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


>D.W.Naish writes;
>>"I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, even though I've _seen_ the **ag=
>>_and_ photographed it. But who in their right mind would believe in the Loc=
>>Ness monster. What do you mean 'right mind'?"
>This brings up an interesting question: Is is possible that an isolated=
> group of plesiosaurs survived to today?  Granted, there is no evidence to=
> support the idea, but isn't negative evidence the worst kind?  Is it=
> possible that a small group was restricted to an aquatic environment that=
> didn't favor fossilization?  As a theory, the modern plesiosaurs could be=
> as different from their Mesozoic ancestors as birds are to theirs.  Any=
> comments (I know you have them;-).

Resident cryptozoology buff coming in!

The pleisosaur theory for the Loch Ness monster is very popular in the
public, but, as would be expected, not the favoured beast of choice of
scientists(if they even think it exists). Roy Mackal, who wrote the bible
on the Loch Ness Monster(scientifically speaking at least), thinks its a 
giant amphibian. If not, then a giant eel. These are rather plausible....
but of course there is always the problem that has been brought up in
great controversy lately; is thier ernough food in the loch to support a
giant animal. Scientific studies suppose that the loch could make home for
only one 250 kg fish-eating creature. The only arguments against this are
that either the monster has a metabolism that dose not need that much
food, or it is a herbivore, but these are completly speculative. A more
scientific, but still not without flaws, is that the surveys of the fish
life are showing what is left after the monser has done it's rounds. Of
course there would have to be a constant same amount of fish to keep the
monster going, and the theory kinda goes down. 

In any case the whole deal is still complettly open, and nothing will be
soolved until someone cattches the beast!