|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2007 : 13:47:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
Once again YouTube is way ahead of the curve on this, with much clearer images and additional dialog explaining how the Loch Ness Monster is effectively dealt with.
|
Ahh....Chippewa, one of the very best films never to have been put on MST3K (as far as I know). I have my very own copy of Reptilicus that I've forced my family to watch. Thanks for sharing that brilliant clip!
And as far as the "other" clip goes....yikes, amateur is right! He was "Recording sounds with hydrophonic equipment" and video with a piece of crap home video camera. Genius. |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
| Edited by - McQ on 06/05/2007 13:51:10 |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 19:05:47 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, I never claimed they are Pleoisaurs. Science does find species that were thought extinct millions of years ago.
"Where are the corpses?"
Well dead bodies first sink in water, then float when the gases of decay build up. If a corpse were eaten by fish the gases would not have time to build and the corpse would not float. The body would not have to be consumed only opened to allow the gases to expel. In fact it is rare to find a corpse of a wild animal as it is generally eaten in short order.
"Unknown" is fiction until it becomes known.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 19:43:55 [Permalink]
|
| "Unknown" is fiction until it becomes known. |
And Nessie is likely to remain unknown - i.e. fiction. There is no good reason to suspect that there actually is a "monster" in that lake. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 21:03:45 [Permalink]
|
Yes Hawks, I do not claim there are "monsters" in the loch; only it is possible. To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 22:14:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yes Hawks, I do not claim there are "monsters" in the loch; only it is possible. To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical. |
I don't claim that Jerome is still a bed-wetter, only that it is possible. To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical.
You're simply trolling, Jerome, by suggesting that anyone here has discounted "Nessie" out of hand, especially after you've been given reasons to think that there are no large animals in that lake. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 22:32:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yes Hawks, I do not claim there are "monsters" in the loch; only it is possible. To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical. |
I don't claim that Jerome is still a bed-wetter, only that it is possible. To discount it out of hand would not be skeptical.
You're simply trolling, Jerome, by suggesting that anyone here has discounted "Nessie" out of hand, especially after you've been given reasons to think that there are no large animals in that lake.
|
Dave, I disputed with fact that not finding a corpse is not proof of no large animals in the loch. I disputed with fact that animals can be found alive after claimed extinction.
"There is no good reason to suspect that there actually is a "monster" in that lake."
"unless we are talking immortality here"
"Nessie does not exist"
"subscribe to the myth"
" give the easily deluded something to do"
Dave these quotes from various posters do suggest discounting out of hand.
This is a reasonable discussion. You have yet to add anything. Can a moderator be a troll?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 23:50:20 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Dave these quotes from various posters do suggest discounting out of hand. |
Not out of hand. The evidence for Nessy is so flimsy, and the likelihood of an animal the size of Nessy, and the number of them it would take to maintain a viable population of them in a lake without a plentiful food source makes the assertion that Nessy exists so unlikely as to be easily dismissed.
That said, should there be, in the future, actual reliable evidence that such an animal does exist in the lake, I'm sure that any one of the people you quoted would be willing to reconsider.
To paraphrase what the man said, “We should keep an open mind. But not so open our brains fall out.”
Being a skeptic does not mean you can't arrive at a likely conclusion…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 01:33:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave these quotes from various posters do suggest discounting out of hand.
|
Because some things are so stupid they can be dismissed out of hand.
If there were a 30+ foot lake monster in Loch Ness, there would have to be a few dozen of them, at least, to maintain the population. A lake the size and type of Loch Ness doesn't have the biomass to feed such a population.
So, as has been said, if there is ONE lake monster, it would have to be immortal.
If there are a few dozen, there isn't enough food.
You can easily dismiss the "possibility" of a lake monster on those grounds. Out of hand.
As Dave_W clearly pointed out, your nonsense statement that there is a "possibility" of a lake monster is so far outside the bounds of rational conversation that the only plausible explanation (that doesn't involve me calling you an idiot who doesn't comprehend basic logic or possess basic reasoning skills) is that you are trolling.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/06/2007 : 02:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Filthy, I never claimed they are Pleoisaurs. Science does find species that were thought extinct millions of years ago.
"Where are the corpses?"
Well dead bodies first sink in water, then float when the gases of decay build up. If a corpse were eaten by fish the gases would not have time to build and the corpse would not float. The body would not have to be consumed only opened to allow the gases to expel. In fact it is rare to find a corpse of a wild animal as it is generally eaten in short order.
|
"Plesoisaur" is the most common description given by the tourist industry and the easily deluded.
Very well then, what species native to Loch Ness could/would consume the carcass? It doesn't have to be a species of fish. I'll settle for crustations such as crabs, or perhaps some sort of super-turtle. Do provide reference.
Do you see the hole we're digging here? Now we must have at least two species to support the existence of one.
Not all fish are capable of scavenging anything larger than their mouths. In fact, many scavengers are quite specialized and pretty remarkable in their own right. Also, once a carcass has reached the floating stage of decomposition, it is aged well past it's 'best before' date and few scavengers will have anything to do with it.
You are incorrect in thinking that the carcass will not float when opened. Gasses build up in the tissues as well as the gut cavity, which is why a 'floater' looks so bloated. Here is a recent, pretty well known example. As I recall, there was a great to-do over it at the time, but it turned out to be pretty mudane, as these things usually are.
New species are indeed found regularly. But the loch is relativly small and the creature as described is relativly quite large. Are you asking me to accept that this population could have gone for the area's entire recorded history without a single one washing ashore or found floating? Pul-eese!
| "Unknown" is fiction until it becomes known. |
"Unknown" is not fiction; it is merely unknown. "Nessie" is not unknown. Nessie is fiction.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/06/2007 02:20:23 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 05:55:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, I disputed with fact that not finding a corpse is not proof of no large animals in the loch. I disputed with fact that animals can be found alive after claimed extinction.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
And how about this Sagan quote, "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
Or this one, "Ah Hell. I think I'll wait for the evidence. Meanwhile I have reality to consider." |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Dude, have you any idea how large the loch is?
Dude said "A lake the size and type of Loch Ness doesn't have the biomass to feed such a population."
I think if you do a bit of research on the size and type of the loch you will come to a different conclusion. Besides 30 foot creatures could be and most probably are an overestimate. The animals, if they exist, could be half that size.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:45:48 [Permalink]
|
Moakley, correct because we find no corpse does not prove there are no corpses.
This quote is interesting: "Ah Hell. I think I'll wait for the evidence. Meanwhile I have reality to consider."
I for one think is a good thing that science does not wait for evidence of the believed reality; science looks for evidence based on possible realities.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 08:55:23 [Permalink]
|
Filthy asked "what species native to Loch Ness could/would consume the carcass?"
Atlantic Salmon
Charr or Arctic Charr
Eels
Pike
Trout
also, perch, roach, dace, rudd and carp
www.loch-ness.org/fishandothervertebrates.html
Plenty of species capable of eating a large carcass.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 09:03:41 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, thank for the info on the hagfish, very neat.
As to the "blob" that was found; this only tells us it is unusual to find such a carcass as it was not immediately identified. In fact DNA test were needed to determine the species.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 09:48:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave these quotes from various posters do suggest discounting out of hand. |
No they don't. They suggest that this subject has been discussed a lot already. The only way the quote suggest prejudicial dismissal is if you assume that nobody here has ever given Nessie any consideration before. You have no evidence for such an assumption, and given the breadth and depth of our members' knowledge, you actually have evidence against it. But you made such an assumption anyway, demonstrating your inability to act as a skeptic.| This is a reasonable discussion. |
Up until you made sweeping conclusions without evidence, it was.| You have yet to add anything. |
Absolutely I did: I added an object lesson in dealing with ad hominem trolling from Jerome da Gnome.| Can a moderator be a troll? |
Go become a moderator on some other forum, and we'll find out. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Best evidence ever for the Loch Ness Monster
