Loch Ness Mosnter On Film?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by H2O Mellon, Aug 31, 2008.

  1. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

  2. seethe303

    seethe303 Senior Executive Member

    the still pic on that site sort of looks like the patterning on a northern pike.


  3. ezbite

    ezbite the Susan Lucci of OGF

    not again:p didnt we just go thur this with big foot? i vote fake. look like a fish in the still photo
  4. my first thought on the still photo was.....PIKE! now in the video, looks like something with tentacles, maybe an Octopuss of some kind...:confused:
  5. A total load. The still is clearly a pike in extreme close up. There's not enough detail in the video to determine anything at all, but whatever it is does not appear to be free swimming. The notion that any northerly, relatively oligotrophic lake could support a population of "monsters" is bioenergetically improbable.
  6. I think the video on that page was someone wacky jigging a worm in front of a camera with night vision on in muddy water.
  7. Video Is a eel. There is a lot of them over there. Then next one is defiantly a pike.
  8. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    I'll have to go check out the still picture. I must have passed that one up.
  9. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    wow, you guys are right. I'd almost bet my life that the still pic is a Pike, nothing special at all.
  10. My ex was just over there on vacation. The photo's kinda look like the ex. Not a pretty sight. Thats no pike thats my ex wife!!!
  11. Doesn't look like any eel to me. It doesn't even look capable of free swimming (hardly behavior appropriate to anything to have earned the title of "monster"). Really, it looks like a wiggly bit of plant or filamentous algae.
  12. Fishman

    Fishman Catch bait???

    roflmao, I prefer just saying "it's completely rediculous." :D
  13. Those with a serious interest in lake monsters should read this classic:

    Sheldon, R.W. & S.R. Kerr. 1972. The population density of monsters in Loch Ness. Limnology & Oceanography, 17(5):796-798.

    Given the lack of supporting physical evidence, they have to make some assumptions, like "The minimum average size is taken as 100 kg; anything smaller is not suitably monstrous", and "The trophic position of the monsters is probably that of terminal predators feeding on fish." It's a brief-but-good read. I'm particularly fond of the acknowledgment, "We would like to thank Kate Kranck for drawing our attention to this problem, because until she mentioned it we were unaware that monsters were a problem."
  14. I just revisited http://www.storsjoodjuret.nu/ , and they've changed it just a bit. Now, clicking on the video graphic doesn't play an embedded flash video of some wiggly thing sinking into the depths, but takes you to a new page with three videos, wiggly bit included. The black-and-white video on the new page is that from which the pike still at the home page was taken, and it very clearly is a nice-sized pike that approaches from the distance and explores the camera at extreme close up. No "monster", but it is fun.