The Great Loch Ness Debate 2003

As I have said in the past, I am reasonably convinced that most sightings can be identified as sturgeon. This leaves rather few absolute descriptions of the alleged beast [close encounters] by which to judge; in addition to a lack of any supporting scientific evidence. I remain just slightly open to but mostly dubious of this claim. My only hold out is that any underwater beast might hide whenever dozens of large boats simultaneously cross the lake in concert. So, I think that it is just slightly possible that the spirit of Heisenberg may haunt this effort to find the thing. Also, perhaps such a animal could detect [hear] sonar. This may also thwart the effort.

http://www.forteanzoology.com/lochness/#

 

About 20 years ago some [idiot?] woman with a gun shot at a beast spotted by at least a dozen people at the Loch. This was considered a major sighting. A day or two later, lying on the bank and not far from the location of the sighting, they found a huge, dead sturgeon. There was also a bullet hole in the fish. Nearly all available videos of significant resolution show what appears as a "long smooth neck". I think your picture pretty much explains this.

 

Hee hee hee. Ya, I am always running into the ghosts of all of my garden slugs also.

 

There is also the problem that, as I understand the claims, all lake monsters reports are found at about 45 degrees latitude - the horse latitudes; in deep, land locked lakes. This is a rather striking coincidence if true. Perhaps deep, land locked lakes are only found around the 45th parallel? I could imagine that we need a large, deep lake for monster myths to evolve. But then we have swamp monster myths also. Of course, this also involves an abyss for mystery.

As far as the sightings, a handful of anecdotal reports is getting pretty thin on logical evidence...even for me. I would tend to expect many more reports considering the interest. Perhaps a review of the local fauna would yield some other suspects.

 

Uh oh. I don't think so but I have actually make a mistake before.

I remember specifically wondering about the use of guns around the Loch. I didn't think this was legal. This surprised me. I also remember that the original interview with the shootess was grainy; like the old super 8 stuff. Dunno. I was quite convinced at the time. I saw this at least 8 or 9 years ago I think on the orignal In Search Of.

 

I used to hang out with a guy from Scotland.
I should have known this.

 

Again this doesn't sound like the same story. This gal was real enthusiastic. I was outraged at the stupidity since this was completely unnecessary. Imagine killing the only remaining animal of its kind because you want to be a big shot.

Um, duh! Unless I'm mistaken, don't they speak Scottish in Scotland? I don't think I would have confused this point. I'm sticking with my story. I think we may have two separate incidents...though it does seem unlikely.

 

Ya I know. It does get a little too specific. I was assuming that some varations in these stories may account for this. Perhaps one or both of us is mistating part of the story. I could be confusing two different stories I suppose. Also, you didn't mention the dead fish. This is hard to buy.

 

What? I laughed...at least I was laughing in my mind.

 

Did you mean
women who crave sturgeon
or
sturgeon who crave women?