BBC Proves Nessie Does Not Exist? (article)

so surfing around today, I found this article: news.bbc.co.uk...

apparently a team producing a documentary about the Loch Ness Monster for BBC One searched the loch with a fine-toothed sonar comb, and came up empty handed. of course, this will probably not be definitive enough to completely disprove Nessie since even if it doesn't exist, it's enough a part of popular myth to ensure it lives on forever. anybody else hear anything about this, or happen to see the BBC documentary?

Seen a few similiar programmes over the years.

People will just say Nessie was out of the loch at the time having a walk(Nessie has been sighted crossing roads) or in one of the deep caves or tunnels beneath the surface.

Originally posted by johnb
(Nessie has been sighted crossing roads) .

Huh Nessie is said to be a land creature aswell?!

Oh yes.

Been supposedly spotted walking across the road in front of people usually around dawn or dusk.

Also large footprints have been sighted near the edge of the loch.

Could those people who spotted Nessie been on drugs or drunk maybe.?! come i mean this is getting crazy and out of hand o.k i am not blaming you but ppl will say the most craziest things.

Next thing you know they'll be reports of Nessie seen in the air!

This is old news and from memory was just some old folks on holiday, I was quite interested in all this as a schoolboy and read

I would think though that it's a fair bet a lot of the stories involve drink if not drugs. There is not a lot to do when you live out in the countryside.

Could those people who spotted Nessie been on drugs or drunk maybe.?! come i mean this is getting crazy and out of hand o.k i am not blaming you but ppl will say the most craziest things.

LOL Takes one to know one, eh?

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Could those people who spotted Nessie been on drugs or drunk maybe.?! come i mean this is getting crazy and out of hand o.k i am not blaming you but ppl will say the most craziest things.

LOL Takes one to know one, eh?

Hey i maybe an alchie but i aint a druggie!

The BBC didn't find Nessie, but I don't believe they "proved" anything.

The BBC documentary about the Lochness was watered down, poorly researched and contained errors in the content presented. It amounted to nothing more than pseudo science in disguise.

A single sonar scan of the huge Loch, for which is deeper than the North Sea, proved nothing except that they didn't find anything. There are a load of experts familiar with the complex geology of the place and the surrounding area and yet, were they interviewed? Let alone that they failed to mention the "links" or the two "canals" that link the Loch to the sea. This wasn't mentioned nor was it 'debunked.'
The Loch is not all granite either. Its geological make-up and structure includes old red sandstone and altered limestone. There are caves in the Loch also.
Personally....the BBC just proved how not to make a documentary.

regards
seekerof

Correct me if I am wrong but it was always my understanding that Nessie was related very closely to the plesiosaur in that it had two large sets of fins. If this is true then how did they find foot prints since it does not have feet? Unless your saying you believe that Nessie is more of a brontosaurus in which case I would think it would spend a lot less time in the water. If it is in fact a plesiosaur then the only explanation I can really think of is that these "footprints" were really flipper prints. If a plesiosaur did move on land I would imagine it would be extremely slow and therefor easy to spot meaning there would be a lot more sightings.

Originally posted by ID
Correct me if I am wrong but it was always my understanding that Nessie was related very closely to the plesiosaur in that it had two large sets of fins. If this is true then how did they find foot prints since it does not have feet? Unless your saying you believe that Nessie is more of a brontosaurus in which case I would think it would spend a lot less time in the water. If it is in fact a plesiosaur then the only explanation I can really think of is that these "footprints" were really flipper prints. If a plesiosaur did move on land I would imagine it would be extremely slow and therefor easy to spot meaning there would be a lot more sightings.

I agree. I for one don't believe nessie exists. There isn't enough evidence to support these claims. Now if there were caves under the water or in the mountains then maybe it's possible but a scientist has not come forward and said there were caves in the area.



[Edited on 29-7-2003 by mrmulder]

There may not be a "Nessie" but then again........
Check these pictures out and decide:


www.anzwers.org...

There are three pages worth....when you get to bottom of page..hit next....and next...

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 29-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Well in case anyone is wondering this myth about nessie
has promoted by locals around loch ness for one simple reason.
To promote tourism to the local area. Nessie is a source of revenue for the locals like the Roswell myth is for the folks
in this New Mexico town.

Anyone who definitely proves nessie a fake just might find
himself lynched by the local mob trying to defend their source of revenue.

I agree. I for one don't believe nessie exists.

I believe that at one point some creature related to the plesiosaur was seen and may have come there from time to time. I do not however believe it ever "lived" there nor do I think that it is still there. It is my opinion that the creature most likely died and any recent sittings are simply people carrying on the myth. I believe it is possible for several of these plesiosaur related creatures to exist but if they do they are on their way out of the global scene.

Originally posted by ID
Correct me if I am wrong but it was always my understanding that Nessie was related very closely to the plesiosaur in that it had two large sets of fins. If this is true then how did they find foot prints since it does not have feet? Unless your saying you believe that Nessie is more of a brontosaurus in which case I would think it would spend a lot less time in the water. If it is in fact a plesiosaur then the only explanation I can really think of is that these "footprints" were really flipper prints. If a plesiosaur did move on land I would imagine it would be extremely slow and therefor easy to spot meaning there would be a lot more sightings.

That's silly i'm sorry to say how can Nessie be related to anything based on sightings and besides ppl have said they have only seen the head or something moving in the lake underneath the water.

An Accidental discovery in the depths of Loch Ness could finally force the scientific community to acknowledge there could be a monster out there.

An expert has claimed that two years of work by British and US scientists proves the sea reached the now-landlocked stretch of water after the European Ice Age 125,000 years ago - and again about 12,800 years ago.

Full Story: Click Here

Well in case anyone is wondering this myth about nessie
has promoted by locals around loch ness for one simple reason.
To promote tourism to the local area. Nessie is a source of revenue for the locals like the Roswell myth is for the folks
in this New Mexico town.

Are we to conclude that the locals, just one day "came up" with this great tourism idea? And that they somehow got several out of town eyewitnesses, scientists, and cryptozoologists interested as well?

On to Roswell....so the townsfolk were able to get the military to go along with this great new tourism plan? Numerous eyewitnesses, and deathbed confessions of several high ranking military officers were also in on it? Wow! I want to get these yokels to run my town! I'd be on easy street!

Please...the idea is rather absurd...

put some pictures on your webpage to make it more interestin god