Study claims ancient dinosaur discovery influenced delusion of Loch Ness Monster

A new study conducted by British cientists conclude that sightings of the Loch Ness Monsters were caused by delusions.

Reports that a creature was living in Scotland's Loch Ness go back to the sixth century. The 19th and 20th centuries, in particular, saw an increase in interest, especially after the infamous "surgeon's photograph" in 1934.

Now, a new study suggests that the legend of the Loch Ness monster and other long-necked "sea monsters" may have been influenced by something very real and even more terrifying — dinosaurs.

Published in the scientific journal Earth Sciences History, the study theorizes that the sea serpent reports of the early 19th century were heavily influenced by early dinosaur fossil discovery.

The researches conclude that the idea of association of sea monsters with marine reptiles only came after the popularization of dinossaurs.

"Over the last 200 years, there is indeed evidence of a decline in serpentiform sea serpent reports and an increase in the proportion of reports with necks but there is no evidence for an increase in the proportion of mosasaur-like reports," the study's abstract reads. "However, witnesses only began to unequivocally compare sea serpents to prehistoric reptiles in the late nineteenth century, some fifty years after the suggestion was first made by naturalists."

British fossil hunter William Buckland was the first to discover dinosaur fossils in 1819.

Researcher Charles Paxton of the University of St Andrews and paleontologist Darren Naish of the University of Southampton looked at several hypotheses and more than 1,500 alleged cases of "monster" sightings (excluding hoaxes) going back to 1801. From 1801 to the early 1930s, around the time of the "surgeon's photograph," reported sightings of long-necked creatures, such as plesiosaurs (or reports that mentioned plesiosaurs) increased from 10 percent of all sightings to approximately 50 percent.

Paxton and Naish added that the presence of mosasaur-like sightings did not change, likely due to dinosaur fossils starting to be displayed for the first time in museums.

Science fiction writer L. Sprague De Camp was the first to suggest this hypothesis in 1968, writing: "After Mesozoic reptiles became well-known, reports of sea serpents, which until then had tended towards the serpentine, began to describe the monster as more and more resembling a Mesozoic marine reptile like a plesiosaur or a mosasaur."

"The discovery of long-necked marine reptile fossils in the 19th century does appear to have had an influence on what people believe they have spotted in the water," Paxton said in an interview with The Telegraph.

It also makes sense, considering that the view of Plesiosauridea changed a lot. Nowdays, a fully mobile neck is an idea unsuported by palentologists, as these animal lacked the neck structure to make complex movements with the neck.

Article via Fox News

So a discovery in the nineteenth century, influenced alleged sightings/encounters in the centuries preceding the discovery?

Interesting take on it, I guess...

#NessieLivesMatter!

a reply to: Frocharocha

What about the sea serpents spotted before the discovery of dinosaur bones? Are they starting with a premise that they were having a delusion? How would they know?

Researcher Charles Paxton of the University of St Andrews and paleontologist Darren Naish of the University of Southampton looked at several hypotheses and more than 1,500 alleged cases of "monster" sightings (excluding hoaxes) going back to 1801. From 1801 to the early 1930s, around the time of the "surgeon's photograph," reported sightings of long-necked creatures, such as plesiosaurs (or reports that mentioned plesiosaurs) increased from 10 percent of all sightings to approximately 50 percent.

That could be explained by more travelers. The more people travel the more they see. I would wager that the amount of travelers increased in that time as well.

a reply to: highvein

Abstract
Dragon legends around the world have been prevalent for generations. Dragons are even mentioned in books of the Old Testament. But were they real creatures or just mythological? The Hebrew word תנין (tannin) has been translated in several ways, but this paper will attempt to show that the term likely refers to both land and sea serpents or dragons. Determining the meaning of tannin requires a close look at the actual Hebrew word and a study of the various contexts in which it appears.

Where Did Tannin Live?
Whether or not a tannin lived in the sea, on land, or both is another area of debate. Some passages clearly place these creatures in water. We have already seen that Genesis 1:21 describes them as “sea creatures.” The Bible also speaks of the Lord slaying the “dragon who lives in the sea” (Isaiah 27:1, NASB). Job makes much of tannin, asking, “Am I a sea, or a sea serpent [tannin], that You set a guard over me?” (Job 7:12).

The passages mentioned earlier from Exodus 7:9–12 and Deuteronomy 32:33 reveal that a tannin can also be a land-dwelling creature. In Exodus 7:9–12 Aaron and the Egyptian magicians are able to turn their respective rods into tanninim. Aaron’s rod turning into a tannin mirrored the sign God had earlier given to Moses when his staff was turned into a serpent (Exodus 4:3). The Hebrew word used in this passage is nachash, the same word used for the “serpent” in Genesis 3. Nachash is regularly described as a land animal (e.g., Genesis 49:17; Numbers 21:9; Proverbs 30:19).

TANNIN MAY NOT REFER TO JUST ONE SPECIFIC CREATURE.
Earlier, it was mentioned that Deuteronomy 32:33 equates a tannin with a cobra through the use of poetic parallelism. This same type of parallelism12 is elsewhere used to connect a tannin with a cobra (Heb. pethen). Psalm 91:13 states, “You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra (pethen), the young lion and the serpent (tannin) you shall trample underfoot.” Isaiah 11:8 describes pethen as creatures that live in holes in the ground. The fact that tanninim are linked with land-dwelling snakes, such as nachash and pethen, demonstrates that some tanninim lived on land.

a reply to: Frocharocha

Sightings of the creature go back at least as far as the sixth century when Saint Columba banished it from going near to people.

People whom had no familiarity with the lost giant Sauropod's have described what sound's like a plesiosaurus.

It is a natural rift Valley located on the slip between two tectonic plates and like some UFO incident's which have also been reported in the area there may be a link between massive energy's in the earth's crust and paranormal experiences perhaps even ether recording's made by ancient occurrences at the quantum level of reality which are sometime's when the conditions' are right replayed and some sensitive people (Some bird's can sense the magnetic field's of the earth as can some fish) can then see or feel what is not really there but maybe, long ago really was.

To be frank I believe this study was probably made by a skeptic whom had never even been there except perhaps for half an hour and a cup of tea or a pint at the pub - if that - and was made most probably by a student rather than a dedicated investigator so to be fair it's a pile of dribble.
Which is not to say that I believe in the Loch Ness Monster but neither do I disbelieve.

What I will say is SEA SERPENT's have been written about and recorded since antiquity, giant long necked serpentine creatures with ferocious head's that could sink boat's (well the ships back then were little more than boats) and drown sailors.

Were those ancient's confused by modern depictions of Plesiosaurs? or did they see something that should not be there unless? some of the dinosaurs did not actually die out when they were supposed to have but just maybe survived until fairly recently if in limited numbers - there are even some today that wonder if perhaps the giant shark megaladon (or perhaps a deep water subspecies of it) might not have survived into modern time's.

The Lochness monster was real but it went extinct because there were only a couple. Two of the same sex from the same litter, and then they died out.

I do think giant sea creatures were real and may still be. The serpents not so much, but even a few thousand years ago there could've been before man expanded and became industrial.

All I'm saying is that whales had to have had a natural predator at some point. The worlds largest mammals are a remnant of not being eaten by something.

a reply to: r0xor

There have been a number of plausible explanation's, that the Lock was once connected and may still be to the sea via a potential cave system, that most sighting's which are therefore genuine are of very large Sturgeon or even ancient log's on the bed of the loch that have built up methane over time until they float up to the surface for a time and then sink back down.

But despite the paucity of skeletal evidence it could also in a very mundane context have been a rare or extinct form of giant eel - and then we have the whole paranormal and beyond the realm's of currently known science as another possible if reasonably far less likely explanation.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I can see how the oarfish may have influenced Japanese culture or been interpreted as something more significant than what it was because for all intents and purposes, it's a sea serpent even though it's a fish.

As for 2019, I'd be skeptical of anything in loch ness that would come close to fitting the description. A lake in Central or South Africa sounds more realistic. There's just not enough life going on there, same for the climate conditions that would favor a giant water animal.

Wouldn't a similar species of creature be spotted as often throughout history in other locations of the world, like almost all creatures? Elephants are only in Africa and Southern Asia but coincidentally, that's where it's the warmest. Africa has the most open ground. You don't find anything like an alligator or crocodile in climates and areas like Great Britain either.

a reply to: LABTECH767

There have been a number of plausible explanation's, that the Lock was once connected and may still be to the sea via a potential cave system

The Loch is definitely connected to the sea, and not by a cave system, but by the river Ness.

Loch Ness is one of Britain's largest and deepest freshwater lakes. It is long, narrow, deep and straight 38 km long, 1.7 km wide and 230 m deep, is 16 m above sea level and is connected to the sea by the 12-km-long River Ness.

The data presented prove that a Common or Harbour Seal lived in Loch Ness during seven months of 1984-85, indicate that Loch Ness is entered by a seal about once every two years, and prove that a seal can live for many months in Loch Ness. The route of entry of a seal must be from the sea up the River Ness. These data suggest that past reports of seals in Loch Ness were true and that seals have probably been visiting Loch Ness for thousands of years.

lochnessinvestigation.com...

a reply to: Frocharocha

Whenever something new is discovered that doesn't fit in the lie we have been told is quickly ridiculed by the scientific peers,they have an agenda,and the only truth to them is the one they are told,as far as I'm concerned scientist found out that water is wet and some are saltier then others

Cant give any proof of what I am posting it PREDATES the internet by 20 - 40 years .
In my life time .
National geographic - Uses nets to bring fish and what not up and see if they find new types .
they got a Ele Larva ( the young look nothing like a ele they look more like a see through fish looking thing .
This ele larva was 6 feet LONG . National geo estimated that ele if it had grown to adult would have reached a 100 feet in length .

Now adult ele are fresh water and can go over land fro quite a ways to get to land locked lakes .
So immange seeing a 100 foot ele sticking its head out of the water ?

Again national geo Got a 23 foot hammer head shark from the gulf of mexico .

Sperm whales eat giant squid the squid dont like that and fight back . A sperm whale was got that had sucker marks 18 inches across BIGGER then a dinner plate . We now know they are real having filmed them .
A Juvenile washed up on a Japaneses beach 63 FEET LONG and A kid squid lol .

Finly 11 o'clock news Abc nbc Which ever I was around 13 and the news story was about a fishing trawler that was off the cost of Jacksonville Florida .
The boat had got a great white shark and teh shark preceded to TOW the boat all the way up to Jersey .
So helicopter was above the boat filming . The boat was 25 feet lone the shark was along side at this point right up against the boat .

The shark was MUCH much longer then the boat . The scientist who looked at it estimated the shark at 36 feet .
The reporters asked the caption of the boat now he had the shark what was he going to do with it ?
He said I dont know let it go i guess lol .

The REAL sea monsters are JUST as coo as any we every imanged

Colossal squid
Animal
DescriptionThe colossal squid, sometimes called the Antarctic squid or giant cranch squid, is believed to be the largest squid species in terms of mass. It is the only known member of the genus Mesonychoteuthis. Wikipedia
Length: 39 – 46 ft. (Adult)

Region: Arctic

Destinations: Lofoten, Greenland, Svalbard, Iceland

Name: Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)Length: 16-20 metres (53-66 feet)Weight: 41,000 kg (90,400 pounds)Location: Sub-Arctic and sub-Antarctic waters

The squid likely only defend themselves from the predator, they don't go looking for them. The sperm whale dives up to a mile deep and looks for prey. It's favorite is squid, thus the squid fights back but I don't foresee groups of squid intelligently looking for sperm whales to fight or try to kill. Could they even eat it?

The largest species of "true eel," if measured in weight and overall bulk, is the European conger (Conger conger). The maximum size of this species has been reported to 3 m (9.8 ft) and a mass of 110 kg (240 lb). Several moray eels can equal or exceed the previous eel in length but do not weigh as much.

An eel doesn't stick it's neck up out of the water, it isn't designed to. The famous lochness picture of what looked like a dinosaur in the water was proven to probably be fake so I could see how a 10ft eel in ancient times could spur a legend of serpents in the loch. There's no 100ft eels out there unfortunately though because in nature, based on the creature there's absolutely no point to it or conditions for a freak eel anomaly to happen.

You don't just randomly end up with 100ft eels in one lake where it's really cold and above sea level by several meters.

There goes the Scottish tourism industry

a reply to: Frocharocha

I can post pictures of the real loch ness monster,


I only need about three fiddy to cover some costs.

a reply to: r0xor

are the " historical reports " truthfull ?????????????????

a reply to: Phage

Local men told me that several seals have been shot by salmon fishermen.
. . . most seals that enter Loch Ness get shot . . .

lochnessinvestigation.com...

Seals learn to follow fishing boats, taking large salmon visitors have paid to catch. Local businessmen shoot the seals as discretely as possible.

a reply to: Kester

I was a deck hand on a sport fishing boat for a few summers as a teen. The tourists were generally stoked when sharks occasionally grabbed a fish off the line. It was cool to watch even though we (as crew) didn't get to sell the fish. We didn't shoot sharks.

But the point was; Loch Ness is directly connected to the sea and seals make a good proxy for serpents to the uninitiated. Whether or not someone shoots them is sort of irrelevant.

a reply to: Phage

The relevant point is more seals enter the lock than is generally thought. They get disappeared.

a reply to: Kester

But not before someone may say, "serpent!"