The Loch Ness Monster

[RivkahChaya]

Ooooh, the so ugly it's cute coelacanth. ... It was known only from fossils and was universally known to have gone extinct along with the dinosaurs. Then suddenly, in 1938 one turned up alive in fishermens' nets off of South Africa. Today it's acknowledged to be a still thriving species ....

That's not quite right. The coelacanth is an order, not a species. It's an order which had traits that were considered "transitional" between fish and land animals, and back when people thought evolution progressed at a steady pace toward something, it was assumed that "transitional" traits disappeared once a fully evolved form developed, in this case, land animals.

We know now that evolution doesn't work that way, and any species that exists is fully realized for its own environment, and not in any kind of developmental process. Evolution does proceed with any kind of design in mind, and "transitional species" is essentially a myth.

Aside from that, though, the modern coelacanths are not identical to any of the fossil species from 360 million years ago. They just aren't different enough to be a new order, and while they are not representative of any species thought to be extinct, they have traits thought to be extinct.

There are other very old orders that have living species still represented. There are some orders of reptiles that are 220 million years old, and plenty of plants and invertebrates that leave coelacanth in the dust (the fossil record is sketchier on invertebrates, though, for obvious reasons), but coelacanths do represent just about the oldest order of the phylum vertebrates.

[martin wilson]

Scientists love those big extinction events,apart from the rather obvious fact that something must have survived because here we are.
Evolution only works for scientists when they can show a progression in phenotypes, despite the fact that there are plenty of species around that survive by being omniverous and generally adaptable, they always insist that the type of organisms studied by cryptozoologists belong to specialised species that 'would not have survived'.
Predation by man is thought to be responsible for the extinction of numerous species, my own opinion is that they hunted until the benefits became no longer viable, leaving a small population of a species that may or may not have survived, there are plenty of examples of something thought extinct reappearing.
For example the Thylacine,thought hunted to extinction,yet there are witness reports and even photographic evidence I believe that suggest it may have survived.
It seems to very much of a case of 'we authoritively state that species x is definitely extinct,well,apart from those over there obviously'.
All the best.

[kensei]

Thanks for the video Beowulf,and thanks for the Doc Shiels info Kensei, as I say it's been quite some time,but I can feel the old yearning to be beside the Loch returning................
I suppose it's time to mention the coelacanth,a sea fish supposedly extinct for 70 million years,which was news to the coelacanth, still swimming around quite happily doing whatever it is coelacanths do.
All the best.

Ooooh, the so ugly it's cute coelacanth. I love that fish. It was known only from fossils and was universally known to have gone extinct along with the dinosaurs. Then suddenly, in 1938 one turned up alive in fishermens' nets off of South Africa. Today it's acknowledged to be a still thriving species and just a really, really big OOPS within paleontology. It's a rather hideous but fascinating looking fish, hardly small and easy to miss at five feet long, blue in color with a single-lobed tail and weird leg-like fins with which it "walks" along the bottom. Skeptics of cryptozoology have all kinds of arguments against why certain reported this-and-thats can't possibly exist, and how believing in prehistoric survivals is just silly. But with the coelacanth, they are remarkably silent. Cryptozoologists can say, "If this fish lives, DESPITE ITS DISAPPEARANCE FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD, then anything else from back then might be alive today too." And the always vocal skeptics can't say a word to refute it. That is why I love the ugly, slimy coelacanth. I wish I could pet one.

[martin wilson]

Thanks for the video Beowulf,and thanks for the Doc Shiels info Kensei, as I say it's been quite some time,but I can feel the old yearning to be beside the Loch returning................
I suppose it's time to mention the coelacanth,a sea fish supposedly extinct for 70 million years,which was news to the coelacanth, still swimming around quite happily doing whatever it is coelacanths do.
All the best.

[kensei]

24th May,1960
A member of the Northern Naturalists Organisations, Mr Peter O'Connor from Gateshead, Durham had a sighting. From the garden of the Foyers Hotel he and a number of other people saw the creature at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon. At first he thought it was a rowing boat about 200 yards from the Foyers shore but using his field glasses he could see a brown coloured object which was slowly sinking.


27th of May, 1960
Mr O'Connor encountered the monster yet again 3 days later. Between 6 and 6:30 a.m. he went for a walk along the shore beside Foyers Bay and the monster glided into view around the headland. He waded into the water up to his waist to get a closer view. It features were small and sheep-like and a very, very strong neck. It's skin appeared smooth, very like a seal. He turned to yell to his companion and then turned back and took this photograph, to the right, as it disappeared into the turbulence it had created.

27th June to 23rd July 1960[/QUOTE]

I was really impressed by the O'Connor photo for a long time but I eventually read that it was found to be a hoax using an inflated plastic sack in the water weighted down with rocks, and the head and neck were made out of a stick. Or at least that was the allegation- not sure if it was absolutely proven.

[kensei]

Was it 'Doc' Shiels who tried to summon the beastie through invocation?, it might have been, I remember it involved a young woman in the nip.
I think it was the Doc who was accused of faking the photos of Morgawr,the Cornish sea monster.
All the best.

Anthony "Doc" Shiels produced two full color photos of Nessie in May 1977 in which a head and neck with orange skin protrudes above the surface, which he claimed he took from Urquhart Castle after summoning the creature psychically. Naturally there are many who believe the photos to be fakes, but I wonder if Shiels' position as a self-professed magician and entertainer made this inevitable. Of course it's a fake, people would say. Consider the source and the story he tells! But what if it's real? Almost seems like he shouldn't have bothered trying if he'd never be believed because of who he is. The orange skin color seems an odd choice for a hoaxed picture. Some salamanders are that color.

Shiels was also suspected of being the anonymous "Mary F." who sent two photos of the dark hump-backed sea serpent called Morgawr to the press in February 1976, taken in Falmouth Bay, Cornwall. Shiels was in the area at the time of the Morgawr sightings and claimed he saw it himself. At Midsummers that year three female witches performed a ritual and swam naked in the bay to try to magickally summon Morgawr. They claimed success. Not sure if Shiels was associated with them or not.

[Errata]

"I never found him to be particularly evil." Errata


Well, he tortured and killed animals in efforts to satisfy himself sexually. He lied cheated stole and was a drug addict, filed his canine teeth to points staged supposed pagan rituals with his acolytes, designed to bring evil spirits into their midst and was a misogynist, but other than that I guess he was an ok guy

He didn't kill animals to satisfy himself sexually. There was some weird thing with a cat, but that was scientific, in a sociopathic kind of way. All the other stuff is true, although he was a general misanthrope and not specifically a misogynist. I never said he had an outstanding moral compass, he just wasn't evil. Mostly just infantile. Though infants are the greatest sociopaths we will ever meet. Ok I'm done on Crowley.

[Beowulf]

"I never found him to be particularly evil." Errata


Well, he tortured and killed animals in efforts to satisfy himself sexually. He lied cheated stole and was a drug addict, filed his canine teeth to points staged supposed pagan rituals with his acolytes, designed to bring evil spirits into their midst and was a misogynist, but other than that I guess he was an ok guy

Back to the other Loch Ness Monster, what do you think of the recent film? (You have to wade through the commerial, though) http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/loch...wards-17018201

And what do you think of this?:

http://www.nessie.co.uk/htm/searching_for_nessie/search3.html

24th May,1960
A member of the Northern Naturalists Organisations, Mr Peter O'Connor from Gateshead, Durham had a sighting. From the garden of the Foyers Hotel he and a number of other people saw the creature at around 4 o'clock in the afternoon. At first he thought it was a rowing boat about 200 yards from the Foyers shore but using his field glasses he could see a brown coloured object which was slowly sinking.


27th of May, 1960
Mr O'Connor encountered the monster yet again 3 days later. Between 6 and 6:30 a.m. he went for a walk along the shore beside Foyers Bay and the monster glided into view around the headland. He waded into the water up to his waist to get a closer view. It features were small and sheep-like and a very, very strong neck. It's skin appeared smooth, very like a seal. He turned to yell to his companion and then turned back and took this photograph, to the right, as it disappeared into the turbulence it had created.

27th June to 23rd July 1960

[Errata]

Ah, yes, the self-confessed "wickedest man in the world." I am amused at how many people call him a "monster" and yet seem to live by his creed: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole if the law." Not saying that's you at all, Beowulf, but I know quite a few on another forum that have argued this very point with me, viz: "He was a very evil man, but, by God he was right, I'm gonna do what I want!" Fascinating.

I never found him to be particularly evil. Spoiled, narcissistic, fame hungry, pathetic, never got past that phase where you put everything you find in your mouth, but not evil. Mostly he was just infantile with a host of self soothing behaviors that were not socially acceptable, but not inherently amoral. I wouldn't be surprised if he sucked his thumb. But he was a fair researcher. I'll give him that.

[RavenDarkendale]

There was another Loch Ness Monster, you know.

http://deathraywish.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/aleister-crowley-the-other-lochness-monster/

Ah, yes, the self-confessed "wickedest man in the world." I am amused at how many people call him a "monster" and yet seem to live by his creed: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole if the law." Not saying that's you at all, Beowulf, but I know quite a few on another forum that have argued this very point with me, viz: "He was a very evil man, but, by God he was right, I'm gonna do what I want!" Fascinating.

[martin wilson]

Was it 'Doc' Shiels who tried to summon the beastie through invocation?, it might have been, I remember it involved a young woman in the nip.
I think it was the Doc who was accused of faking the photos of Morgawr,the Cornish sea monster.
Nessie is a real mystery,as a fisherman I have spent a lot of time beside waters of all types and in all weather and light conditions, and a diving bird is a diving bird, a wave is a wave, I have never seen anything remotely like what the witnesses to Nessie are describing, yet Loch Ness is not unique in terms of its wildlife or in the actions of the wind on the water.
Perhaps a diving bird at Loch Ness is interpreted as the monster because of the association, but not every sighting can be explained that way.
Certainly not the sighting of the monster crossing the road, one of my favourite Nessie sightings and inexplicable, the only other explanation is that the witnesses were lying for some reason, in which case why?
Borderlands by Mike Dash is a good read on psychological/physiological theory, but there is a whole genre that tries to explain the paranormal in terms of brain function/dysfunction,the problem being there is no universal theory that can explain away every sighting or experience, imho though it's probably where anyone coming new to the paranormal should start first, rather than the Ufo/Ghost/Crypto experience books, it might help them sort out the rubbish from those genuinely mysterious events, and whilst it might not help them understand the paranormal,it might help them understand people a little better.
All the best.

[kensei]

Boy, I just devoured every word of your post. I love your obsessive enthusiasm for the whole thing. Ahhh, the child is not dead in you!

There was another Loch Ness Monster, you know.

http://deathraywish.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/aleister-crowley-the-other-lochness-monster/

Boleskine House

Oh yes, of course. And some say it might even have been that monster that conjured up the other one.

[Beowulf]

Boy, I just devoured every word of your post. I love your obsessive enthusiasm for the whole thing. Ahhh, the child is not dead in you!

There was another Loch Ness Monster, you know.

http://deathraywish.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/aleister-crowley-the-other-lochness-monster/

Boleskine House

[Errata]

I almost got a nessie tattoo surfacing from my cleavage, but I have a really great tattoo artist who makes me go away and think about it before I actually get it done.

[Steven Russell]

I seem to remember a theory about the Surgeon's Photograph being a photo of an elephant snorkeling, which sounds ridiculous but if you look at the picture, it's possible. By the way, I'm not suggesting there are elephants in Loch Ness. Everyone knows they are only indigenous to Loch Lomond.

Best wishes,
Steve.

PS There is a "Cryptozoology" thread on here somewhere.

PPS Yes, just found it on page 4 of Other Mysteries.