Information The loch ness monster

[Alexandoy]

It was called the Loch Ness monster because it is a marine animal seen in Lake Ness in Scotland. There were some pictures which showed the creature like a dinosaur atop the water of the lake. No matter how the scientists deny the creature but the talks persisted. There were sonars installed around the lake but nothing was found. Until now the Loch Ness monster is still called Nessie and some believe that it is existing.

 

[Tumbleweed]

The Loch Ness monster is only one of several different unexplained large unknown water creatures that have been seen around the world in different areas.
Lake Erie (one of the Great Lakes in America) has Bessie, a 30+ foot long swimming serpent that has been sighted for hundreds of years, and there are old legends from the Indian tribes in the area as well as early settlers, warning about the monster in the waters.
Canada has several large lakes that are said to have giant ”sea serpents”, as well as Lake Chelan in Washington State. I think that other countries that have large, deep lakes also have sightings of some kind of unknown creature.

With so many places reporting these giant swimming creatures, I think that it could be possible that something does exist in our deepest lakes around the world, and we only catch glimpses of it now and then.
Like seeing a UFO, if you say you saw Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster, no one is going to believe you; so even reports that might be factual are disregarded by most people.

Here is an interesting article that shows some kind of huge creature swimming in the Thames River in London !

Has the Loch Ness Monster moved to London?

It's known for inhabiting the murky waters of Loch Ness. But mysterious footage shows that the famous creature may have taken a bit of a holiday to London.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Jane]

What is this? nothing like any fish or log I ever saw…

 

[Ash]

Would be interesting to one day find out what it actually was. I would assume that it's either some playing a prank a long time ago that just developed or another animal that was badly portrayed in the pictures.

 

[Uncrowned]

The biggest issue I find with Loch Ness is that the lake is simply too small to provide something that size with food, not even including a possible breeding group of them living in there with food. It is also a very cold/muddy lake and therefore even less food would grow to support something that would really need an ocean to feed properly. If the tales were ocean-based or even a lake that had access to the ocean (like a breeding site), then I'd be a bit more onboard, but none of the ways for accessing the ocean from Loch Ness are even remotely practical for a massive creature like Nessie.

I have seen some things that Nessie could be a giant eel and that might be a bit more practical for the location and better explain why it is never really seen.

 

[Jane]

Loch Ness is over 900 feet deep…Plus it is full of peat and has lots of caves branching from it…something is there…but what?!

 

[Jay™]

This along with many other things living far below us.
I'm sure there are many creatures that have not been discovered as we don't have the tech to see or reach them.

 

[Nova]

I think based on the documentary. Most of the scientists say it could be a serpant living in the lake. And that's a possibility. there is no dinosaur or the creature of the type dragon you know that they make out. But apart from that I feel like such serpants are visible in africa though not of dragon scale.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Many lakes have underground rivers where water comes in or goes back out, and it is entirely possible that sea-dragon type of creatures who are believed to live in the large lakes may have underground access to other lakes or even to the ocean.
if it were just the Loch Ness monster, then it would be easier to just ignore as some kind of hoax, or mis-sighting of something normal in the water.
However, since we have sightings of a similar type of creature in many of the large lakes all over the world, I think that it is entirely possible that these have lived through the ages relatively unseen by humans.

Panda bears were considered to be a fable until late in the 1800’s. There were stories of black and white bears in China, but no one believed the stories because the panda bears live high in the mountains and not where they are likely to be seen; even though they are brightly colored (as opposed to a plain brown bear), and they do not even try to hide from people.

It was not until someone actually killed one and brought home the pelt that it was believed that the panda existed, and it was many years after that before one was actually captured alive to be put in a zoo.
So , it seems totally possible to me that a creature who lived in a remote area, and did not stand out, and does try to avoid being seen, might very easily exist and we not have much knowledge of what it actually is.

 

[preacherbob]

As a small example, very small, the Brazilian Characid is suspected of once being an open water variety of fish until it started to feed and breed in underwater caves.
In essence, the tetra seemingly disappeared from view until the caves where they live were found. To date, since they have lived in darkness for so long, they have no need for eyes nor pigment.

The logic I use for calling upon the Characid as an example is simple: Until all avenues of exploration have been accomplished, there is no way we can say for certain whether or not a species heretofore unseen in real life exists. What was extinct is still living but in another arena of circumstances.
For that reason alone I try to keep an open mind as to whether Nessie, Yeti, Sasquatch or even the reports of living dinosaur types in South America exist.