So ist there a lockness monster?
ps just so you know this thread is more to put an end to my belife that their is one wich i was so damn sure was real at the age of 9.
but my belife now is to say the least skecptical do to the fact from what i have read the number of ish in the that lake is not great enough to feed a population of large preditory animal and the fact that large predtors are uslay pretty use to find
“sctoland”
fucking retard learn to spell
I was about to ask this be taken to The Pit, but then I noticed who posted this reply 
critter42
[list=1]
[li]Do not use obscene language outside of the BBQ Pit. The Mods enforce this, & the rest of us like it that way.[/li][li]No body has been found in 60+ years of “sightings”. The Giant Squid also has not been seen alive by scientists, but their carcasses wash up or are snared in nets all the time. And they are much stranger.[/li][li]You heard right about the fish. Not enough food.[/li][li]There would have to be a number of them, for breeding purposes. Just one doesn’t cut it. So, where are they all?[/li][li]Most of the “photos” have been disproved, & the rest are…aheh 
…“fishy”.[/li][/list=1]
Did anyone else find the op completely and utterly unreadable?
[sup]I also found it unreadable, but also full of new and imaginative misspellings.[/sup]
[Andrew Jackson]
It’s a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word.
[/Andrew Jackson]
As an aside, perhaps the OP is using English as a second language. (Perhaps not, but that is beside the point.)
I find several of the responses more “Pit-like” than GQ.
Nice way to encourage new posters. <sarcasm>
Actually, baby giant squid have now been observed by researchers:
From Sternvogel’s link:
Great! They’re going to get them to overcome their fear of humans, then when the released squid begin coming up to beg from ships, they’ll get mad when no one feeds them and start dragging ships and crews down into the deeps.
Will no one think of the passengers?
Well, will you promise to spell it “Loch Ness” in future if I give you a link to a webcam, so that you can monster-hunt to your heart’s content?
This is an excellent example of the much-used saying “you can’t prove a negative” (which may not always be true and is self-contradictory anyway).
There is no way to conclusively prove that the monster doesn’t exist and has never existed:
If you do an extensive sonar scan, then the monster might have been hiding in an underwater cave, or might have slipped by undetected, or it might be a ‘stealth monster’ that isn’t easily detected by sonar.
I heard that the salmon stocks in the lake had been underestimated, but even if there isn’t sufficient fish, it can be argued that the monster feeds on organisms in the sediment, or aquatic plants, or has some metabolic properties as yet unknown to science.
Even if you drained the entire loch (I’m not sure if this would even be possible), it could be argued that the monster had escaped over land.
In short, I consider the existence of the monster unlikely in the extreme, but I don’t think that can or will ever be proved to everyone’s satisfaction.
Is it really a semantic matter though Mangetout? You cannot prove that you are not about to transform spontaneously into a Ford Fiesta either.
First recorded sightings of the monster date from the 1600s, but although I cannot prove that an animal cannot survive alone for such a period, all our experience of other living things suggests that it is vanishingly unlikely. In addition, the biology of all known creatures requires a breeding population rather than a single individual. Of course I’m not accusing you of believing in a fictional animal, but when something is as unlikely as this surely it’s as good as disproven for practical purposes?
Like I said, I think it most unlikely that there is a monster (personally I’d probably go as far as to say “no, there isn’t”), but like I also said, there are some people who will never be convinced, no matter what.
Although there have been legends about a monster in the Loch for centuries, the modern “monster industry” was started by the famous “Surgeon’s Photograph”, supposedly taken in 1934 by a gynaecologist named Col RK Wilson. However, the true story behind this photo came to light in 1994 - it was actually a hoax (using a toy submarine!) perpetrated by a guy called Marmaduke Wetherall, who was peeved about an earlier hoax of his (using a dried hippo’s foot to create footprints on the loch shore) being blown open by the Daily Mail newspaper. The story is outlined here and here.
Then, of course, there’s the Latin name given to the monster by the naturalist Sir Peter Scott: Nessiteras rhombopteryx. Or, if you’re anagrammatically inclined, Monster hoax by Sir Peter S. 
That anagram’s outstanding isn’t it? I thought Scott had lost his marbles 'til I heard that.
The Loch Ness story is one best described as much ado about nothing. It was an old wife’s tale for a very long time, until “that” picture was published in a London newspaper.
About 8-10 years ago Christian Spurling made a deathbed confession of his role in the prank. His step son had taken the picture and the creature was actually made from a toy submarine. The whole thing got out of hand and the few people involved decided to simply keep quiet.
I don’t recall if it was the original newspaper publication or the negative of the photo itself, but there was a portion of the photo that had for decades been ignored, which after Spurling’s was told, confirmed it has a hoax.
End of story. Now what about Snow White?
Ah but St. Columba saw it in 565 C.E. (and we all know what level-haded chaps those old Celtic saints were)
r_k
You were posting while I was thinking. Thanks for the links, that’s what I was looking for.
There is also Loch Morar to consider. It’s “monster” is named “Morag”.
http://www.parascope.com/en/cryptozoo/aquarium04.htm
Have fun!