Just the mere thought of a
monstrous beast, unbeknownst to science, casually swimming in our rivers, or namely "Lock Ness", can potentially send golf ball-sized goosebumps throughout your body.
However,
should we react in this manner, because we seemingly know nothing about how this organism lives or how it behaves; we've (science) (obviously) never gotten the opportunity to study this creature. Not to say we have not tried; we've conducted numerous voyages to seek this beast, to no avail.
So, do you think that this organism is living in the gigantic lake in Scotland? Certainly it's a possibility. I personally think, yea, it's a legit creature. Here are my key reasons:
A.) The lake in which it inhabits: This is the ideal location for the description of this animal. There's an abundant of fish to feed the monster, whilst having deep holes within the lake, where Lochy can presumably easily hide, making it supposedly rare to see.
B.)The scientific experiments and documents: The first sighting was over 1400 years ago, which signifies to me genuine feelings, because I don't think there where hoaxers running ramped back then. Sure, there's probably been a hand full of bogus cases since then, but I guarantee there are authentic claims, as well. Also, an experiment was held in 1970, that presented pictures, from their underwater camera, of a huge, unknown animal. There have also been numerous pictures of it, which all look like the same creature. For the record, the "surgeon's" photo is confirmed fake.
So, is it
real, or just deep in the cockles of our
imagination?
You know I was reading that and I honestly could not tell if you were being serious or not. I'm goona go with, you were being serious. Fair enough. My personal opinion on the matter is that there is no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster (or Nessie as he is fondly known around Scotland). I am from Scotland and believe me, no one takes it as serious as us. I just think that if there was a 'monster' living in a loch in Scotland, then we would have found it by now.
You are correct though, if there was a 'monster' living in that loch then it would be a very good place to hide. The loch is absolutely massive and it is 230 metres deep at points. If a something was to live in under there, then it is understandable that there has been no contact with it. So now I am going to tear aprt the Wikipedia article on ol' Nessie
"Modern interest in the monster was sparked by the 22 July 1933 sighting, when George Spicer and his wife saw 'a most extraordinary form of animal' cross the road in front of their car...It lurched across the road towards the loch 20 yards (20 m) away, leaving only a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake"
Are you fucking serious? So, a monster came out of a bush and walked right in front of your car and towards a lake and you were quite calm about that and reported it to the proper authorities I guess huh? No. Let me just tell you for interest sake, that this was a night sighting. Which, by the way are most of the early sightings of Nessie. You say that there was not a lot of fakers back 1400 hundred years ago but I'm quite sure that there was in 1933. Not to mention a lack of TV. People belived stories that fools would come out with. Example: The War Of The Worlds. When this was read on the radio, people belived the world was coming to an end. However, the best example is 'The Surgeon's photo' which was taken in 1934 and was only found out to be a fraud in 1994. Bottom line on this one. There will always be one person who believes something that others tell them. These people, the Spicers. Had a lot to gain by telling a story back in 1933. I mean, just look at the facts. No one can tell them that they were lying because conveniently they were the only ones there. Wow! What a surprise. Anyways, the next few sightings were at night also and gave varying accounts of what happened and details. The next one was Arthur Grant. Grant saw the monster apparantly and chased it to the river, where he only saw ripples in the water. A quick note on this though, the monster was again on the road. It seems this monster quite likes the feeling of tramac between it's toes huh? We've all been looking in the wrong place it would seem. All this time, we've been looking in the river itself and it's been standing in the middle of the road not 5 minutes away. Anyway, back to honest Arthur. Grant was the next sighting after the Spicers and it need not be said that he too had a lot to gain from saying he saw the monster. Apparantley, and I'm not the expert, he used it to explain why he crashed his motorcycle. Now, If this dude can't drive properly in the dead of night, when there is no one around then should we believing anything that he says? I don't! He is clearly an idiot. Next up is the maidservant, Margaret Munro. Munro's occupation by the way is quite important. It is a known fact that maidservant's were as low down the career ladder as you as ever likely to go. She would have been very poor indeed and would also have a lot to gain from selling her 'viewing' of the monster to a newspaper. Anywho, it was another night sighting and this time it hung around for 20 minutes before going back into the water. Now, If I had seen something for a continuos 20 minutes then I would probably know what that thing looks like. Wouldn't you? So, her account of the monster goes like this:
"It was about 6:30 am on 5 June, when she spotted it on shore from about 200 yards (180 m). She described it as having elephant-like skin, a long neck, a small head and two short forelegs or flippers."
So she describes the monster as definately having some sort of limbs huh? Excellent, now we are getting somewhere. It's funny though that the Spicer's, who seen it pass right in front of there fucking car, said: "They saw no limbs". Curious huh? They do say though (the Spicer's) that the brow of the hill stopped them from seeing the full thing. Fair enough, I guess. However, they also said that it left "only a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake". This is just my opinion but if something had limbs then it certainly wouldn't leave smearings of undergrowth all over the road because it would be elevated off the ground wouldn't it? So already, in my opinion, holes are beginning to appear in their statements. Moving on then. On to my personal favourite, the Saint Columba story. Legend has it that a dude was eaten by Nessie when he swimming on the lake. Saint Columba came across his funeral and ahd a swell idea. Let's have one of my followers swin across the lake and test this shit out. So tepidly, the follower sets out onto the lake and sure enough Nessie begins to trail him in the hope of a little snack. Columba, upon seeing this puts his fingers in a cross like shape and shouts at the monster. The monster hears it and stops immediately. I read this and I think about the people who believe in this shit. Come on. Another tid-bit of information: Nessie is not allowed into churches, cannot hold onto crucifixes, is weak against holy water, has long fangs and regularly fight Buffy the Vampire slayer. Come on. Even if there is a monster under the river, it certainly has no religious connections. It is also important to note that this particular sighting was on the River Ness and not Loch Ness. In saying that though, we all know about Nessie's little excursions from the last eye-witnesses we examined. What gets me though is, why, if Nessie is obviously a carnivore (see Saint Columba story) then why did it not attack the other eye-witnesses? Seems quite strange that really.
Now onto the videos then. There is quite a few so I'm not going to look at all of them. I will however, look at the most recent one because video equipment is of a much better standard now and also fakes are easier to detect. So, in 2007 Gordon Homes, a lab technincian was doing some busy work, whn he noticed what he described as "this jet black thing, about 45 feet (14 m) long, moving fairly fast in the water." Fair enough you would say. If you would like to see his video by the way here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtPlz14qFOA
Now you have watched it, we can go about taking it apart. Firstly, as stated on Wikipedia (if you have read the article), this dude was by no means a rookie to this sort of work. That is looking for mythical creatures. How funny it is then that he was just standing by the side of a lake when he caught on camera, a video of a mythical creature. What a coincidence that is eh? Now, back to the quote that he said himself. The monster, he say, was around 14 metres long. However, if we go back to our ever-reliable eye-witness accounts from the 30's. Nessie was describes as being "8m" and "between 6-9". This could be easily explained away though you might say. The beast is obviously growing. Fair enough I might say but I won't and here's why, Saint Columba gave us no bearing on how big the monster that he encountered was. Now bear in mind that this was indeed 1400 years. Now, 80 years ago it was between 6-9 metres long. So then my question to you is, could the beast have grown 8-5 meteres long in 80 years, when in 1400 years it was only 6-9 metres long. So in a small fraction of time that it had been alive, it had grown to double it's size. Get real.
I'm not even going to touch the expedition because fistly, this post has taken me ages to write and research and my fingers are now sore. And secondly, because none of them have given us anywhere near rock hard evidence that the "Loch Ness Monster" exists and this only supports my arguement further. The fact of the matter is that there will always be folklore and stories made up about things that are from different times, dimensions, ways of life than ours, the huiman race. It's your own choice if you want to believe in it. Personally I do not but I respect your right to do so. All I ask is that you read the facts and really consider if believeing in this is worthwhile. Have they ever caught Big Foot? No! Have they ever proved Aliens exist? No! Will they ever catch Nessie? Probably not!
