Loch Ness Monster? Or a stick...? After a 45-year hunt, walker claims to have photographed elusive c

I love this topic and have been interested in it since being a child. To me it looks like it could be one of two things really a Sturgeon, www.britannica.com... some of which can grow ten feet or more. They are amazing archaic animals and are present in Europe, or it could be some sort of eel yet to be discovered or a distinct species similar. Here is a great story from 1734 about a supposed encounter with a 110 foot giant eel,mysteriousall.blogspot.com... Thanks for posting this topic again

Originally posted by TRiPWiRE
I've said it before, but I really hope there are unknown creatures living in these lochs & lakes.

I do, however recall a documentary a while back that scanned the whole of loch ness with sophisticated radar equipment. They found nothing at all.

news.bbc.co.uk...


That documentary made me sad...

Well no crap, large marine animals hate sonar equipment since it's like communication to them. Pings from submarines have been known to drive whales a dolphins to beach themselves en masse just to get away.

They did the same thing at Lake Okanagan once and found nothing conclusive, but it's already known that Ogopogo likes to hang out in an underwater cave (which divers fear to tread near).

I have always wondered how come these folks tend to ONLY get photos of the "humps" or the back of these things? Just wondering that all. Kinda odd though that someone can take a photo of what looks like the back or hump of one of these things then go on and state its Loch Ness herself.

If I saw Nessie I'd be inclined to say nothing. If I snapped Nessie I'd also be inclined to sit on my hands. Why? Simply because of all of the doubt and dissent certain to come my way. The fact is we talk ourselves into doubt and shooting holes into everything, to the point we are certain we have come upon the answer and have exposed a fake, fraud or hoax.

And why not. History is full of those that have tried to pull one over our eyes. Add to that arrogance, the arrogance of authority and science, and what you end up with is a process that demands doubt from any of us.

Going back to my original thoughts on the matter, I have to wonder why somebody would submit a sighting or picture given the doubt and dissent surely to follow. Even more to the point, why they'd submit personal information, further opening themselves to ridicule.

Are we to believe that the reporting was 100% professional and not given to any degree of doubt or sarcasm? Are we to assume the were mitigating factors behind the report such as an agenda, drink or perhaps just a desire to see something always searched for but after decades never seen? Did the camera lie?

I'll close it with this; the shot looks damned compelling and given the legends surrounding Loch Ness, the fact that if it would fool one it would fool many, why didn't other reports or similar pictures pop up? I mean, if it was a log, wouldn't it have been carried by the current for others to see in a similar, "compelling" state? Hard to believe that such a log would merely pop-up and pose for a single compelling shot, then suddenly sink to the bottom again. But hey, that's just me.

Maybe there's something more to Loch Ness than what we can fathom at this point, it possibly defies science and our arrogance to control perception and calculation, and those that see it are damned by the rest of us, picture and willingness to fess up notwithstanding.

My 2 cents on this...

While I want to believe that this is a real picture of Nessie, i'm not too convinced. Looking at the object in the water, it's not casting a shadow/reflection on the water. Now looking at the ripples on the water suggests the sun to be in front of the photographer, or at least the motion of the water, according to the shadow/reflection of the ripples, is coming toward the photographer. The object in question casts nothing. This either suggests (to me) that the light source is directly overhead, or its been added in after the fact.

Hopefully this made some kind of sense lol!

Everyone who lives local knows its just a tourist thing, nothing more.
Nice fairy story.

reply to post by moonrunner


I am not a local. Is that true, my dear brother?

reply to post by Franz von Humboldt


Fortunately it is not. Apart from the fact many of the reports have actually come from locals — not to mention how unbalanced it is to make such a sweeping statement — there is a plethora of sources of evidence to be considered. Some of this I have linked to

in this post

for example. It includes solid sonar-based evidence that something large is down there...

Yeah, sure.


How many times has the loch been scanned or surveyed, nothing found, oh that just makes it more mysterious. (or not there)