Loch Ness Monster spotted in google earth

[asicguy]

From Fox news (the most sensational I found) or do a google search:
Latitude 57°12'52.13"N, Longitude 4°34'14.16"W

Of course it could just be a boat, but that would just be.... too boring.
:jaw-dropp

[Cayvmann]

It's a pretty cool picture, but somehow looks backwards to me. Don't know why.

[Darat]

A much more reputable source.... http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2606683/Loch-Ness-Monster-on-Google-Earth.html


Lets see:

Silly Season - check
Peak holiday season - check
Scottish tourist board doing their job - check


:)

[blue sock monkey]

Couldn't just be a boat or a log...nah....

[dogjones]

Brilliant. It's swimming backwards for Christmas.

[Questioninggeller]

From Fox news (the most sensational I found) or do a google search:
Latitude 57°12'52.13"N, Longitude 4°34'14.16"W

Of course it could just be a boat, but that would just be.... too boring.
:jaw-dropp

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543280,00.html

It looks exactly like a boat with the waves behind it.

[iMaGiNaTioN]

It's a Giant Squid!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
or a boat.

[Vortigern99]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543280,00.html

It looks exactly like a boat with the waves behind it.

Not surprisingly, the Sun article features a similar inset photo, but the wake of the boat has been touched up to more closely resemble squiggly fins or tentacles.

Who would have ever thought that hoaxing could account for making an ambiguous photo slightly less ambiguous? :rolleyes:

[dogjones]

Streetlight.

[Marduk]

proof positive that security guards do not make good cryptozoologists, most of them don't make good security guards especially as apparently they spend the whole shift looking at google earth
this is the monster blown up, ask yourself why didnt anyone else bother
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/nessexpress.jpg
as you can see its clearly not 65 feet long (as has been claimed by some reports), its actually about 10 metres long and you can clearly see that its fast moving because of the large visible wake, and from the shape of the wake you can tell that it has twin engines

this is the Ness Express
http://www.lochnesswelcome.com/loch-ness-blog/uploaded_images/a-rib-framed-715619.jpg
its 10 metres long and is a fast moving rubber inflatable boat that operates tours on the Loch every day, so any satellite image of the loch during daylight will have this on it. As you can see from the picture it leaves a large wake, it has twin engines

yanno I actually wrote to the telegraph who broke this story and you'll all be really surprised at their reply
they didn't thank me
:rolleyes:
they did however publish an additional article today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6097513/Is-the-Loch-Ness-monster-on-Google-Earth-just-a-boat.html
which includes
But it has now been suggested that the images are not of the mysterious creature but of the Ness Express, a boat which regularly tours the loch.
sometimes I wonder why I bother
I gave them the coordinates for another boat on the Loch for comparison, and they managed to mess that up by saying
Another image of the boat can be seen on Google Earth by entering the coordinates Latitude 57°10'8.21"N, Longitude 4°37'53.37"W.
its not the same boat, its another boat but much more obviously so, and shows if anything that the original image is not submerged, who ever heard of an albino nessie anyway
;)

[Tumbleweed]

Clearly it's a bacteria with multiple flagellum. I had no idea they got that big!

[blue sock monkey]

Maybe the bacterium ate Nessie. ;)

[athon]

Chthulu rises!

Sure, it's not from the deep ocean. But it does explain why his name is so hard to pronounce. I always did think it sounded kind of Scottish.

Athon

[Ginarley]

The ma and baby nessies 70m to the west are much more convincing than the boat/squid thing lol.

[MattusMaximus]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543280,00.html

It looks exactly like a boat with the waves behind it.

That's precisely what I thought. In addition, is there any measure of scale in the photo? It'd be pretty embarrassing for "Nellie" to end up being only about 15 feet long :)

ETA: Ah, marduk already touched on this point. Thanks!

[Rolfe]

I compared the actual Google image to the Sun picture last night, and I got the distinct impression that the Sun image was less sharp and more ambiguous.

They wouldn't have blurred up a pic that was too obviously a boat, would they? ;)

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

I compared the actual Google image to the Sun picture last night, and I got the distinct impression that the Sun image was less sharp and more ambiguous.

They wouldn't have blurred up a pic that was too obviously a boat, would they? ;)

Rolfe.

thats like saying they'd accept a cryptological hypothesis from a security guard
never gonna happen
:D

[patchbunny]

Chthulu rises!

Sure, it's not from the deep ocean. But it does explain why his name is so hard to pronounce. I always did think it sounded kind of Scottish.

Athon

So the Great Old One wears a kilt and plays the bagpipes? No wonder anyone who sees him goes insane.

[Careyp74]

I was under the impression that the average age for a dinosaur is 80 years. Is this about right? If so, how old would Nessie be, and what are some of the theories that you have heard of why there is a plesiosaur around today?

[blue sock monkey]

I was under the impression that the average age for a dinosaur is 80 years. Is this about right? If so, how old would Nessie be, and what are some of the theories that you have heard of why there is a plesiosaur around today?

When a mommy Nessie and a daddy Nessie love each other very much...

I've never actually heard any theories about the reproduction pool problem--Nessie tends to be discussed as though there were only one immortal whatever-it-is, like an aquatic phoenix.

ETA: For an animal with a lifespan of 80 years and unknown reproductive frequency, with say 10-20 fatal genetic flaws per set of parental chromosomes--surely you would need hundreds if not thousands to keep the species going.

[Marduk]

ETA: For an animal with a lifespan of 80 years and unknown reproductive frequency, with say 10-20 fatal genetic flaws per set of parental chromosomes--surely you would need hundreds if not thousands to keep the species going.

Nessie is a redneck
:D

[Elizabeth I]

This makes me very sad - Nessie is one of my major wish-it-were-true stories. It would just be so cool!

[blue sock monkey]

This makes me very sad - Nessie is one of my major wish-it-were-true stories. It would just be so cool!

It would be cool, especially since there would need to be lots of them. I like to imagine a whole bevy (pod? shoal? school?) of Nessies floating happily about holding flippers in a circle, like very very large sea otters. :)

[Elizabeth I]

It would be cool, especially since there would need to be lots of them. I like to imagine a whole bevy (pod? shoal? school?) of Nessies floating happily about holding flippers in a circle, like very very large sea otters. :)

With the babies in the middle, or maybe holding onto their mothers' tails...

[Vortigern99]

With the babies in the middle, or maybe holding onto their mothers' tails...

And/or riding their mother's up-turned bellies...

[Gribble]

Greetings all,
This is my first post and well out of date. Marduk was pretty close in his identification; the boat in the GoogleEarth aerial photo is the 54ft Royal Scot which operates from the swing-bridge at Fort Augustus. It is visible there in GoogleEarth - yes it is in two places at once. I think my attempts to attach photos and links have all failed but the boat has an extension to its upper deck at the stern to carry liferafts and support a dinghy.

Hope this helps. G

[Marduk]

sorry Gribble, but the boat that appears in the news article is half the size of the Royal Scot, google earth has a measuring tool yanno

;)

do you by any chance work for a tour company at loch ness
:D

btw, love your work in King of the Hill
yup

[Jack by the hedge]

By chance, we took a trip on the Royal Scot just around the time this story broke. I can report the only monsters in evidence were occasional pairs of F-15s and a solitary Tornado.

The boat, by the way, has neat little Nessie silhouettes on its cabin windows, so you can take a very pleasing photo putting Nessie in the loch. Our kids had great fun with that. Maybe the Sun or Fox News should have tried it too - the results would have been much more convincing.

[William Parcher]

Yeah baby!

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/4884a8bd.jpg

[dafydd]

Brilliant. It's swimming backwards for Christmas.

I'm walking backwards for Christmas,across the Irish sea...........

[Gribble]

Hi Marduk,
Thanks for your reply. I saw the measuring tool reading 10.47m, and I suggest that the aft end of the measure ends just "for'd" of the twin rectangular "funnels" clearly visible in my photo, and just visible in yours. If it were extended another 5 metres or so to the edge of the "fishtail" section, the numbers would add up. Just my interpretation.

There is great scope for confusion over the "Ness Express". The orange ribs variously named Express One, Express Two or Explorer are all too new to have appeared in the Google pic, which was first "spotted" a few years ago - 2005 iirc. I'm not sure but I think at least one of them has a 315 hp Yanmar inboard engine, and possibly a much smaller outboard as a back-up. It is unlikely they would be used together. There was an earlier "Ness Express" which looked like a converted beer can, and that one ceased operations about three or four years ago - pic attached (perhaps!). I would guess its length at around 40 ft.

For a comparison view of the Royal Scot, Google down to the swing bridge at Fort Augustus - its length there is slightly different but this may simply be a function of Googlisation. G

[ohp]

I've always thought this was a better google maps image of nessie.

http://tinyurl.com/yhoucy7

[Gribble]

Haven't been to the Crystal Palace since the Bob Marley gig, Summer of 80...

[Marduk]

Hi Marduk,
Thanks for your reply. I saw the measuring tool reading 10.47m, and I suggest that the aft end of the measure ends just "for'd" of the twin rectangular "funnels" clearly visible in my photo, and just visible in yours. If it were extended another 5 metres or so to the edge of the "fishtail" section, the numbers would add up. Just my interpretation.


I would suggest to you that your interpretation is worthless coming as it does from an employee of the company responsible for the boat you are attempting to get free publicity for.
the "boat" in the original picture simply isn't big enough to be yours
sorry, but thats the facts.

;)

theres plenty of other boats viewable on google earth (including yours) if youd like to pretend some more

but really does it matter anyway, everyone knows that there are tour boats on the loch already, claiming one depicted is from your company or someone else's is irrelevant
:D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's a Giant Squid!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
or a boat.

Or sperm.

[Gribble]

Marduk,
Thank you for your comments.

In your reply to my first ever post here you asked if I worked for a tour company at
Loch Ness and I forgot to answer. Yesterday you invited me to "be your friend", and in
agreeing to that I remembered that I hadn't answered your earlier question, so in a
private message I told you that I did work for a tour boat company.

I thought this forum was going to be what it says on the can - " a place to discuss
skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a
friendly and lively way". I hoped I could contribute a few
facts based on my local knowledge and familiarity with the Loch Ness story.

So I am a little disappointed to read "I would suggest to you that your interpretation is worthless coming as it does from an employee of the company responsible for the boat you are attempting to get free publicity for."
Critical thinking failure#1: Surely if I worked on the Royal Scot I would be in excellent position to recognise my own boat, would I not?

#2; As it is, I work on two other boats, neither of which have I named in my posts:) I have never met nor spoken with the owner of the Royal Scot and have never been on the boat. I only named it and showed a photo to enable critical thinkers to go about their business armed with better data.

You also wrote "but really does it matter anyway, everyone knows that there are tour
boats on the loch already, claiming one depicted is from your company or someone
else's is irrelevant".

I agree that it isn't all that important; I mention it only because in an earlier post you wrote "this is the Ness Express (see pic of orange rib)...it is 10 metres long and is a fast moving rubber inflatable boat that operates tours on the Loch every day, so any satellite image of the loch during daylight will have this on it. As you can see from the picture it leaves a large wake, it has twin engines."

The Google Nessie image is several years old, isn't a "satellite image" and the company did not get their orange Humber inflatables until early 2009, so they cannot appear in the aerial photograph in question. On the company website it says
"Cruises with (company deleted) will be starting from the 24th March 2009.
New Powerboat:
(Company deleted) is pleased to announce the construction of a new 10m RIB, due to join the fleet in March."

"Powerboat Delivery
(Company deleted) have taken delivery of our new 10m Humber/Quinquari RIB "Ness
Express" last week and we've placed a second order with Quinquari marine; "Ness
Explorer" will be delivered in early July. Both boats are 10m long and powered by a
315hp Yannmar diesel."

Sorry for the inconvenient truths :) G

[Soapy Sam]

G- when you say the Google pic isn't a satellite image, what can you tell us about it?
Is it an aerial photo? Do you know the source?
ps- Please don't get annoyed by responses that seem rude. We have a huge range in age / culture etc on the board, so standards do vary, within the rules. And we do get a lot of odd folks with private (and often sincerely held) agendas who start by pretending a sceptical attitude only to turn into frogs at midnight. A certain cynicism may be expected as well as honest scepticism.
We do have a fair number of Scots too, myself included.

[Gribble]

Soapy Sam,
Thank you. I worked as a photographer for years and when I saw the white marks on the GE images it was apparent that these were not straight digital satellite images, but something involving negatives, as dirt on a digital camera sensor produces black marks, not white ones. I eventually found an explanation on a website that I probably can't link too as I'm all new and wet still, but I'll try to "encode" it for you to decode - not that the moderator won't spot it! G.


from double-u double-u double-u.gearthhacks.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6272.html
04-18-2006, 06:32 AM where it says:
Hi,
Most of the British high resolution coverage in GE is created by aerial photography (from an aeroplane) using film cameras. Separate images will then be scanned and rectified and mosaicked to form large mosaic (called ortho photo).

Dust appear in scanning process - not in the film camera. It is quite a common problem in aerial photo scanning and film handling. Usually film scanners are operated in very clean environment but sometimes dust cannot be avoided.

Dust can later be removed using image processing (e.g. using clone tool of Photoshop).

I hope this clarifies

hartrok

[Soapy Sam]

http://www.gearthhacks.com/forums/ (http://www.gearthhacks.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1336346)
This takes us to the forum.
I searched for "Ness" and "Nessie" and found a few threads, but nothing that I can see as relevant here.
The "boat" picture in various forms is widespread on youtube though.

[Soapy Sam]

Got it.
Here we go...
http://www.gearthhacks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=27672#post27672
It seems the poster, name of Hartrok, never posted anything else there.

[Marduk]

In your reply to my first ever post here you asked if I worked for a tour company at
Loch Ness and I forgot to answer. Yesterday you invited me to "be your friend", and in
agreeing to that I remembered that I hadn't answered your earlier question, so in a
private message I told you that I did work for a tour boat company.

I thought this forum was going to be what it says on the can - " a place to discuss
skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a
friendly and lively way". I hoped I could contribute a few
facts based on my local knowledge and familiarity with the Loch Ness story.

So I am a little disappointed to read "I would suggest to you that your interpretation is worthless coming as it does from an employee of the company responsible for the boat you are attempting to get free publicity for."
Critical thinking failure#1: Surely if I worked on the Royal Scot I would be in excellent position to recognise my own boat, would I not?

#2; As it is, I work on two other boats, neither of which have I named in my posts:) I have never met nor spoken with the owner of the Royal Scot and have never been on the boat. I only named it and showed a photo to enable critical thinkers to go about their business armed with better data.

You also wrote "but really does it matter anyway, everyone knows that there are tour
boats on the loch already, claiming one depicted is from your company or someone
else's is irrelevant".

I agree that it isn't all that important; I mention it only because in an earlier post you wrote "this is the Ness Express (see pic of orange rib)...it is 10 metres long and is a fast moving rubber inflatable boat that operates tours on the Loch every day, so any satellite image of the loch during daylight will have this on it. As you can see from the picture it leaves a large wake, it has twin engines."

The Google Nessie image is several years old, isn't a "satellite image" and the company did not get their orange Humber inflatables until early 2009, so they cannot appear in the aerial photograph in question. On the company website it says
"Cruises with (company deleted) will be starting from the 24th March 2009.
New Powerboat:
(Company deleted) is pleased to announce the construction of a new 10m RIB, due to join the fleet in March."

"Powerboat Delivery
(Company deleted) have taken delivery of our new 10m Humber/Quinquari RIB "Ness
Express" last week and we've placed a second order with Quinquari marine; "Ness
Explorer" will be delivered in early July. Both boats are 10m long and powered by a
315hp Yannmar diesel."

Sorry for the inconvenient truths :) G

Gribble, I used the Ness express as a comparison to show what type of boat it was, its
1. clearly 10 metres long, your suggestion isn't
2. clearly a R.I.B. your suggestion isn't
3. clearly is a high speed boat from the wake, your suggestion isn't

the fact that you work for a Tour company on the loch is extremely suspicious, this is where scepticism comes in, for the following reasons

1. you work for a Tour company and are suggesting that its a Tour boat that you are familiar with= free publicity
2. the majority of your first posts at this forum have all been in this thread, as if you joined the forum just to mention the tour boat that you are familiar with, again = free publicity
3. your boat at the Fort Augustus swing bridge is so obviously not the boat in question that I have to question your motives for even suggesting it
here you can see the original image highlighted to show features endemic to R.I.B's along side yours for comparison
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/nessexpress2-1.jpg
so I've got to ask you, are you
Breach of "Be civil and polite removed.
3. looking for free publicity

Breach of "Be civil and polite removed.you already got it, not that it will do much good now youve been busted
;)

really my friend, if you wanted credibility you just needed to post the following
there in only one company operating high speed R.I.B's on the loch (information from Ronald Mackenzie of Cruise Loch Ness) and as you pointed out they werent doing it when the picture was taken so we need tofind another possible source for it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Canal
The Caledonian Canal in Scotland connects the Scottish east coast at Inverness with the west coast at Corpach near Fort William. The canal runs some 62 miles (100 km) from northeast to southwest. Only one third of the entire length is man-made, the rest being formed by Loch Dochfour, Loch Ness, Loch Oich, and Loch Lochy (information from wiki & Ronald Mackenzie of Cruise Loch Ness)
as such rather than being just a closed lake it is a thoroughfare used by thousands and thousands of boats every year, including hundreds of R.I.B's
now why didn't you mention that when you were proposing a boat that doesn't look remotely like the image and is almost twice its size ?

see how so far you're not being either sceptical or credible with this yet ?

still, cool name, Guns don't kill people Governments do eh
;)

p.s. don't make the mistake of thinking that because we disagree on this we can't be friends
:p
p.p.s I'd like to thank Ronald Mackenzie of Cruise Loch Ness for helping with some of this data (thats called asking an expert witness and results in free publicity, this is opposed to announcing that youre an expert witness then suggesting something easily disproven)
if anyone else wants more info on R.I.B's on Loch Ness they can contact Loch Ness tours here
http://www.cruiselochness.com/ness-express.php
:D

[Redtail]

Sigh... we've been through this before...

OgoPogo.


Champ is a picture of a log.
Nessie is a toy submarine with a head made of plastic wood.
Ogopogo is a plesiosaur...

A ******* PLESIOSAUR!!!!!

[Soapy Sam]

Marduk- I'm a bit confused here.
Gribble has posted a pic of a boat he says he has never been on and has not met the owner of.

You feel this is "advertising"?
On the contrary, the only person in the thread who appears to be advertising any company is yourself.

Is it possible you are a fifth columnist for McKenzie's boats? Or are you maybe being a wee bit overly cynical?

You were hitherto unaware that the great glen had a canal through it? Truly? This is so well known that nobody in Scotland at least would feel a need to mention it.

The A82 road from Glasgow to Inverness runs alongside Loch Ness on the NW side. Anyone launching an inflatable boat can do it from the road. He doesn't need the canal, which is mostly used by pleasure boats and cruisers, with the occasional fishing boat.
As for "not mentioning" the canal, Gribble specifically mentioned the second pic of the larger boat At the swing bridge at Fort Augustus. That crosses the canal.
http://www.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-000-595-883-C

More pics of the canal.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=caledonian+canal&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=bGwUS8D8Aouq4QbE1KzbBg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQsAQwAw

Also- what does "cool name. Guns don't " etc mean?

[Gribble]

Marduk, I do apologise if I have trodden on the toes of the resident Loch Ness "expert" in... Berkshire. I have no intention of trading insults nor engaging in a Monty Python Argument sketch - I have better things to do. Having been around the loch for forty years, one learns when to walk away. G

[Marduk]

Marduk- I'm a bit confused here.
Gribble has posted a pic of a boat he says he has never been on and has not met the owner of.

You feel this is "advertising"?
On the contrary, the only person in the thread who appears to be advertising any company is yourself.

Is it possible you are a fifth columnist for McKenzie's boats? Or are you maybe being a wee bit overly cynical?

You were hitherto unaware that the great glen had a canal through it? Truly? This is so well known that nobody in Scotland at least would feel a need to mention it.

The A82 road from Glasgow to Inverness runs alongside Loch Ness on the NW side. Anyone launching an inflatable boat can do it from the road. He doesn't need the canal, which is mostly used by pleasure boats and cruisers, with the occasional fishing boat.
As for "not mentioning" the canal, Gribble specifically mentioned the second pic of the larger boat At the swing bridge at Fort Augustus. That crosses the canal.
http://www.scran.ac.uk/database/record.php?usi=000-000-595-883-C

More pics of the canal.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=caledonian+canal&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=bGwUS8D8Aouq4QbE1KzbBg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCQQsAQwAw

Also- what does "cool name. Guns don't " etc mean?
I'm always cynical, and Gribble to me is this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Gribble

and as has been pointed out I live in Berkshire, so no I didn't know it was part of the caledonian canal, if I did I probably wouldn't have spent so much time writing to the press about the "real identity of the monster"
;)
my mentioning of Mckenzies boats was a parody

[Marduk]

Marduk, I do apologise if I have trodden on the toes of the resident Loch Ness "expert" in... Berkshire.
I'm not a loch ness monster expert, I am an archetypal serpent myth expert.

I have no intention of trading insults nor engaging in a Monty Python Argument sketch -
Don't you like python ?
its not insults my man, its discussion, its not going to be fun if its so stuffy

I have better things to do. Having been around the loch for forty years, one learns when to walk away. G
I had no idea you were so old
:p

you gotta admit though, your suggestion was sunk wasn't it
:D

[CreatureSeeker]

Marduk, I do apologise if I have trodden on the toes of the resident Loch Ness "expert" in... Berkshire.


More like "self-appointed Loch Ness expert".... *wink*

[Marduk]

More like "self-appointed Loch Ness expert".... *wink*

as opposed to self appointed woo believer with no supporting evidence
*wink*
:p

[CreatureSeeker]

as opposed to self appointed woo believer with no supporting evidence
*wink*
:p

Be careful not to equate "looking for answers" with "believing".:covereyes

[Marduk]

Be careful not to equate "looking for answers" with "believing".:covereyes

be careful with your usage of the word "inconclusive", things do not exist until evidence disproves them, its the other way round, they don't exist until evidence supports them.
;)

[CreatureSeeker]

be careful with your usage of the word "inconclusive", things do not exist until evidence disproves them, its the other way round, they don't exist until evidence supports them.
;)

Inconclusive means that there is not enough evidence. I think it applies here.:eek:

[Marduk]

Inconclusive means that there is not enough evidence. I think it applies here.:eek:

there isn't any evidence of a monster in loch ness
do you have some ?
what level of evidence = inconclusive for you, is it somewhere between none and non credible anecdotal baloney ?

I mean anything apart from the stuff youve already claimed which was immediately debunked would be good ?

anytime youre ready,

there are rules for empirical evidence you know, one of them is that its repeatable, maybe you could consider that.
;)

[CreatureSeeker]

there isn't any evidence of a monster in loch ness
do you have some ?


This seems to be your refrain that there is no evidence for the existence of an unknown creature in Loch Ness, but you seem to ignore countless eyewitness sightings, photographs, unexplained sonar readings, and video. This evidence is by no means conclusive, but you disregard it because it doesn't fit into your convenient "default" theories.


what level of evidence = inconclusive for you, is it somewhere between none and non credible anecdotal baloney ?

I mean anything apart from the stuff youve already claimed which was immediately debunked would be good ?

anytime youre ready,

there are rules for empirical evidence you know, one of them is that its repeatable, maybe you could consider that.
;)
Apparently, you missed where I said that the evidence for the existence of the creature is scant and inconclusive.

[Marduk]

This seems to be your refrain that there is no evidence for the existence of an unknown creature in Loch Ness, but you seem to ignore countless eyewitness sightings, photographs, unexplained sonar readings, and video. This evidence is by no means conclusive, but you disregard it because it doesn't fit into your convenient "default" theories.


Apparently, you missed where I said that the evidence for the existence of the creature is scant and inconclusive.

youre missing that "scant and inconclusive" is not evidence let alone proof of anything. This is why you fail
;)

[CreatureSeeker]

youre missing that "scant and inconclusive" is not evidence let alone proof of anything. This is why you fail
;)

Again, you ignore the eyewitness testimonies, the photographs, the videos and the sonar investigations.

[Marduk]

Again, you ignore the eyewitness testimonies, the photographs, the videos and the sonar investigations.

the ones that attest to a plesiosaur ?
didn't you already discount those yourself
or some other monster ?

:rolleyes:

[CreatureSeeker]

the ones that attest to a plesiosaur ?
didn't you already discount those yourself
or some other monster ?

:rolleyes:

Whether you attest that evidence to the existence of a plesiosaur is your own perogative. You asked for some type of evidence of an unknown creature living in the Loch and I mentioned them for you. I personally don't believe in the Plesiosaur theory of the Loch Ness Monster.

[Marduk]

Whether you attest that evidence to the existence of a plesiosaur is your own perogative. You asked for some type of evidence of an unknown creature living in the Loch and I mentioned them for you. I personally don't believe in the Plesiosaur theory of the Loch Ness Monster.

all the evidence you have mentioned so far doesnt fit the usage you are putting it for
the sonar scans for instance revealed nothing, no animal is invisible to sonar
the low amount of fish, that wouldn't feed a family of seals for a season, shows why there arent any indigenous ones but just the occaisonal escapee and lost animals
if youd read the actual real background on loch ness and not the media baloney or data collected by "believers" you understand why my memo inbox is filling up with people who think youre a nut.
your methodology is all over the place too
like you mention photographs
now go into detail please, which photographs prove anything ?
this is your big chance
don't mess it up
show me a good photograph from Loch Ness of an unknown animal (as long as its not a plesiosaur, we both agree thats baloney)
:p

[CreatureSeeker]

all the evidence you have mentioned so far doesnt fit the usage you are putting it for
the sonar scans for instance revealed nothing, no animal is invisible to sonar

During the sonar investigation of the Loch, the team did encounter a rather large sonar contact which may or may not have been a large school of fish or a large animal.


the low amount of fish, that wouldn't feed a family of seals for a season, shows why there arent any indigenous ones but just the occaisonal escapee and lost animals

The evidence of how much food the loch contains is still inconclusive.


if youd read the actual real background on loch ness and not the media baloney or data collected by "believers" you understand why my memo inbox is filling up with people who think youre a nut.

What affirmation you receive from your peers is irrelevant to this thread.


your methodology is all over the place too
like you mention photographs
now go into detail please, which photographs prove anything ?
this is your big chance
don't mess it up
show me a good photograph from Loch Ness of an unknown animal (as long as its not a plesiosaur, we both agree thats baloney)
:p
You miss the part where I said that I don't believe a plesiosaur is living in Loch Ness. You asked for evidence that the Loch contains an unknown marine animal and I mentioned some evidence which points to something odd in the Loch. All I did was respond to your argument. I never said that the evidence was conclusive. In fact, the evidence is inconclusive.:D

[Marduk]

During the sonar investigation of the Loch, the team did encounter a rather large sonar contact which may or may not have been a large school of fish or a large animal.
Which sonar investigation, your baloney is getting old
Searching for the Loch Ness Monster BBC (2003)
In 2003, the BBC sponsored a full search of the Loch using 600 separate sonar beams and satellite tracking. The search had enough resolution to pick up a small buoy. No animal of any substantial size was found whatsoever and despite high hopes, the scientists involved in the expedition admitted that this essentially proved the Loch Ness monster was only a myth.


The evidence of how much food the loch contains is still inconclusive.

its a fact, maximum 22 tons of fish, not enough to feed a family of seals for a year

What affirmation you receive from your peers is irrelevant to this thread.

Its first hand anecdotal evidence that people think youre a nut, ignoring it won't change opinion

You miss the part where I said that I don't believe a plesiosaur is living in Loch Ness. You asked for evidence that the Loch contains an unknown marine animal and I mentioned some evidence which points to something odd in the Loch. All I did was respond to your argument. I never said that the evidence was conclusive. In fact, the evidence is inconclusive.:D
no evidence = no animal
do you have any evidence at all ?
:rolleyes:

[CreatureSeeker]

Which sonar investigation, your baloney is getting old
Searching for the Loch Ness Monster BBC (2003)

its a fact, maximum 22 tons of fish, not enough to feed a family of seals for a year

How many seals constitute a family in your scenario? Does that 22 tons of fish include the migratory salmon and sea trout that visit the Loch annually?


Its first hand anecdotal evidence that people think youre a nut, ignoring it won't change opinion

LOL! I've also received a few PM's from strangers that suggest you are out of line and that this is a normal occurrence.



no evidence = no animal
do you have any evidence at all ?
:rolleyes:
I've already addressed this Ad Nauseam. Just refer back to previous posts where you ask the same question and I have answered you numerous times.

[Marduk]

How many seals constitute a family in your scenario? Does that 22 tons of fish include the migratory salmon and sea trout that visit the Loch annually?
That 22 tons of fish is the maximum that can annually be supported by the food supply. so
1 seal eats 6-8% of its body weight per day
a seal weighs on average 290lbs - so weight it will eat is 23lbs
23lbs x 365 days - 8395, or almost 4 tonnes
so the entire population of fish wouldnt feed 3 seals for a year.
so a family would have to be less than 3 to survive in the loch
getting any idea yet how stupid this is ?


LOL! I've also received a few PM's from strangers that suggest you are out of line and that this is a normal occurrence.

nice try, I am not unpopular here, you are, is this tranference ?
:p



I've already addressed this Ad Nauseam. Just refer back to previous posts where you ask the same question and I have answered you numerous times.
you have consistently been shown to not know
1. what the facts are
2. what context the facts are presented
3. anything

until you rectify this you don't have any credibility, I mean at a basic level you dont know how evolution works, on an advanced level you couldn't do the seal math yourself.
hopeless
:rolleyes:

[Furcifer]

LOL! I've also received a few PM's from strangers that suggest you are out of line and that this is a normal occurrence.


I'll bet $50 bucks I know who it wasn't from. ;)

(the quote function can be tricky at times)

Politest flame war ever by the way. It was a fun read.

[CreatureSeeker]

That 22 tons of fish is the maximum that can annually be supported by the food supply. so
1 seal eats 6-8% of its body weight per day
a seal weighs on average 290lbs - so weight it will eat is 23lbs
23lbs x 365 days - 8395, or almost 4 tonnes
so the entire population of fish wouldnt feed 3 seals for a year.
so a family would have to be less than 3 to survive in the loch
getting any idea yet how stupid this is ?

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. First off, we don't know what the unknown animal in Loch Ness is, if there is any. Secondly, we don't how big that animal is or what the population is. Third, we don't even know if this creature's diet would consist entirely of fish. Fourth, the deepest parts of the loch have not been fully explored so there is no way to know what the fish populations are in the Loch.


nice try, I am not unpopular here, you are, is this tranference ?
:p

My PM's would suggest otherwise.


you have consistently been shown to not know
1. what the facts are
2. what context the facts are presented
3. anything

Your self-congratulating posts nothwithstanding, what you posit as "facts" are actually the ideas that are being argued.

[CreatureSeeker]

I'll bet $50 bucks I know who it wasn't from. ;)

(the quote function can be tricky at times)

Politest flame war ever by the way. It was a fun read.

Actually, it has been kind of fun! LOL!

[Marduk]

I'll bet $50 bucks I know who it wasn't from. ;)
.

anyone with any credibility, wheres my $50
:p

[Marduk]

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. First off, we don't know what the unknown animal in Loch Ness is, if there is any. Secondly, we don't how big that animal is or what the population is. Third, we don't even know if this creature's diet would consist entirely of fish. Fourth, the deepest parts of the loch have not been fully explored so there is no way to know what the fish populations are in the Loch.

Listen sweety, can you hold it there, none of my evidence is based on assumptions,
1. there is no unknown animal in loch ness because theres never been any credible evidence of such, fact, moreso theres lots of credible evidence that there isn't, also fact.
2. see 1
3. theres nothing but fish in the Loch that a large animal could survive on, you can check, fish usually live in water,not chicken fact
4. the fish populations were worked out from the amount of phytoplankton and the amount of water contained in the Loch, phytoplankton needs light to survive, there isn't any in the deepest parts, fact

you have yet to provide a single fact
epic fail
again


My PM's would suggest otherwise.

my friends list suggests youre lying (112 members), this is supported by your friends list (big fat zero members), fact


Your self-congratulating posts nothwithstanding, what you posit as "facts" are actually the ideas that are being argued.
see above, what you posit as facts are unsupported, its only me attempting to make you face the facts that we're discussing. You don't have anything else to discuss, you are intellectually bankrupt, that you don't see it when all about you do is highly amusing
:D

[CreatureSeeker]

Listen sweety, can you hold it there, none of my evidence is based on assumptions,
1. there is no unknown animal in loch ness because theres never been any credible evidence of such, fact, moreso theres lots of credible evidence that there isn't, also fact.
2. see 1
3. theres nothing but fish in the Loch that a large animal could survive on, you can check, fish usually live in water,not chicken fact
4. the fish populations were worked out from the amount of phytoplankton and the amount of water contained in the Loch, phytoplankton needs light to survive, there isn't any in the deepest parts, fact

you have yet to provide a single fact
epic fail
again


my friends list suggests youre lying (112 members), this is supported by your friends list (big fat zero members), fact

Your reliance on your friends list when you should be positing constructive arguments tells me that you rely heavily on the affirmation of your internet friends.

I'll be very brief here. The estimate of 22 tons of fish is a mathematical projection in a computer model where variables are held constand and therefore not wholly reliable as an indication of accurate real world data.


see above, what you posit as facts are unsupported, its only me attempting to make you face the facts that we're discussing. You don't have anything else to discuss, you are intellectually bankrupt, that you don't see it when all about you do is highly amusing
:D

Norm, more name calling? Hardly, the critical thinking that this website seems to tout.

[Marduk]

Your reliance on your friends list when you should be positing constructive arguments tells me that you rely heavily on the affirmation of your internet friends.

Awww don't you have any ?
why is that ?


I'll be very brief here. The estimate of 22 tons of fish is a mathematical projection in a computer model where variables are held constand and therefore not wholly reliable as an indication of accurate real world data.

Comlete bs, the estimate of fish is based on factual empirical data, deal with it



Norm, more name calling? Hardly, the critical thinking that this website seems to tout.
I am not a representative of this website, you certainly are not representative of anything substantial either
:rolleyes:

[Soapy Sam]

Looks like this thread is turning into another ping pong match.
I regret the withdrawal of the one person best placed to provide local , detailed evidence on the issue.

Gribble- welcome to the forum. Don't be put off. Online conversations differ from face to face ones. It can be hard to know if you are talking to a man of sixty or a girl of thirteen - and what may feel like friendly banter to the sender may seem insultingly rude to the recipient. Intent is always open to question.

Best if we all stick to known facts when responding to posters we don't already "know" tolerably well.

[EHocking]

Just a slight derail here - back to discussing the "proof".
...this is the monster blown up, ask yourself why didnt anyone else bother
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/nessexpress.jpg
as you can see its clearly not 65 feet long (as has been claimed by some reports), its actually about 10 metres long and you can clearly see that its fast moving because of the large visible wake, and from the shape of the wake you can tell that it has twin enginesUh, I'm not so sure about this assessment of the wake. Could your provide evidence that this shape is indicative of an RIB powered by twin engines?
I can only "resolve" a wake indicative of a single-engined boat.

ETA e.g.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_26614b152bb1352ef.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18331)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/nessexpress.jpg

[Marduk]

if you look at the start of the wake on the lochness boat you'll see that its square, this has to be either because its twin engined or because it has a single engined propellor almost 5 metres wide, remember that the width of the boat is almost 5 metres, there will be no difference between single and twin engines in the shape of the wake itself,

[EHocking]

if you look at the start of the wake on the lochness boat you'll see that its square, this has to be either because its twin engined or because it has a single engined propellor almost 5 metres wide, remember that the width of the boat is almost 5 metres, there will be no difference between single and twin engines in the shape of the wake itself,You are contradicting yourself, your assertion was,
from the shape of the wake you can tell that it has twin enginesSo if there is no difference in the shape of the wake between single and twin engine craft, how did you arrive at the conclusion that this is definitely a twin engine craft (as per your initial post)?

This is merely an exercise in investigation (OK, nitpicking if you wish). :)

[Jack by the hedge]

Marduk said "if you look at the start of the wake... you'll see that it's square" but "there will be no difference... in the shape of the wake itself".

Which I can kinda see in the pic above - the churned water just behind the boat seems to go straight back for a metre or two first before spreading out. (It would be nice to have some clearer examples to compare.)

[Marduk]

You are contradicting yourself, your assertion was,
from the shape of the wake you can tell that it has twin engines
I should have been more specific as to what part of the wake I meant, I apologise

So if there is no difference in the shape of the wake between single and twin engine craft, how did you arrive at the conclusion that this is definitely a twin engine craft (as per your initial post)?

the vast majority of 10 metre r.i.bs come fitted with twin engine mounts as standard

This is merely an exercise in investigation (OK, nitpicking if you wish). :)

http://www.ehow.com/way_5290444_medicine-remove-lice-nits-hair.html
:p

that picture rocked by the way, I wish I'd had that when I was writing to that dick of a journo about this
:D

[Marduk]

Marduk said "if you look at the start of the wake... you'll see that it's square" but "there will be no difference... in the shape of the wake itself".

Which I can kinda see in the pic above - the churned water just behind the boat seems to go straight back for a metre or two first before spreading out. (It would be nice to have some clearer examples to compare.)

lol ok, but I think I would like to point out here that being specific about this in so much detail is a little unncessary, the original point of this thread was
"Is this the loch Ness monster"
My OP in this thread which I personally thought was way above standard to answer such a question concluded
"No its a boat"

if you'd like to disagree with that
please state why ?

;)

[Jack by the hedge]

...if you'd like to disagree with that
please state why ?

;)

I wasn't disagreeing. I don't have a plesiosaur in this race. :) I just thought EHocking had misunderstood your point, so I was responding to the assertion that what you wrote was self-contradictory by highlighting why it wasn't.

[EHocking]

I should have been more specific as to what part of the wake I meant, I apologise

the vast majority of 10 metre r.i.bs come fitted with twin engine mounts as standardA generalism that his not supported by a search for 10m RIBs, with engines, here (http://www.ribworld.co.uk/ribs-results.asp), and of course they come with single inboard engines as well...

Oh, and this?
..remember that the width of the boat is almost 5 metres...So, unlikely to be the Humber type of RIB (i.e. the Ness Express), which have a beam of 2.8-3.3m. But I think you've mismeasured there by including the wake down the side of the boat.
that picture rocked by the way, I wish I'd had that when I was writing to that dick of a journo about this
:DThe irony is, is that photo is a still from a video of the the Ness Express (http://www.cruiselochness.com/news.php). Which is a single (internal) engined RIB.

ETA: And unlikely to be the "original" Ness Express, which was in fact the Spirit of Skye (http://www.formsys.com/maxsurf/mslaunchings/ferries), a 14.8m long twin jet beastie with a beam of 12m.

[EHocking]

I wasn't disagreeing. I don't have a plesiosaur in this race. :) I just thought EHocking had misunderstood your point, so I was responding to the assertion that what you wrote was self-contradictory by highlighting why it wasn't.No, I quite understood Marduk's dismissive strawman that "this has to be either because its twin engined or because it has a single engined propellor almost 5 metres wide" was absurd, and as the photo I showed, incorrect, as he quickly agreed that it was an example of a boat wake that could be used to support hit argument.

Too bad it was a single inboard engined RIB in that photo - not one with a 5m propeller...

[EHocking]

..ETA: And unlikely to be the "original" Ness Express, which was in fact the Spirit of Skye (http://www.formsys.com/maxsurf/mslaunchings/ferries), a 14.8m long twin jet beastie with a beam of 12m.As per the international law of lames, the beam is not 12m, more like 4m.
HAH, the irony...

[CreatureSeeker]

As per the international law of lames, the beam is not 12m, more like 4m.
HAH, the irony...

LOL! Well Said...:D

[kitakaze]

Which sonar investigation, your baloney is getting old
Searching for the Loch Ness Monster BBC (2003)

its a fact, maximum 22 tons of fish, not enough to feed a family of seals for a yearHow many seals constitute a family in your scenario? Does that 22 tons of fish include the migratory salmon and sea trout that visit the Loch annually?

Its first hand anecdotal evidence that people think youre a nut, ignoring it won't change opinion

LOL! I've also received a few PM's from strangers that suggest you are out of line and that this is a normal occurrence.

no evidence = no animal
do you have any evidence at all ?
:rolleyes:

I've already addressed this Ad Nauseam. Just refer back to previous posts where you ask the same question and I have answered you numerous times.

Bruce, what's up with going to the trouble of making Marduk's post appear to be mine? I haven't posted in this thread at all until now. You should know that regardless the point you were trying to make, intentionally altering posts to appear to be from another person is not allowed. I get the joke, but please don't do that in the future.

[CreatureSeeker]

Bruce, what's up with going to the trouble of making Marduk's post appear to be mine? I haven't posted in this thread at all until now. You should know that regardless the point you were trying to make, intentionally altering posts to appear to be from another person is not allowed. I get the joke, but please don't do that in the future.

Actually, that was unintentional. My apologies.

[kitakaze]

Actually, that was unintentional. My apologies.

I would think deleting Marduk and typing kitakaze wouldn't be unintentional. Regardless, apologies accepted. As a bit of advice, I used to make sure that every single quote in any post I made had the poster's ID link on it. It gets pretty time consuming, especially if you have lots of multi-quote back and forth. In that case where I am multi-quoting from one post, I just make sure the ID is on the first quote and then just wrap quote tags on the rest.

[CreatureSeeker]

I would think deleting Marduk and typing kitakaze wouldn't be unintentional.
It was more like copy and paste. Sometimes you forget what you have copied when you paste it.

[rsaavedra]

It looks exactly like a boat with the waves behind it.
Exactly. So let´s be a little scientific here and agree, once and for all, that the monsters most closely resembling boats when seen through GoogleEarth images were the ones that got chosen by natural selection. Common sense people, common sense, gee... ;)

[Marduk]

No, I quite understood Marduk's dismissive strawman

its only a dismissive strawman if youre both anally retentive and off topic
:rolleyes:

its a boat, not the loch ness monster, if you want to carry on trying to track down what boat and what model and how many engines, what colour, what the drivers hobby is, what his social security number is feel free, but don't expect me to join you. I actually have a life

;)

[EHocking]

:)I iwas about to post a similar view.