new Loch Ness Monster video
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:45 pm
All are welcome to join the fun.
http://forums.comicgenesis.com/
I'm not givin' you no gotdum tree fitty! Get yer own gotdum munny ya gotdum loch ness munster!Mr.Bob wrote:Would you happen to have $3.50 on you?
Can i give him a dollar?Sketchywallflowr wrote:I'm not givin' you no gotdum tree fitty! Get yer own gotdum munny ya gotdum loch ness munster!Mr.Bob wrote:Would you happen to have $3.50 on you?
Seeing as how most our ancient sea creatures have been estimated to have the potential to live forever *sea turtles, sharks* I'm not surprised that something like nessy which from artists renditions looks like a living dinosaur, or some later evolved offspring from the same roots, would have such potential...not to mention that who knows how many "nessies" there are? Each sighting could have been a different creature going about its migratory pattern...in such a case this could be the offspring doing the same.PieceOfSkunk wrote:While I don't know much about the life spans of large aquatic reptiles, given the fact that the Loch Ness Monster has been seen since at least the 1930s, I wonder why it's not dead, if it exists.
See, I wondered the same thing, except that you would think that if there was more than one giant reptile in the loch, someone would have seen them clearly by now.Tynan wrote:..not to mention that who knows how many "nessies" there are? Each sighting could have been a different creature going about its migratory pattern...in such a case this could be the offspring doing the same.
wikipedia wrote:Mainstream science does offer plausible reasons why such an animal could not exist in Loch Ness. Apart from its apparent extinction, the plesiosaur was probably a cold-blooded reptile requiring warm tropical waters, while the average temperature of Loch Ness is only about 5.5°C (42°F). Even if the plesiosaurs were warm-blooded, they would require a food supply beyond that of Loch Ness to maintain the level of activity necessary for warm-blooded animals.
Moreover, there is no substantive evidence in the bone structure of fossilised plesiosaurs that indicate sonar capability (similar to that possessed by dolphins and whales). Such a system would be necessary in the loch, as visibility is limited to less than 15 feet due to a high peat concentration in the loch. Consequently, sunlight does not deeply penetrate the water, limiting the amount of photosynthetic algae, thereby reducing the number of plankton and fish in the food chain. Fossil evidence indicates plesiosaurs were sight hunters; it is unlikely that the loch's peat-stained water would allow such animals to hunt the limited food supply at sufficient levels.
In October 2006, Leslie Noè of the Sedgwick Museum in Cambridge pointed out that, "The osteology of the neck makes it absolutely certain that the plesiosaur could not lift its head up swan-like out of the water", precluding the possibility that Nessie is a plesiosaur.
so....i don't know how this tape is leading to mass speculation AGAIN.In July 2003, the BBC reported on an extensive investigation of Loch Ness by a BBC team using 600 separate sonar beams to ensure that none of the loch's waters were missed. The expedition found no trace of a "sea monster" or any other large animal in the loch. The BBC team concluded that Nessie simply did not exist. [52]
Because people are gullible. Oh so very gullible.prettysenshi wrote:taken from wikipedia.
so....i don't know how this tape is leading to mass speculation AGAIN.In July 2003, the BBC reported on an extensive investigation of Loch Ness by a BBC team using 600 separate sonar beams to ensure that none of the loch's waters were missed. The expedition found no trace of a "sea monster" or any other large animal in the loch. The BBC team concluded that Nessie simply did not exist. [52]
Well, that being said, I believe Bigfoot and the Yeti, because their stories are far more believable to me.Nanda wrote:Because people are gullible. Oh so very gullible.prettysenshi wrote:taken from wikipedia.
so....i don't know how this tape is leading to mass speculation AGAIN.In July 2003, the BBC reported on an extensive investigation of Loch Ness by a BBC team using 600 separate sonar beams to ensure that none of the loch's waters were missed. The expedition found no trace of a "sea monster" or any other large animal in the loch. The BBC team concluded that Nessie simply did not exist. [52]
or, to put it more nicely,
Because people want to believe in the unbelievable.
Yeah, screw the wildlife and nearby families. Let's drain one of the largest lakes on the planet for a potentially nonexistant creature.OBS wrote:How hard can it be to drain the loch? Overcoming whatever engineering and enviromental challenges that exist would surely be worth it just to prove if the monster does actually exist.
It keeps asking me for money...K-Dawg wrote:Man, Nanda sure does hate that Loch Ness monster.
I bet it took her lunch money back in the day. There, there Nanda...Dawgy's here to make it better.