[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


>I was wondering what the feelings are out there about the "Monster"
>in Loch Ness actually being a Pleisiosaur(sp?). I remember reading
>that it would take almost the entire length of the eastern seaboard
>to maintain a breeding population of these creatures (30 to 40 animals).

Unless plesiosaurs were warm-blooded, Loch Ness is too cold. The descriptions
of the monster vary from anything that could be a plesiosaur to something that
has just a hump and not the long neck (not very consistent). I have heard claims
from supposedly qualified people that Loch Ness is well-enough stocked with fish
and eels to support a breeding population of large animals. Unfortunately, a TV
documentary I saw (I can probably find the name of it if you want) claimed that
the best evidence offered so far (sonar-activated underwater photographs from
Dr. Rhine(?), that clearly showed a flipper, have been "tampered with" (i.e.
airbrushed into something more dramatic). As with UFO photos, most of the photos
are demonstrable or suspected fakes. That doesn't prove that somewhere someone
doesn't have a legitimate photo.  :)

I live on the edge of Okanagan Lake in B.C., Canada, the home of another fabled
lake monster: Ogopogo. No, I've never seen it and never seriously looked for it
(although I must admit to casually scanning the lake on the drive to and from
work "just for the scenery"). You see a lot of strange waves on this lake, and,
with an open but sceptical mind, I think that that's all they are: waves.

If I had to lay odds on the existence of a surviving archeosaur, I'd give 1000:1
against. Of course, the ramifications of finding one are so immense that it's
worth looking anyway, whether in Loch Ness, Lake Okanagan, or the Belgian Congo.