SONAR, CONFESSION, TO END LONG-STANDING LOCH NESS LEGEND?
Modified from skepdic.com:
The BBC claims it has proved that Nessie the plesiosaur (a marine reptile) does not exist. What they did was use satellite navigation technology to aim 600 separate sonar beams through Loch Ness to ensure that none of the loch was missed and found no trace of the monster. The research team hoped their instruments would pick up the air in Nessie’s lungs as it reflected a distorted signal back to the sonar sensors. The only signal they got was from their test buoy moored several meters below the surface.
“We went from shoreline to shoreline, top to bottom on this one, we have covered everything in this loch and we saw no signs of any large living animal in the loch,” said Ian Florence, one of the specialists who carried out the survey for the BBC.* The show, called Searching For The Loch Ness Monster, was made for BBC One.
A confession further damages monster hopefuls.
For that story, watch this National Geographic video.
Will this end the belief in Nessie? Don’t bet on it.
Thank you for joining our conversation on Smoke & Mirrors. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Yes, their probably is no such thing but think about it a “monster” we dont know anything about, well we know nothing about it, for all we know it could have transportation “super powers” although it is highly unlikely. But still the thrill of thinking there is a “Loch Ness Monster” is great!
that is an elephant’s head and trunk, no such thing as “lochness” if so why would it be the only creature to exist for so long?Where is it’s mother and father and siblings?I believed sea creatures exist during the tiem of the dinosaurs but not in this modern day.
I understand that Loch Ness has an opening to the open sea. Perhaps, the animals simply were not in the lake at the time it was examined.
The sonar study is beneficial yet it does not conclusively prove that there is not creature. It merely proves that there is most like no creature that has lungs or a bladder similar to a fish. Let the work continue!
Jeff–you are correct that the sonar testing doesn’t disprove the monster 100%, but let’s look at it this way: wouldn’t a massive “creature” like that have to be seen more than once every ten years or so? Bryan
The only photographic evidence of the monster was a boat with a wooden head attached. The person who took the picture admitted such. If the BBC special where they explored the entire lake with sonar beams and satellite tracking precise enough to pick up a small buoy didn’t pick up a giant monster in a lake, it should be enough to show that it was a myth.
consider the facts. loch ness was created after the last ice age. it was’nt there when dinosaur’s roamed the earth, nessy is a prehistoric marine animal. a dinosaur. the dinosaur’s died out 65 million years ago. man was firmly on the earth at the time loch ness was created. doesnt look likely nessy does exist now does it eh?
Robin—-
I appreciate your post, but:
1. who said Nessy had to be prehistoric?
2. many biologists believe that birds and crocodiles have survived from prehistoric times…..
But no one truly knows what is in the ocean. We know more about space than the bottem of the sea. There could be any number of surviving “dinosoaurs” roaming the ocean and we quite possibly will never know all of them. Man was not meant to know all.
The photo actually has NOT been disproved. It went through testing and nothing fraudulent could be found. I happen to believe that since we are just beginning to tap into DEEP marine life that it is more than a likely possibility creatures like this could exist. There are theories of sea life dwelling in ocean depths which technologically, humans are incapable of exploring. So why could a creature such as ‘Nessie’ not be in existence? Try to remember that one century ago, not only did people believe that a shark would never attack a human being, but also were under the misconception that there were about 3, maybe 4 at the most, varieties of shark species. Just something to consider…
Tiffany: The people behind it admitted as such. Those who believe it to be real will always believe it, despite the fact that those who took the photo came out and said it was fake and how they did it.
scientists have found fossils from an animal they have never seen before and is believed to be Nessie’s ancestors
Matthew–if it is also a terrestrial animal, wouldn’t there be pictures/videos taken of this animal on land in all these decades? After all, we live in the age of technology where almost everyone has photographic equipment. Bryan
You should all read a book written by Nicholas Witchell.
There are more than one animal. They are able to move on land.They may only be in the loch occasionally as there is access to the sea.
The surgeons picture may be the most famous, but it is certainly not the only one.
There is a photo taken underwater showing a “flipper” and part of the body.
Hundreds of people have seen these animals. Are they all lying ?
Oh, one more small thing.
The ceolanth was said to be extinct 65 million years ago too. But they have been catching them regularly over the last 50 years.
We’re not that smart, and we really don’t know everything about our little planet.
I agree that “we really don’t know everything about our little planet.” But vague photos won’t allow science to draw the conclusion that a “monster” exists. My question to you is this: In light of the fact that photos have been misinterpreted and that hoaxes exist, what conclusion(s) can you draw regarding intriguing photos about Loch Ness?
The photo of the flipper that i refered to was taken by a team from the Academy of Applied Science in 1972. This is long before “photo shop” existed making all and every photo of ANYTHING subject to question.
Do you believe that man landed on the moon ? Neither you nor I were there, but, we depend on photos a handful of rocks,and the words of those that were there to prove it.
Like all things ,the Loch Ness “monsters” would have a finite lifespan. It is possible that the small colony is losing numbers by natural attrition ,making sitings fewer and farther between.Perhaps all the attention in the last 50 years has hindered their breeding habits and the animals are heading for extinction.
Never mind the photos. Maybe the dozens of them are all fakes.
However,the eyewitness accounts by military people,police,doctors,politicians(they never lie)academics(like yourself)members of the clergy,lords and ladies,public servants,mums, dads and children are more convincing than any photo that could be tampered with,or sonar readings that need interpreting.
Were all these people telling lies ?
Did they all see logs ,and even with the use of binoculars, misinterpret what they saw ?
If we can’t trust photos,and all people are liars does that mean you only believe something exists when you see or touch it yourself ?
There is/was something in Loch Ness . Maybe if oil is discovered at the bottom of the loch, it will be drained and then we’ll know for sure. However, we’ll have to go there ourselves as we can’t count on photos or eyewitness reports.
Once again i recomend reading The Loch Ness Story by Nicholas Witchell. Even the most cynical sceptic will have to question themselves.
I appreciate your reply, but you didn’t answered my question: what conclusion(s) can you draw regarding intriguing photos about Loch Ness? When you do this, I’ll answer your questions……
Sorry, i thought i had answered your question regarding photos taken at Loch Ness (or anywhere else).
With the advent of photo shop and the earlier use of airbrushing all photos are subject to being fakes.
Also, when a photo is taken showing a subject surrounded by water and no landmarks,it could have been taken anywhere on any body of water.
That is why i think you must go back to the hundreds of eyewitness accounts given by people from all walks of life.
Forget the photos.
Were all these witnesses telling lies?
They reported seeing animals in the water as well as on land.
One person, you could mistrust. Maybe even a dozen might spin a tale.
Hundreds, ranging from police, military, doctors, clergy,
royalty, academics and the public in general, you may have to take seriously.
Brian–you are providing explanations, but I’m asking for a “conclusion.” Are you concluding that a monster exists in Loch Ness? I don’t think all the witnesses lied, but they were reporting what they “perceived.” Do you know about the experiment in Loch Ness where researchers placed a fence post in the water at a distance with the top appearing just above the surface? A significant number of passers by reported it was a part of the monster’s body. The purpose was to demonstrate how easy it is to misinterpret perceptions. I do not draw the conclusion that a monster does not exist in that lake, but I also cannot conclude that it does. So my choice is “inconclusive.” I would like for you–and other readers–to visit http://blog.newsok.com/smokeandmirrors/category/illusions/ to see how easy it is to misinterpret perception.
I visited smoke and mirrors.
I think that it is probably easier to envisage an alligator in the lake than a monster in the loch. Most of us have seen an alligator at a zoo and know that they exist. So, with a plausable explanation of how it got there, yes that is possible. I have heard similar stories about the sewers of New York.
The slight of hand by the “magicians/con men” doesn’t impress me , but i take your point.
I’m happy to see that your conclusion is “inconclusive”.
If i were an academic like yourself,would i find a conclusive verdict for the existance of an unknown animal in Loch Ness ? You’ve really got me wondering. Would i stake my reputation on someone elses observations? Probably not. Which leads me to another question. What evidence would you need to bring you to a verdict that ,yes, there is an unknown animal in Loch Ness?
As a scientist/academic your mind is trained to work differently than mine. What would be acceptable evidence to you?
I was hoping you would look at the entire “ILLUSIONS” category (and not just the post about the alligator. Nevertheless, yes, “inconclusive” is the only conclusion I can draw–I’m a fair skeptic (that’s why the title of the post ended with a question mark–otherwise, I’d be claiming a position–which I’m not. I’m only asking a question).
What evidence would I need (to bring me to a verdict)? “To bring me to a verdict” is the key because that’s not how science works. For example, extremely clear (and close) video evidence would not make me come to a positive verdict, but it would lead me draw the conclusion that it’s worththy of further research and investigation. If you want to know what it would take for me to draw a positive verdict of its existence, a close encounter of the third kind would probably do the trick. But understand, there might be a Loch Ness monster right now–but the evidence isn’t clear enough to draw that positive conclusion. And there might not be–we just don’t know the answer.
National Geographic is fairly well respected. Have you seen their 90 second video http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/science/weird-science-sci/loch-ness-sci.html ?
The National Geographic video was interesting. I liked the inclusion of a commerant at the start. Very much a look alike monster.
In my earlier posts i did mention the “surgeons ” photo and a line about ignoring photos. I must admit, i never liked the surgeons photo. The water just didn’t look right. I spend a bit of time in my boat on the Great Barrier Reef and there is something about the water around the image that just doesn’t gell.
I’m guessing that the Nat.Geo. clip is a recreation as the curve in the neck looks different.
Okay,i guess we can agree.There may be a “monster” and there may not be one.
The romantic in me wants to think that there is one ,but,using hard facts to prove or disprove it can only bring you to the conclusion that you have reached. Inconclusive
I think because it’s claimed to only be spotted on very rare occasions–which brings up a red flag. If it exists, it’s obviously an air-breathing creature, so why wouldn’t it be seen on a regular basis?
The Loch Ness monster, I think its real, but its true what Bryan said on January 2nd 2010 and at the end of the day we are living in th 21st century, scientist must of found something now a day’s if it was real.
Does any one have any more information on the BBC documentary? I think it’s called “Searching for the Loch Ness Monster” wherein they included information about the sonar scan of the lake. I’m pretty sure it aired on the Discovery Channel. I’ve tried searching Amazon, Youtube and Google but I can’t find any DVDs or video of it. Specifically I’d like more information about the experiment they did with a log where they dragged it through the water in front of a group of tourists. When asked to sketch what they saw, most people gave it a neck, and according to the narration, they started adding things, thinking that if it had neck, it must therefore have a head, if it had a head, it must have had a mouth and eyes. Only one person out of a large group of people correctly identified it as a log. If anyone had a video or transcript of that, it would be really awesome. Thanks!
This is an excellent thought provoking post.
Good work, i like your blog theme, and content ofcourse
To the people saying ‘why do we see it once every decade or so?’ The loch ness has a opening to the sea, And for one might be else where, And another theory i have for it is that
Nessie probably like the dolphins and whales that dive deep into the sea, it probably has a limit of time it actually doesn’t need to breath, so it probably can say under water for a very, very long time.
Thanks a ton for your energy to have put these things together on this site. Jack and that i very much loved your ideas through the articles with certain things. I know that you have a variety of demands on your own schedule hence the fact that you actually took equally as much time like you did to help people just like us by means of this article is actually highly liked.
This was bound to happen sooner or later with modern technology. Maybe the Loch Ness monster got abducted by aliens and that’s why they couldn’t find it.