Lake Monsters and other Weirdness

Proven to be genuine (unaltered), though the scale is often argued…

I mean, it’s a compelling picture, but would it make sense for such a creature to exist in our lakes and still remain unconfirmed? No remains from the ones who die naturally, etc etc. What do they eat? How do they survive?

There’s more questions that lead towards them being a hoax than being a reality, but so many witnesses are credible people, and many have nothing to gain by admitting to what they saw. If anything, they run a risk of losing by admitting their stories.

Strange stuff, indeed…

I was also fascinated with this stuff as a kid. Unexplained mysteries, weird things romping about through the forests and waterways, etc.

[QUOTE=Drake;1096713]Proven to be genuine (unaltered), though the scale is often argued…

I mean, it’s a compelling picture, but would it make sense for such a creature to exist in our lakes and still remain unconfirmed? No remains from the ones who die naturally, etc etc. What do they eat? How do they survive?

There’s more questions that lead towards them being a hoax than being a reality, but so many witnesses are credible people, and many have nothing to gain by admitting to what they saw. If anything, they run a risk of losing by admitting their stories.

Strange stuff, indeed…

I was also fascinated with this stuff as a kid. Unexplained mysteries, weird things romping about through the forests and waterways, etc.[/QUOTE]

This particular picture was taken on Lock Ness. I watched a documentory about it and a couple of dudes admitted it was a fake. It was made on a toy boat and about 2 or 3 feet long. They took them to the exact location and the crew did their own shot of the same thing from the same location and it looked exact. Myth busted. There are no lake monsters.

I mean, it’s a compelling picture, but would it make sense for such a creature to exist in our lakes and still remain unconfirmed? No remains from the ones who die naturally, etc etc. What do they eat? How do they survive?

There’s more questions that lead towards them being a hoax than being a reality, but so many witnesses are credible people, and many have nothing to gain by admitting to what they saw. If anything, they run a risk of losing by admitting their stories.

Strange stuff, indeed…

I was also fascinated with this stuff as a kid. Unexplained mysteries, weird things romping about through the forests and waterways, etc.

Is this an add-on to the conspiracy listing that seems to plague the Off topic section. :smiley:

joke joke… acutally this kind of stuff is interesting to me as well. I watch that show River monsters and it’s kinda cool in concept to this. Little to much drama placed in it but I enjoy watching stuff about strange and weird stuff as well.

[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;1096804]This particular picture was taken on Lock Ness. I watched a documentory about it and a couple of dudes admitted it was a fake. It was made on a toy boat and about 2 or 3 feet long. They took them to the exact location and the crew did their own shot of the same thing from the same location and it looked exact. Myth busted. There are no lake monsters.[/QUOTE]

No, the Loch Ness fake is a B&W done by some famous director back in the day. This is from Lake Champlain. The Loch Ness fake looks like this:

I do believe in the lochness monster(s) but not in the sense many here are thinking. They are just big eels down there. The locals just made up the dinosaur bit to scam tourists lol.Quite alot of reports of large eels through out the history of that region and in Ireland actually,

This kind of stuff is interesting to me aswell. I mean there are so many places that are unexplored that there could be animals that humans have not seen. I need to get cable so i can get discovery channel again.

On a related note, i once was walking through a forrest in B.C. during my holidays with my wife and we caught a glimpse of something odd and happen to take a snapshot. Here it is…

turns out it was only Bawang’s mom, she trong though and has much honer.:smiley:

As a kid I had a book about ‘real’ monsters. It presented the stories and evidence of several ‘real’ monsters, like lochness, bigfoot, yeti, etc, and then debunked all the evidence.

One of the ‘real’ monsters the book ‘debunked’ was the kraken(giant squid). These of course turned out to be real. Makes me wonder.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. ~The Bard

Nature and natural are subjective to what we KNOW of reality at any given time.
What is supernatural or whatever, is juts something that we have not YET been able to explain or confirm via science.
How much stuff have we found or invented that would be classified by science as “supernatural” 100 years ago?

Arthur C. Clarke’s 3 Laws of Prediction

[LIST=1]

  • When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  • The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  • Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. [/LIST]

    Re Cryptozoology:

    It’s doubtful that Nessie is/was an Eel; the largest Eel on record to date is only 5ft long and 15" around.

    The Oarfish, however, is a very likely candidate for sea serpent stories and old stories of monsters in ocean-connecting lakes. The Japanese also traditionally consider the Oarfish to be a harbinger of earthquakes.

  • I now have a new name for my Johnson, the OARFISH !!
    :smiley:

    lol, there’s people out there who haven’t a clue as to how their cell phone works.
    still in the realm of magic for them but just barely.

    Anyway, you would think they would find some evidence of these things? Like maybe a dead on rotting away somewhere? Bones? skin? one, just one decent non-ambiguous photograph.

    Of course, the myriad hoaxers who feel the need to interject their dung into the fray doesn’t help much either.

    In the end, what does it matter if there is a plesiosaurus in a Scottish lake? Or a Canadian one?

    What does it matter if there is a shy yet huge ape wandering around the wildernesses?

    Seriously, how will that change your commute? Your income? Your output? Your family? Your world view?

    200 years ago the world was unaware of Antartica! lol
    150 years ago, Europeans didn’t know what a Gorilla was.
    100 years ago they didn’t know what an orangutan was.

    These days, people don’t know what a luddite is. lol :stuck_out_tongue:

    people thought the giant squids were fake too…until they found one not too long ago. now we believe they came to near extiction due to gasses and atmosphere toxins during the time of the dinosaur extinction event. this drove them to the very depths of the sea to survive, and they did survive and are now finally being found. and we generally only find bodies of the dead babies…

    [QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1096909]I now have a new name for my Johnson, the OARFISH !!
    :D[/QUOTE]

    Why, 'cause it’s the King of Herrings? :wink:

    Or do you also have a frilly dorsal fin?! :eek:

    [QUOTE=Lucas;1097001]people thought the giant squids were fake too…until they found one not too long ago. now we believe they came to near extiction due to gasses and atmosphere toxins during the time of the dinosaur extinction event. this drove them to the very depths of the sea to survive, and they did survive and are now finally being found. and we generally only find bodies of the dead babies…[/QUOTE]

    They suspected something big lived at depth early on in the field of biology because Sperm whales kept surfacing with wicked scars not made by shark, whale, or technology… turns out, Sperm whales dive deep to get at what lives down there: Giant Squid, Sanjuro’s Johnson, etc. :wink:

    So far as I know, they haven’t found any stomach contents, that, if reconstructed, would yield a Squid or Oarfish much larger than the ones that have been caught or washed up on shore. So I don’t think they can get much bigger. I could be wrong, though… (Sanjuro: No pics! No pics!)

    [QUOTE=ShaolinDan;1096870]As a kid I had a book about ‘real’ monsters. It presented the stories and evidence of several ‘real’ monsters, like lochness, bigfoot, yeti, etc, and then debunked all the evidence.

    One of the ‘real’ monsters the book ‘debunked’ was the kraken(giant squid). These of course turned out to be real. Makes me wonder.[/QUOTE]

    Makes one see the debunkers of this world under a new light. :wink:

    Sometimes what gets debunked depends not on scientific “evidence”, but what the scientific consensus of the time happens to be.

    When one realizes this the he can go on and see the world in a new way and not believe what he is told by the clueless who equate pieces of paper and fancy titles to godliness…

    Incidentally, the same type of scientific consensus and “understanding” is used to cluelessly label certain TCMA principles, methodologies and theories as “fantasy”.

    [QUOTE=Hardwork108;1097035]Makes one see the debunkers of this world under a new light. :wink:

    Sometimes what gets debunked depends not on scientific “evidence”, but what the scientific consensus of the time happens to be.

    When one realizes this the he can go on and see the world in a new way and not believe what he is told by the clueless who equate pieces of paper and fancy titles to godliness…

    Incidentally, the same type of scientific consensus and “understanding” is used to cluelessly label certain TCMA principles, methodologies and theories as “fantasy”.[/QUOTE]

    If it doesn’t have to do with sea monsters, lake monsters, or other undiscovered animals, make your own thread.

    Nobody here is saying anything DOES exist, because that would be poor science. What I was postulating was that if these eyewitness reports were somehow correct, what would the creature be, and how might it live.

    While I am somewhat skeptical of Loch Ness, I am curious about Lake Champlain, and the vast unexplored reaches of the oceans. Many of the early sailors mistook sperm whales for sea monsters (in a way, they are), and rumors were everywhere.

    The biggest wrench in the gear of the entire concept is that the food supply wouldn’t support a giant creature in Loch Ness, the waters are far too cold, and not a single body has washed ashore in all these years.

    was enjoying thread until it was derailed with “clueless, agenda bound, conspiracy theory”

    anyways, I’ve always been interested in the vast oceans that what, maybe 5% have been explored? As someone else pointed out about the giant squids and how they ernestly tried to say they didn’t exist years back and now have specimens. Watched a whole show on discovery about them find a half live one off the coast of japan. Pretty interesting.

    some of this vid was taken from a deep sea camera on a drilling expedition.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=11&ved=0CF8QtwIwADgK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.in.com%2Fvideos%2Fwatchvideo-new-species-found-in-deep-sea-5619103.html&ei=-cvRTefaCoWFtgfZz-SfCg&usg=AFQjCNFMG-4_kLwOLIUEExjXMRuUdXcfcQ&sig2=Ff5z58v0YuFsbeAZmRm3TA

    [QUOTE=Xiao3 Meng4;1096896]

    It’s doubtful that Nessie is/was an Eel; the largest Eel on record to date is only 5ft long and 15" around.[/quote]

    There are eel like fish however that average larger. The electric eel (which isn’t really an eel) averages about 6ft.

    The problem with a Nessie isn’t just lack of food. Its overall design. To accept a Nessie creature in the manner that believers propose requires you to disregard everything we see in nature. You are speaking of a creature which would presumably be at or near the top of the particular food chain since we’ve found nothing in the way of stomach contents of other creatures to suggest it would be prey. The problem is that it presents none of the morphology common to aquatic predators; stream lined body to reduce drag, fin set ill designed for rapid swimming, irregularly long neck structure that would cause issues with digestion, blood flow, temp regulation to head, etc. You could always say, “well we haven’t found out everything and we are always finding new and weird creatures that don’t follow the rules.” But really, no we don’t. In the aquatic world there are a number of creatures unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs. And they always follow the same general structure for, in this case assuming, a pelagic nektonic predator. You see torpedo like body, typically a backbone structure extending into a tail for more powerful stroke, etc.

    There is a non fish organism it does somewhat resemble, the archaeoceti, in particular ambulocetus,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
    Which is a line of early cetaceans. These mammals are what are believed to have transitioned from land back to water and evolved into modern whales, dolphins and porpoises. However, the neck is too short and well, we see that modern cetaceans follow the above characteristics of streamlined body and fish like fin structure (minus the fluke). And nevermind that cetaceans are marine not freshwater (except freshwater dolphin).

    So you could say they are just a rare holdover from a past time whose numbers are now in decline. But if its this rare then how does it reproduce (especially in isolation such as Lake Champlain)? We are already seeing a number of issues in whales species along the lines of genetic defects and disease due to reduced genetic diversity from overhunting. How would such an organism survive this long in such reduced numbers?

    Lastly, you could say that its just so deep dwelling we just haven’t seen it. Well to that, most truly deep living organisms have very different structure than those of shallower depths. They are cartilagenous and have flabby muscle tone to survive the pressures. They are blind which would limit hunting in shallow depths. Most don’t surface, the most notable to my mind being sturgeon, which is also cartilagenous but again has the typical tubelike shape even though in this case a bottom feeder. And assuming all this doesn’t matter, it is a deep dwelling organism, how does it deal with pressure changes when surfacing? Lungs, swim bladders, etc would all be out of the question for an organism that is deep dwelling and simply surfacing (as opposed to say whales which are surface dwelling (relatively) and simply dive for feeding and such).

    I just don’t see how a creature like this could exist. It’d be cool if it did, but everything says otherwise.

    [QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1097047]was enjoying thread until it was derailed with “clueless, agenda bound, conspiracy theory”

    anyways, I’ve always been interested in the vast oceans that what, maybe 5% have been explored? As someone else pointed out about the giant squids and how they ernestly tried to say they didn’t exist years back and now have specimens. Watched a whole show on discovery about them find a half live one off the coast of japan. Pretty interesting.

    some of this vid was taken from a deep sea camera on a drilling expedition.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=11&ved=0CF8QtwIwADgK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.in.com%2Fvideos%2Fwatchvideo-new-species-found-in-deep-sea-5619103.html&ei=-cvRTefaCoWFtgfZz-SfCg&usg=AFQjCNFMG-4_kLwOLIUEExjXMRuUdXcfcQ&sig2=Ff5z58v0YuFsbeAZmRm3TA[/QUOTE]

    The difference is though that we know squid exist. Its simply a matter of a bigger version of something we can readily find. A Nessie like creature on the other hand is a body morphology the world hasn’t seen in about 50 million years (that we know of).