Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) (07/20/88)
Here is sometghing for the long summer holidays: A short while ago I once again read something about the infamous Loch Ness Monster. Unfortunatly it was an article dated back from 1977. Does any one have something newer? I'm not interested in flames from either the Believers or the Doubters. What I'd especially like to know about is the photographic material that was published in MITs Technology Review in Spring 1976 and the film made in 1972 by the Jet Propulsion Labs, which are supposed to show fins and even a head of one or more creatures under water, but could just as well be the rudder of a sunken ship ( a viking ship, with its dragon head on the bow was mentioned in the article). In another article in some scientific magazin (forgot which one) and some time ago in german TV it was proposed that the dinosaurs might well have been warmblooded animals. This could make it more propable that some of them could survive in the cold depths of the Loch. Some people (scientists?) say it could be an Elasmosaur a member of the Plesiosaurus-Family. Others say it could be a gill or skin breathing animal, maybe a giant eel or an amphibium, which would explain why it is rarely seen. The Believers always bring in the example of the Coelacanth of the Indian Ocean when they want to proove that living fossiles do well exist, and the recent discovery of the Megachasma-Shark has shown that very large creatures can still be hidden in deep waters to this day. Just thought to start a discussion before the holidays I'm waiting for enlightement Mike -- ! Mike Hoffmann ! It's difficult to soar with Eagles ! ! Fasangartenstr. 102 ! when you have to work with Turkeys ! ! D-8000 Munich !----------------------------------------------! ! West Germany ! ...!altger!chiron!krondor!mike !
rpjday@violet.waterloo.edu (Rob Day) (07/22/88)
In article <861@altger.UUCP> Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) writes: > >The Believers always bring in the example of the Coelacanth of the Indian >Ocean when they want to proove that living fossiles do well exist, and >the recent discovery of the Megachasma-Shark has shown that very large >creatures can still be hidden in deep waters to this day. What is this Megachasma-Shark you refer to and where was it found? I'm not doubting it, mind you, just looking for info. Is this the creature that was hauled up off the coast of Japan a few years back that the creationists contend is a plesiosaur? References? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert P. J. Day // rpjday@violet.waterloo.{edu|cdn} Dept. of Comp. Sci. // rpjday@violet.uwaterloo.ca University of Waterloo // uunet!watmath!violet!rpjday _______________________________________________________________________
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (07/23/88)
In article <861@altger.UUCP> Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) writes: >Here is sometghing for the long summer holidays: > >A short while ago I once again read something about the infamous Loch Ness >Monster. Unfortunatly it was an article dated back from 1977. .... Sundry speculations about elasmosaurus etc deleted If Nessy exists, which is possible, it is *very* unlikely to be a relict from the cretaceous. The great extinction was pretty drastic. Here are a couple of theories which are more plausible. One is that is a large, long necked otter. The other is that is a trapped species of sea serpent. If it is the latter we have no idea whether it is mammal, reptile, or something else. There is very good reason to believe that there is something in the ocean that warrants the name, sea serpent. There have been numerous observations, including observations by trained biologists. -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mr Jack Campin) (07/26/88)
Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) wrote: > In another article in some scientific magazin (forgot which one) and some > time ago in german TV it was proposed that the dinosaurs might well have > been warmblooded animals. This could make it more propable that some of them > could survive in the cold depths of the Loch. In the last couple of glaciations the ice on top of Loch Ness was about a mile thick. Your dinosaurs would have had to hold their breath under it for a few thousand years. But since adherents of the dinosaur theory also seem to think their pets can stay underwater for a decade or so between sightings, they may not see this as a problem. There is a recent book called something like "The Loch Ness Mystery Solved" which suggests that the "monsters" are rotting trees that surface when enough gas builds up. -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (B Gray) (07/27/88)
In article <861@altger.UUCP> Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) writes: >A short while ago I once again read something about the infamous Loch Ness >Monster. Unfortunatly it was an article dated back from 1977. > >Does any one have something newer? >What I'd especially like to know about is the photographic material >that was published in MITs Technology Review in Spring 1976 and the film >made in 1972 by the Jet Propulsion Labs, which are supposed to show fins >and even a head of one or more >creatures under water, but could just as well be the rudder of a sunken >ship ( a viking ship, with its dragon head on the bow was mentioned in >the article). The most recent publication concerning the inhabitants of Loch Ness was a book demonstrating the existance of a colony of seals in the loch. Many people doubted that they existed because the loch is fresh water, and seals are normally only found in salt water. The motions of seals skimming in and out of the water is said to account for the humps of the traditional monster. A lot of the photographs of the monster could be of seals instead, especially the famous underwater diamond shaped fin one mentioned above. Seals couldn't however explain the strange sonar contacts found by the sonar mapping expedition last year. No seal is forty foot long. Bob.
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (07/28/88)
Didn't Doctor Who solve the question of the Loch Ness monster
once and for all (and in the process dispatch the beast)?
[Just a rhetorical question...]
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 4 years down, 3 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"I just won't sleep, that's all."miani@Alliant.COM (Thomas Miani) (07/28/88)
In article <31293@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) writes: >In article <861@altger.UUCP> Macros@altger.UUCP (Macros) writes: >If Nessy exists, which is possible, it is *very* unlikely to be a relict >from the cretaceous. The great extinction was pretty drastic. Here are a >couple of theories which are more plausible. One is that is a large, long >necked otter. The other is that is a trapped species of sea serpent. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What makes you think that the species may be trapped, The lake ole nessy lives in is 700 feet deep. Within the cavern there may be many many passages to where ever, and nessy may go who knows where. Nessy or a animal/whatever has been spotted in not just ireland, but in the mid east, and off the usa shores also. so who really knows where or how nessy lives. But this is a great discovery if it ever come to being. With the stupidity of man they will probably catch it and diesect it and hang it in some museum instead of letting it live its natural life. Thomas Miani Alliant Computer Systems Corp. Littleton Mass.
sacks@classroom.ci.com (Marc Sacks) (07/29/88)
From Robert Sheaffer's "Psychic Vibrations" column in the Spring 1988 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (reprinted without permission): "Speaking of Loch Ness, it seems that Nessie has been surfacing once again, although being careful, as always, to choose a place or time so as not to leave behind any evidence that is too convincing. This past July the veteran Amer- ican monster-chaser Jon Erik Beckjord was in Edinburgh to show his Nessie films taken four years earlier to a meeting of scientists. While there, he met Alexander Crosbie, a retired window cleaner from Inverness, who claims to have had Nessie sightings going all the way back to the 1940s. Crosbie persuaded Beckjord to accompany him back to the Loch for another look, citing his own success at knowing when and where to see Nessie. On the afternoon they arrived, Beckjord left Crosbie with his photographic equipment and went off to rent a car. You can imagine Beckjord's surprise, not to mention personal disappointment, when upon his return Crosbie claimed to have filmed an outstandingly find apparition of Nessie! 'He seems to have a talent for finding the monster,' Beckjord remarked enviously. A greatly enlarged print of the monster's head was published in James Moseley's SAUCER SMEAR, in which Beckjord claims to see not only the creature's skull-like head, but the faces of several other materialized entities. (We recall that, according to Beckjord, crypto-creatures are actually paranormal manifestations.) However, neither Moseley nor I, nor apparently anyone else, could discern any pattern or images whatsoever lurking in the highly magnified grains of the photographic emulsion. For the following issue of SAUCER SMEAR, Beckjord helpfully supplied a copy of the same print, with the alleged skull-like face sketched in between the grains. However, it still failed to impress anyone. Shifting gears somewhat, Beckjord told the Associated Press that the creature has a catlike face and a body that 'looks like a cross between Halley's Comet and the Concorde jet.' If you are confused as to whether the face of NESSITERAS RHOMBOPTERYX resembles a skull or a cat, remember that paranormal entities can materialize or dematerialize at will; hence there is no reason to expect them to have the same appearance during each manifestation. "In October, 'Operation Deepscan,' a small fleet of sonar-equipped boats, probed the depths of the Loch. The expedition, organized by Adrian Shine, a salesman from London, was not sololy interested in Nessie, but was also studying the Loch's fish species and underwater currents. They systematically covered the entire Loch with sonar capable of resolving objects as small as four inches. While some underwater objects were detected, which were believed to be floating debris, no monster was found. However, a film was obtained of a rotting tree stump under 22 feet of water. Its shape was virtually identical to the figure in a photo taken in 1975 by the Academy of Applied Sciences, purported to be the gorgoyle [sic] -shaped head of the mythical creature." An earlier SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (Winter 1984-85) contains an article entitled, "Searches for the Loch Ness Monster," by Rikki Razdan and Alan Kielar. Happy reading. --Marc Sacks
trt@rti.UUCP (Thomas Truscott) (07/29/88)
> An earlier SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (Winter 1984-85) contains an article entitled, > "Searches for the Loch Ness Monster," by Rikki Razdan and Alan Kielar. The summer 1988 SI reviewed "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence", by Steuart Campbell. Sterling Pulishing Co. distributes it in the U.S. The author promises "all the known facts about the most famous lake-monster in the world". It covers all the famous sightings and all the popular speculations ("sea caves" for example). I recommend that Nessie buffs pick up a copy. Tom Truscott
zeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess) (07/30/88)
In article <2160@alliant.Alliant.COM> miani@alliant.UUCP (Thomas Miani) writes: > What makes you think that the species may be trapped, The lake > ole nessy lives in is 700 feet deep. Within the cavern there may > be many many passages to where ever, and nessy may go who knows > where. Nessy or a animal/whatever has been spotted in not just > ireland, but in the mid east, and off the usa shores also. I suggest you check Loch Ness's altitude sometime soon. At 52 feet above sea level (according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica), no matter how deep the Loch is (and it gets deeper than 700 feet, even), the likelihood of a hole leading to the sea somewhere is about the same as the existence of Nessy. Not to mention the absence of salty Lochwater! Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org, aero!zeus
dmark@cs.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark) (07/30/88)
In article <4408@dandelion.CI.COM> sacks@classroom.UUCP (Marc Sacks) writes: >From Robert Sheaffer's "Psychic Vibrations" column in the Spring 1988 >SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (reprinted without permission): > [about 25 lines deleted] >like a cross between Halley's Comet and the Concorde jet.' If you are >confused as to whether the face of NESSITERAS RHOMBOPTERYX resembles a skull >or a cat, ... Did you ever hear that the scientific name, proposed by Sir Peter Scott of the Wildfowl Trust in the UK, is an anagram that can be re-arranged to spell: BY SIR PETERS MONSTER HOAX ? dmark@joey.cs.buffalo.edu
jgy@hropus.UUCP (John Young) (08/01/88)
>In article <2160@alliant.Alliant.COM> miani@alliant.UUCP (Thomas Miani) writes: >> What makes you think that the species may be trapped, The lake >> ole nessy lives in is 700 feet deep. Within the cavern there may >> be many many passages to where ever, and nessy may go who knows >> where. Nessy or a animal/whatever has been spotted in not just >> ireland, but in the mid east, and off the usa shores also. > > I suggest you check Loch Ness's altitude sometime > soon. At 52 feet above sea level (according to the > Encyclopaedia Britannica), no matter how deep the > Loch is (and it gets deeper than 700 feet, even), > the likelihood of a hole leading to the sea somewhere > is about the same as the existence of Nessy. > Not to mention the absence of salty Lochwater! > Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org, aero!zeus I suggest you look the definition of the work "loch" in some nearby reference. Perhaps joke too?
jack@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) (08/01/88)
miani@alliant.UUCP (Thomas Miani) writes: > What makes you think that the species may be trapped, The lake > ole nessy lives in is 700 feet deep. Within the cavern there may > be many many passages to where ever, and nessy may go who knows > where. Nessy or a animal/whatever has been spotted in not just > ireland, but in the mid east, and off the usa shores also. That part of Scotland is made of two kinds of rock: granite (mostly) and Devonian sandstone. Neither forms large cave systems the way limestone does (is "alliant" in Kentucky by any chance?). If there were holes connecting Loch Ness to the sea, it would be salty at the bottom (the bottom of the loch is far below the deepest point of the North Sea). It isn't. -- ARPA: jack%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk USENET: jack@cs.glasgow.uucp JANET:jack@uk.ac.glasgow.cs useBANGnet: ...mcvax!ukc!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!jack Mail: Jack Campin, Computing Science Dept., Glasgow Univ., 17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND work 041 339 8855 x 6045; home 041 556 1878
firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) (08/01/88)
In article <34997@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: > I suggest you check Loch Ness's altitude sometime > soon. At 52 feet above sea level (according to the > Encyclopaedia Britannica), no matter how deep the > Loch is (and it gets deeper than 700 feet, even), > the likelihood of a hole leading to the sea somewhere > is about the same as the existence of Nessy. > Not to mention the absence of salty Lochwater! By a similar argument, we can prove that Lake Erie has no exit to the sea.
wen-king@cit-vlsi.Caltech.Edu (Wen-King Su) (08/02/88)
In article <34997@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: >In article <2160@alliant.Alliant.COM> miani@alliant.UUCP (Thomas Miani) writes: <> What makes you think that the species may be trapped, The lake >> ole nessy lives in is 700 feet deep. Within the cavern there may <> be many many passages to where ever, and nessy may go who knows >> where. Nessy or a animal/whatever has been spotted in not just <> ireland, but in the mid east, and off the usa shores also. > < I suggest you check Loch Ness's altitude sometime > soon. At 52 feet above sea level (according to the < Encyclopaedia Britannica), no matter how deep the > Loch is (and it gets deeper than 700 feet, even), < the likelihood of a hole leading to the sea somewhere > is about the same as the existence of Nessy. < Not to mention the absence of salty Lochwater! > Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org, aero!zeus While I do not believe in the existence of the monster, a underwater passage to the sea cannot be ruled out because sea water is heavier than fresh water. Since I have no idea what the density of the sea water is, lets assume that sea water is twice as heavy as fresh water (to make math simple). If one unit volume of sea water is twice as heavy as one unit volume of fresh water, then the loch can be 52 feet above sea level if there is a hole 52 feets below the sea level. At that spot, the pressure in sea and the loch is the same. The lake water will remain fresh if there is a steady outflow of water through the passage. As for the existence of the moster, there is a easy way to find out - drain the loch and have a look. :-) /*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\ | Wen-King Su wen-king@vlsi.caltech.edu Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers | \*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
zeus@zapodid.aero.org (Dave Suess) (08/02/88)
In article <6470@aw.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes: >In article <34997@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: >> I suggest you check Loch Ness's altitude sometime >> soon. At 52 feet above sea level ... > >By a similar argument, we can prove that Lake Erie has no exit to the >sea. I suggest that anyone who is confused by this exchange check a map and see where Loch Ness with respect to the ocean and where Lake Erie is, and recall the context of the original post that suggested an underwater passage big enough for Nessie. DS
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (08/03/88)
In article <34997@aero.ARPA> zeus@zapodid.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes: }In article <2160@alliant.Alliant.COM> miani@alliant.UUCP (Thomas Miani) writes: }> What makes you think that the species may be trapped, The lake }> ole nessy lives in is 700 feet deep. Within the cavern there may }> be many many passages to where ever, and nessy may go who knows }> where. Nessy or a animal/whatever has been spotted in not just }> ireland, but in the mid east, and off the usa shores also. } } I suggest you check Loch Ness's altitude sometime } soon. At 52 feet above sea level (according to the } Encyclopaedia Britannica), no matter how deep the } Loch is (and it gets deeper than 700 feet, even), } the likelihood of a hole leading to the sea somewhere } is about the same as the existence of Nessy. } Not to mention the absence of salty Lochwater! } Dave Suess zeus@aerospace.aero.org, aero!zeus Well, given that the water level of the Loch is HIGHER than the ocean level, without some lock system (loch lock?) you can say that there is NO connection. (that old "water seeks its own level" from the middle ages is not an entirely bad statement) So while we do not know where the caverns GO, we can say where they do not. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (08/03/88)
In article <7481@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wen-king@cit-vlsi.UUCP (Wen-King Su) writes: }While I do not believe in the existence of the monster, a underwater }passage to the sea cannot be ruled out because sea water is heavier }than fresh water. Since I have no idea what the density of the sea }water is, lets assume that sea water is twice as heavy as fresh water }(to make math simple). If one unit volume of sea water is twice as }heavy as one unit volume of fresh water, then the loch can be 52 }feet above sea level if there is a hole 52 feets below the sea level. }At that spot, the pressure in sea and the loch is the same. The lake }water will remain fresh if there is a steady outflow of water through }the passage. Sea water is "heavier" (denser) than fresh water. at 4 degrees C & 32ppt (not uncommon salinity) it is around 1.025 or so. Even at 37 ppt (high) you don't get much above 1.03. Not that big a density difference. And IF you had a drain, the water would go down it until the hydrostatic pressures matched. Not 52 feet. Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
wen-king@cit-vlsi.Caltech.Edu (Wen-King Su) (08/03/88)
In article <1507@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: < >Sea water is "heavier" (denser) than fresh water. < <at 4 degrees C & 32ppt (not uncommon salinity) it is around 1.025 or so. >Even at 37 ppt (high) you don't get much above 1.03. < >Not that big a density difference. < >And IF you had a drain, the water would go down it until the hydrostatic <pressures matched. Not 52 feet. Thanks for the number. If sea wather is 1.025 times heavier than fresh water, then Loch Ness can be in equilibrium at 52 feet above sea level if the hole is 2028 feet below sea level. I admit that a hole that far down is unlikely, but it is not physically impossible for it to exist. After all, the valleys in the sea are much much deeper than the tallest mountain on the land, and the tallest mountain on the land is much much taller than 2028 feet. I am not too good with numbers, but I know that 2028 is not extreme because whenever I travel north on I-5, I come across a little hump with a sign that says "elevation 5000 feet". :-) /*------------------------------------------------------------------------*\ | Wen-King Su wen-king@vlsi.caltech.edu Caltech Corp of Cosmic Engineers | \*------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
jgk@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Joe Keane) (08/04/88)
In article <7497@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> wen-king@cit-vlsi.UUCP (Wen-King Su) writes: >Thanks for the number. If sea wather is 1.025 times heavier than fresh >water, then Loch Ness can be in equilibrium at 52 feet above sea level >if the hole is 2028 feet below sea level. We don't need equilibrium. If the hole were above that depth, fresh water would flow out of the loch. This isn't a problem as long as the flow is less than that of the various rivers which feed the loch. So let's go over there and measure the amount of water flowing in and out of the loch by the expected routes. If there were a discrepancy, we'd have evidence for the hole. --Joe
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (08/04/88)
In article <1506@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >Well, given that the water level of the Loch is HIGHER than the ocean level, >without some lock system (loch lock?) you can say that there is NO connection. You mean like the lock system on the Caledonian canal, which goes right through Loch Ness? And just to confuse people, I have heard the first Lock on the canal at the south-west end of Loch Ness referred to as Lock ness. So next time you hear on the TV news of a hunt for the monster in "Lock Ness", you know why they won't find anything. :-> Bob.