|
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 22, 2005 | 07:28 PM
Thank you, LaMa!! That has been bugging me soooo much, but I couldn't remember the spelling of the name myself, which is why I didn't put my 2 cents in. |
Geoff
|
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 04:54 PM
Hello
I've looked at the film footage - not much in itself. Still looking around for footage of the deer ribcage. Was some actually taken??
The tooth is a problem. It looks too good. If this is from a meat-eater of any sort, then one would expect some sort of decay on it. Check out all carnivores.
Two students invited out by girls who didn't turn up sounds like a set-up whether they were involved or not. The tooth going missing at the same time tends to tie in to that.
As much as I'd like to say there is something in the Loch, I think this is very dubious.
Geoff |
J.G.
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 08:39 AM
I definatly think the tooth is real. And as far as nessie being locked in from road construction I think it is not real.there is a system of caves recently discovered on the bottom of the loch ness. It is possiable that there are 1 or more of these creatures living in these caves under the lake. |
J.G.
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 08:42 AM
The film and story are absalootly fake but I still belive that nessie is real and could possiable go on land for short peroids of time like the mudlark fish that can leave the water for days at a time and is agile enough to climbs trees |
Max
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 09:23 AM
The book is a work of fiction. However, Steve Alten funded Bill McDonald's trip to investigate. Bill McDonald found slide trails which he thinks indicates it may be an Anguilla Eel. This eel can travel on land. Infact, the book theorizes that it may be a precursor to the Anguilla eel, that traveled to and from Loch Ness, look at the eel's migratory patterns, and was trapped in after road construction, or as the book suggests templar knights trying to protect the bruceheart, but in reality, road construction. This theory is perhaps one of the more sound theories I have heard about the creature, even though I am not in any way a reliable source, I have simply read the books and read many of the other proposed theories. Anguilla eels die after they spawn each year, and they can only spawn in salt-water. Since the eel could not reach salt water, being trapped in the loch, it never died after spawning, which resulted in a longer life span, and growing to an unusual size. Anguilla eels are found heavily in the loch, or so a few websites have said. |
Max
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 09:26 AM
Steve Alten/Bill McDonald proposes a very good theory. The problem with the acceptance of it is when people show up on message boards, and are unable to seperate the fact in the book from the fiction. Sorry, but the guy saying that the Templar Knights guiding the underwater gate in and out of the Loch and feeding the monster during the winter months, your mentally incapable of seperating the obvious "facts" in the book from the majority of the fiction. Steve Alten wrote this book before Bill McDonald's findings, and went back and altered it after, so the pieces of "Fact" are obviously juxtaposed in the story so you can easily tell where they are. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 09:29 AM
The problem with theories is that what we'd like to see is facts.
After all, the onus is on the theorist to prove something is true, rather than on the skeptic to prove that it is not. |
Max
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 10:34 AM
Well, some things steve points out in the book is that the reason all the sonar expeditions have failed is because the anguilla eel burrows into the mud at the bottom of the loch, so sonar would not see it. Also, when using active sonar to patrol the loch, the noise scares the eel off, although that could happen with any aquatic animal I guess. There are more, I will have to review it again and pull some more out. |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 03:36 PM
You know what's a really good theory about the Loch Ness monster? It doesn't exist. |
David B.
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 03:46 PM
Well, some things steve points out in the book is that the reason all the sonar expeditions have failed is because the anguilla eel burrows into the mud at the bottom of the loch, so sonar would not see it.
Actually, most sonar penetrates quite deep into sediment. Any large enough and solid enough creature should have been visible.
see http://www.ocean.cf.ac.uk/people/neil/sonar/pen.html |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 04:42 PM
Citizen Premier: nice to see this thread continue, Nessie being a classic HoaxOrNot story...Now, while the non-existence of Nessie is certainly a good possibility, if not a good probability, isn't it much more romantic and imaginative, to at least entertain the notion, that a great, big, possibly prehistoric in nature creature inhabits the dark depths of that beautiful, Scottish body of water? (That, Ladies and Germs, is the longest sentence I have ever used in a post here on MOH) whew |
Geoff
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 04:06 PM
Hello
I think too much faith is being put on Anguilla eels. Over 70 years would be a long time in an amphibian or reptile's life let alone grow to a phenomenal size assuming whatever Nessie was was caught in the Rhine sonar scan back in the late 70s. It's a shame that when the sonar scan of the entire Loch was done in the 90s and something was spotted in the backtrack that it wasn't properly investigated and put this to rest.
Whatever else it is, Nessie is constantly described as having a serpentine neck and a large body. Hardly a description of an eel.
I do agree it must still have a way out to the sea somehow. It would explain why Nessie only 'appears' for only a few months a year - and not always in the tourist season - and why there isn't a breeding colony.
Are there still reports of similar creatures coming in from across other deep freshwater lakes around the world or did the tourist momentum die out elsewhere??
Geoff |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 04:24 PM
Hi Geoff.
Anguilla eels are most likely not in the loch. I think there's only one person on here who believes that.
Absence of proof, Geoff, absence of proof. There's never been a verified sighting of 'Nessie'. Never.
Now, I'm slightly bemused about this theory that 'Nessie' lives in both salt water and fresh water. Would anybody like to explain the logistics behind this? There's no 'season' during which it 'appears', either. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 05:43 PM
AND (just because it's already up at the top of the forum) everybody's arguing over what type of tooth it could be.
It's not necessarily organic. You can cast plaster, plastics, resins, hell, even metals.
Since the only evidence we have of it is a picture, I doubt it's even organic.
Thank you. Rant over. |
Max
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 08:53 AM
Anguilla eels are most likely not in the loch. I think there's only one person on here who believes that.
????
Anguilla Eels's are all over the loch.
http://www.nessie.co.uk/nessie/fish.html
http://www.marlab.ac.uk/FRS.Web/Delivery/display_standalone.aspx?contentid=111 |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 09:41 AM
Anguilla eels probably aren't nessie. According to <a href="http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.cfm?ID=35&genusname=Anguilla&speciesname=anguilla">this page</a>, their maximum length is 133cm. Not quite Nessie proportions.
Also, it says: "Young eels spend their growing period in freshwater, males for 6-12 years, females for 9-20 years before ending their metamorphosis (Ref. 172, Ref. 51442). At the end of their growth period, they become sexually mature and the eels migrate to the sea where they inhabit deep waters. "
So, only up to adult size would they be in freshwaters like Loch Ness.
I found similar stats on other sites. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 03:11 PM
Ooops, sorry, what I meant is what Noni said.
That they certainly aren't the monster, rather than that they're not there... |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 03:11 PM
Okay, from what I can follow, some people are saying that the Loch Ness Monster may actually be an Anguilla eel that was trapped in the loch, and so it couldn't continue with its normal life cycle where it would go to the sea, mate, and die. Thus it was able to grow to extreme size. But at the same time, it seems that there are such eels all over the loch who apparently have no such troubles. So would Nessie be an incredibly stupid eel that couldn't find its way out of the loch? Otherwise, I don't see how the eel theory would work. |
LesConsieurs
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 08:41 PM
It looks like an eagle's talon to me. |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 03:02 AM
I completely agree with Acci |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 | 02:29 AM
*dances on the grave of Steve Alton's book* |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 | 08:01 AM
*joins the dance* |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 | 08:41 AM
*dances on the grave of Steve Alton's book*
*joins the dance*
When suddenly a hand shoots up from the grave (like in 'Carrie') and grabs your ankles.
The book will no doubt sell millions. Look at the combined opera (plural of opus) of Whitless Strieber. Look at the audience figures for Art Bell. Look at just how dumb the average human being is. By definition, half of them are even dumber than that!
Even now, people with more keyboard skills than brains are probably blogging of how there's a conspiracy between the MIBK (men in black kilts) and the SSHs (small soft hamishes) to 'supress all evidance of the existance of the Lock Ness monstor' at the bidding of their shadowy leader, known only as 'Boo'!
Well, if they aren't they damn well should be! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 | 08:44 AM
I've just had a thought...
(Don't all cheer at once!)
Someone should start up a hoax blog whereby every article on the MoH is criticized as part of the cover up. A hoax 'conterpoint' to a museum of hoaxes! What could be better! |
Hobbes
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 | 10:50 AM
Just came across this conversation, and thought I would add my own "slippery" number. Apologies if this little item is already well-known:
Reward offered for Melbourne 'Loch Ness' eel. 21/02/2005. ABC News Online
[This is the print version of story ]http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1307064.htm]
Last Update: Monday, February 21, 2005. 10:42am (AEDT)
Reward offered for Melbourne 'Loch Ness' eel
The operators of a trout farm are offering a $1000 reward to anyone who catches Melbourne's own Loch Ness monster.
A giant eel, believed to be around four metres long with a head the size of a football has been spotted at the trout farm at Warburton.
It is believed the eel washed into the farm's ponds during this month's record breaking storms.
Farm manager Gary Wales says efforts to catch the giant creature have so far been unsuccessful.
"We don't want it harmed, this things probably 30-years-old, and he's come here probably by mistake and he's found himself a good little home and plenty of food," he said.
"We hope to catch him alive and take him to the Melbourne Aquarium."
He says he has never heard of such a large eel before.
"No. Maybe it's Nessy, Nessy's offspring maybe, who knows, but no, it's a big eel." |
Shaun
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 | 08:16 AM
I can't beleive this is still being discussed, the so called tooth is nothing more than early deer antler. male deers lose and re-grow antlers every year. If anyone has ever seen a deer when the antlers are new, they will realise that they are exactly the same as what is being held in the photo.
My explantion for the carcass, is that the deer fell from the cliff, smashing it's self up on the hard jagged rock and in doing so it antler/s has snapped off as it's inbedded it's self in the body. It happens all the time around there.
As for it being the tooth of an eel, has anyone actually seen how big or small their teeth are, if this came from an eel your talking of something in the range of a 100 to 200ft in comparison.
wouldn't suprise me that this all leads up to a scam, where someone ends up selling an antler on Ebay as this so called tooth.
come on take a proper look at the image. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 | 08:42 AM
It wasn't still being discussed. We'd all come to that conclusion a long time ago. |
chuck_jones_impersonator
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 | 08:47 PM
What you all fail to realize is that the so-called "eel" in that Australian trout farm isn't really an eel, but is actually the Loch Ness Monster on summer holiday. The Knights Templar paid for her airplane tickets. It's all explained in this book that I just read (and happen to be paid to advertise, too) that I'll let you all have for only $50 each! |
Ricardo De Rojas
|
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 | 02:50 AM
The story the guys were telling was very hard to believe because they seemed to stutter alot and pause like they were taking their time to make up the story.I also recall him saying "I thought I saw a fin". Did he or did he not see it. Also the tracks were to small for something to be able to tear a dear in half. A creature that big couldn't have made such small tracks.I rest my case. |
nessieshomeboi
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 | 09:45 PM
I've gottasay i've been reading all the responses & i m also kinda skeptical about the tooth...why did it just dissapear? I for one though believe in the The Lochness monster...allot of the facts stated in this forum seemed more like guesses than actual facts.
Why isnt it possible to think that a generation full of nessie's lives in Lochness for one its the second largest(deepest) lake in all of europe, secondly the loch is an arm of the sea meaning that fish can get in & out.
Many scientists agree that the Loch holds more than enough food for a generation of animals to live there.
Sonar...how come every time sonar has been used in the Loch Blips on the screen showed an animal of some sort 5to 10 times bigger than anything known in the loch. The reason we cant investigate further is because the good people of scotland have placed a restriction on what kind of investigations can be done in the lake. also heres a real shocker...it was just proven recently that the Loch does indeed hold underwater caves. If anyone needs more info. u can contact me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) |
Stewen
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 06:27 AM
It's not a tooth it's some animals antler.
Look at the base. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 06:40 AM
To nessieshomeboi: proof please.
Many scientists agree that the Loch holds more than enough food for a generation of animals to live there.
Which scientists? What are their names and credentials? Where have they said this?
Sonar...how come every time sonar has been used in the Loch Blips on the screen showed an animal of some sort 5to 10 times bigger than anything known in the loch.
And you know about every sonar scanning of the loch because...? Please tell me where I can read proof of this.
The reason we cant investigate further is because the good people of scotland have placed a restriction on what kind of investigations can be done in the lake
:lol:
Where exactly did you 'find this out'? Even if there are restrictions on the loch, there could be many reasons for that. Proof that this has anything to do with 'nessie', please.
it was just proven recently that the Loch does indeed hold underwater caves
By whom? Where?
By the way, it's not the wisest thing to put your email address up, either.
Stewen: we know. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 06:52 AM
Is it just me, or are the same posts getting displayed over and over and over again??
:ahhh: |
Stewen
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 06:58 AM
Boo,I didn't read the intire thread before I posted.
Sorry about that. :red: |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 07:00 AM
Maegan, they're all much the same. The Knights Templar'll be along in a bit.
Stewen, no worries!
😊 |
Geoff
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 04:21 PM
Just putting the record straight a little here.
As I understand it, the passage to the sea from Loch Ness is a gate controlled so something big going that way would be spotted. The Loch is also fresh-water not sea water.
The one problem I have with there being a single blip sonar-detected in Loch Ness is that there's only one. Unless whatever is migratory somehow, it isn't an indication of a small colony there which it would need to survive there. A large colony would have a serious effect on the local fish which it doesn't. Loch Ness isn't teeming with fish but the local community do fish it for salmon.
Loch Ness is hardly the warmest stretch of water neither. Really cold if anything. Any reptilian species, apart from the need to surface regularly for air, would have to be constantly on the move and feeding. The same would apply to surface sightings. A gilled-fish, even if it had a long neck, wouldn't do that much travelling on the surface. The best of both worlds would have to be an amphibian of some sorts. The so-called mane described with some sightings could be an external gill.
What restriction have the people at Loch Ness put on investigations?? Quite the contrary. They welcome it if anything. The tourist trade would hit the roof if it was positively confirmed that there was an unknown creature there and that's more than the regular tourist coaches they get now which visits both the Loch and its Ness Museum and supply of knick-knacks.
Geoff |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 04:29 PM
Thank you, Geoff. |
Barbi
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 | 05:24 AM
Hi Everybody!
I saw a film about scientists trawling Loch Ness with a machine which reflects sounds, and they found NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE that Nessie exists, so there you are.
Barbi |
Max
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 | 08:24 AM
Barbi, what film? The people on the other side of this argument should be held to the same reference standards as the people that are for it. |
rich
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 | 01:27 PM
My family has lived for several generations near the Pass of Inverfarigaig which runs down to the South side of the loch. I have often toyed with the idea of starting a monster burger franchise. Trouble is we can't catch the creature, he is altogether too fast for us. So we are thinking of using frozen Wimpy burgers instead. Does anyone know if this would get us in trouble with the Trades Description Act? All cash offers to buy shares in this potential catering goldmine can be directed to myself at the Pass of Inverfarigaig. Talking of resident monsters we have had some success with our Aleister Crowley milk shake. |
Geoff
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 | 04:36 PM
Hello Barbi
I've been making this point from the start. That Loch scan in the late-90s did produce a large unknown trace that was detected swimming behind the sonar trail. As all the ships carrying the sonar equipment didn't want to break formation, it was just noted as a mystery trace.
I doubt if whatever it was would have felt a sonar trace but the ships' props would have made one hell of a noise, even in peat-embedded water.
If anything, this does tend to support the Rhine sonar tracks and that elusive flipper taken back in the 70s.
Link into: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/nessie/nessie.htm
Perhaps the best evidence for Nessie is sonar contacts. In 1987 Operation Deepscan, involving 24 motor launches traversed the whole length of Loch Ness providing a nearly complete sonar scan of the Loch. "All this effort was rewarded by three strong contacts. One of these - a sonar echo from a |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 | 07:39 AM
So, these people who are plunking down in their little sonar boats every few years...
They don't have something better to do??
What if there really IS Nessie? What if beyond any doubt, we find out that Nessie exists? Then what!?!? Will it be pulled out of the lake and put into an aquarium? Put in a zoo? Left alone? Dissected?
Regardless, I think it's best that we just leave it be. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 02:12 AM
The problem with most sonar systems is that they can't tell the difference between one large object and many small objects close together (such as a school of fish). And Loch Ness does have many fish in it. A "large sonar contact" does not necessarily mean a large object.
The particular Nessie story that this topic is about, however, was shown to be a definite hoax. |
Geoff
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 04:55 PM
Hello Alex
These sonar surveys weren't being done to hunt Nessie. As Loch Ness is one of the biggest deep freshwater glacier lakes in the world it would have been investigated irrespective of there being a 'monster' in it. What is puzzling is the fact that something large and animated was detected and reported and yet nothing was done about it. I mean why bother to say they found something if they were going to ignore it.
Re: Latest. What |
Brian Eggert
|
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 | 10:06 PM
That so called tooth is not from a loch ness monster but it sure helps sell a few books ya think? |
A Theory Maker
|
Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 | 06:51 PM
Ok i have a theory.Im 13 and i want to take marine biologie in college and then become a monster, But anyways my theory is, Ive been studying on history of the monster,Castle Urquhart,And the lake. I have recently read an ancient history document about settlers in the area that were building a bridge around the northeast side of the lake i think, While they were building this bridge a supposable lake monster attacked and killed, then they finished the bridge, about a hundred years later to rebuild the bridge the british used dynamite to blow the bridge shattering it into the water, Nesse apparently came up from the water but whent back down, I THINK...they need to booby trap the bridge and reblow it and give it a try, but if anyone reads this hopefully theyll try it. |
Mirza
|
Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 | 10:04 AM
For those that always ask the question "Why has one not been found or caught?" If you were to take one
Large fish/whale (whatever) and tag it --just one fish with just one tag --and everyone that knows how to fish and trap were to try and find it --it would no doubt take a very long time ---maybe a lifetime if you found at all..---THE LOCH is not a small body of water. |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 | 04:17 AM
*bangs head off desk*
It is a SCAM to sell copies of a book.
The 'tooth' is not a tooth. |
dgray
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 | 09:22 PM
im willing to bet that the loch ness monster is an aguilla eel. not nesassarily an actual anguilla eel, but instead a precursor or ancestor of anguilla anguila. as we know, the ancestors are always larger and this would hold true to nessie. however, considering there have been nessie sightings since the 1930's, there would most likely have to be numerous "nessies" because it is unlikely that an eel could live for more than 70 years, even a precursor. as for the tooth, it looks very real although its disapearance is suspicious |
Lilly
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 | 06:31 AM
Well, I think it is real! |
Carter S
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 | 12:08 PM
It's real it has to be real cause if it's not.......
Ill be right back, I am going to go kill myself. |
ljrad
|
Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 | 12:58 AM
An article quoted on the following forum
http://www.underwatertimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1350 states: "Rob McConnell, a Canadian broadcaster who interviewed McDonald about the finding on the air, is convinced the "tooth" story is a hoax.
Said McConnell in a press release: "According to a number of experts in Canada and the United Kingdom, McDonald's tooth is nothing more than an antler from a roe muntjac deer. " If you do a Google search on this deer you will see horns very like this "tooth", eg.: http://www.deer-uk.com/muntjac_deer.htm |
bobswell
|
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 | 07:40 AM
I am late to this discusssion. Just finished "The Loch". Fun story, but that's all. The "tooth"? Just look at the base of it. That is NOT a base of a tooth, it is the round nub of an antler of some sort.
Too bad, because like so many others, just the preponderance of sightings over the years make me want to believe there's something in the loch. |
Jacob Scum
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 | 07:55 AM
I don't think it looks like a tooth. I don't think it looks like an antler. It's much too sharp, and that hook at the end is RIDICULOUSLY sharp. I'm going with the claw theory. It's from a crustacean of some sort. The little barbs on the side and the hook on the end are arranged in a pattern of a gripping scissor. ie: a claw. Conspiracies regarding the Freemasons and Knights Templar being involved in world politics....i'm willing to believe. Theories regarding the same two groups hiding cryptomorphs from us is preposterous. To what end would they do this and why? What possible gain could be met by hiding legendary beasts from the public?
Cryptozoologists are a bunch of jerks. I believe the suffix "ology" means "science of." Hence "ologist" would mean "one who studies the science of." Cryptozoologist is a misleading term; it implies that there is a science involved. Bzzt....negative....science involves the study of evidence through experimentation and the observation of results. Not the fantastical stories of a few backwoods people from (insert your culture here.) |
Dan
|
Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 | 05:30 PM
Jacob, you're absolutely wrong about it not being a deer antler - the specific type of deer it belongs to has been posted already: http://www.deer-uk.com/muntjac_deer.htm
The fact that it was found inside the torn body of a deer should have been a dead giveaway, but Steve Alten & friends seem content to draw a much wilder conclusion even though all the evidence is against their hasty reasoning - when even an amateur zoologist can see from the barbs and shape that it's an antler.
So you're right about cryptozoologists being a bunch of jerks - people who don't even use scientific method to prove their claims have a real nerve to claim that a "mainstream science conspiracy" is keeping their amazing evidence from being shown.
In a weird twisted sort of way, they're kind of right - but only in that people are demanding they provide real scientific data to back up their claims, which is then subjected to rigorous peer-review and critique.
A good scientist welcomes criticism as a means to test and improve his evidence/hypothesis/whatever, or see if there's a better explanation. A bad scientist (or good pseudoscientist) reacts to criticism with outrage, paranoia, wild accusations, and increasing stubbornness.
In this regard, cryptozoology is a misnomer - A more accurrate title would be pseudozoology. Real zoologists are the ones most capable of discovering and categorizing new kinds of animals - pseudozoologists deal in anecdotal evidence and "conclusive evidence" that is always strangely too vague to see how it was faked, easily disproven as being something else, or conveniently lost. The latter is my personal favorite, since it strikes me as such a typical "teacher, I lost my amazing homework on the way to class because a conspiracy of science bullies didn't want me to get A+++" excuse. |
Jacob Scum
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 | 12:06 AM
Well said, Dan.
However, i looked at those pictures the first time it was posted, and i fail to see how even a newly formed antler could be that sharp. I suppose it's possible, since what i study most are reptiles and amphibians. |
Dan
|
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 | 02:18 AM
Newly formed antlers are actually considerably sharp. It's actually a lot of grinding that wears them down. |
Jacob Scum
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 | 06:01 AM
Got any better photos of that deer so i may be able to make a better comparison? |
Jacob Scum
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 | 06:08 AM
"Muntjac bucks have long pedicles from which relatively small antlers grow. Normally a single backward curved antler up to 10 cm in length and terminating in a small hook..."
-an excerpt from the article posted
Very convincing evidence, especially since i mentioned the hook in a previous post.
It does still look very crustaceon-like to me though. It's the barbs that are pointing me in that direction. Though, the broken base resembles bone far more than it does the innards of a crustaceon. |
Rica
|
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 | 11:28 PM
After having looked at the pictures I was trying to figure out what was wrong with them. It hit me that there is no blood. Either that deer died of natural causes and was then cut apart and strewn about, or it is completly fake to begin with. My father and brother are both hunters (along with most of the rest of my family) and I have ssen enough to know that had that animal been attacked it would be covered in blood, as would much of it's surroudings. I'm not automatically saying that I don't believe in Nessie, but I doubt that is a tooth (it looks like a small antler) and I doubt anything attacked that deer. |
|
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
