.216 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Structure

Despite the statement at the top of the page, much of the above is an argument about the existence or not of Nessie. Can I remind you folks of the idea of the encyclopedia? As it happens, I am an atheist, but I do not expect encyclopedia articles about religion to begin with declarations of god's non-existence or casting doubt on religious books or traditions. I suggest that the section about possible explanations is in the wrong place by beginning the article. Give the information about sightings before explaining them. The article should begin with what are currently sections 3, 4, 5. I think "alleged" sightings is not neutral and should be "reported". The Loch Ness Monster is known of (at least vaguely) by very many people, and deserves a proper entry giving as much fact and as little opinion as possible. Chemical Engineer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Shouldn't we replace the "Surgeon's Photo" with one that at least looks real? --Gp75motorsports 10:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the problem is that there arnt any photos of nessie that "look real" (probably due to the fact that it probably isnt real), but l saw a picture a few months ago of an elephant that was sppost to be the newest idea. Has anyone eals seen it? Stewiechewie (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/images/060309_loch_ness.jpg that is a link to an idea which l have not seen on this page. Should it be included? Stewiechewie (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's an elephant, since that wouldn't survive in Scotland, much less in a lake, without being seen out of the water. Also, sightings date back hundreds of years, which would suggest a family of elephant, and that would definately be noticed! I will add it anyway, though, since it is an existing theory. --Sundancin (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't just add things. I have provided a cited source for this silly speculation. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

i don't have an account, but i have a suggestion anyway. Why don't you put an old mythological painting of nessie instead of a photo?--216.160.59.216 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because in practice it is a modern myth dating from the 1930's. There are no old (i.e. out of copyright) mythological paintings. Before this time there was no Loch Ness Monster, though there were folk tales of dragons and lake monsters. The Surgeon's photograph is iconic. The fact that it was faked does not remove its historic importance as the most famous and influential picture. Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Restructured

So I have restructured the article as proposed. Please note this is intended to be a factual article covering what has been written about Nessie, not my personal opinions. Chemical Engineer (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

Was this article not protected so that only signed in users could change it? It appears open to all vandals now. Chemical Engineer (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was but we don't make protection permanent without a very good reason. So the protection has now worn off. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Link to The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep directly underneath the Popular Culture heading looks awfully like an advert to me... Haz bear01 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Rines

I removed a bit from Robert Rines' section; it didn't seem terribly important, was sourced by a YouTube video only, and was a -log-. If someone really feels it was important to document the log sighting, can you find a source that isn't YouTube? Thanks. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)