Sightings of Plesiosaurs world over your opinions or sightings ?

How can you possibly say that bigfoot does not exist, it is the cryptid with BY far the most evidence, I don't care how credible the source is.

If you're going to give me evidence, which I'd love, please to be giving me credible evidence.

List them, and I will tell you why you are wrong.  You better not get religous on me.

Stop stealing my schtick you fuckwit.

Stop stealing my schtick you fuckwit.

Your schtick?  I was here way before you.  We should rename this topic to "Crypto critters" or something similar, because I want to talk about animals unknown to science, other than bigfoot and nessie.

Still my shtick.

EVIDENCE PLEASE

List them, and I'll tell you why you are wrong. You better not get atheistic on me.

I fail to see how atheism would help me prove the existence of plesiosaurs...

And I fail to see how religion would help anyone prove it.

Religion could help you disprove it.

OH... No... Please lets not bring Jesus and the Bible into this, or Iraq for that matter...LOL

It's not really about proving...

It's more do you think, sort of thread ?

For example...

I think there could be creatures we have not yet found in the sea, but the likely hood of the Plesiosaur being one of them is unlikely... I mean reason being is the enviroment has changed so much it too would have had to changed its self... It will no doubt be smaller, be able to stay sub-merged longer, be quicker, and more tolerant... I also think if a creature like this was to be aound it would have been spotted before now, but then again, what if some of these sightings are the creature in question... I suppose a Plesiosaur type creature could still roam the sea's, it's not beyond the realms of possiabilty...

land of shadows is right, what are the chances of a plessy living in an environment non-suitable for historic creatures, heck, WHY ELSE DO THEY CALL THEM CRYPTIDS.... creatures on the verge of extinction, yet people 'claim' they see them. Pfft, if they were almost going extinct, how come i don't see them on the 'endangered species list'. Also, the skeptisism of this article overthrows your opinions in this matter, bio. If plessies have undergone evolutionary changes, im sure they would've gone through changes in way that'll help them get discovered. Also, post all your 'factual evidence' about this plessie, and ill prove them ALL wrong, its fucking sad how people who 'believe' in the plessy don't have scientifically proven evidence of this creature, i mean really, thats like saying, i encountered a UFO, but i have no photos of it, because the gov't took it away from me. 

Ruhani, you sure you know what a cryptid is or am I just misinterpreting your post?
Also, why is cobragamer banned from this forum but not Elegy?

Because people love to hate me.

Evolution killed bambi's mother!!

Besides, if nessie did actually exist, it'd be dead by now, because if you look at it, the first sighting of nessie was a looooooooong time ago, when a priest put nessie to halt when it was attacking a man. It all really depends on the life span of the plesiosaur.

Sorry Ruhani, I can't bring myself to argue with a retarded kid anymore, sorry.

sorry, im not retarded just because you say so



Cryptozoology is the study of rumored or mythological animals that are "presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist", but for which conclusive proof does not yet exist; or "are generally considered extinct", but occasionally reported. Those who study or search for such animals are called cryptozoologists, while the hypothetical creatures involved are referred to by some as "cryptids".

ma bad hehe 

oh and gon, you might've misinterpreted my post 
notice how i said, "people claimed to have seen them" it relevates to the quotes in the defenition

oh and biohazard, you failed to bring up that point a long time ago, you may claim im 'reatrded' but you're just a slow, idiotic, fuck twit who can't bring up sufficient evidence. Oh, and i requested "Evidence" so i could prove them all wrong, or are you just scared in that matter.

Face it, we have more people who don't believe in plesiosaur sightings, more than people who do, and even if you do manage to get some evidence, what are the chances of it, being proven wrong.

swearing doesn't make you sound smarter. Quite the opposite, actually.

you may claim im 'reatrded'

I can't bring myself to argue with you anymore, I am above it.

Ruhani's acting pretty retarded, but that's just his personality.

you may claim im 'reatrded'

I can't bring myself to argue with you anymore, I am above it.

im sorry, did i hear an echo?

and that the was the only mistake you found in my 'raetrded' posts, i guess that kills the view of being retarded after all.


anyways.........


an animal can't stay elusive for long, it winds up being caught, like other criminals eluding the law. Theres insufficient evidence to prove it actually exists.

BBC 'proves' Nessie does not exist
 
 
What we would like to believe
A BBC team says it has shown there is no such thing as the Loch Ness monster.
Using 600 separate sonar beams and satellite navigation technology to ensure that none of the loch was missed, the team surveyed the waters said to hide Scotland's legendary tourist attraction but found no trace of the monster.

Previous reported sightings of the beast led to speculation that it might be a plesiosaur, a marine reptile which died out with the dinosaurs.

The team was convinced that such an animal could have survived in the cold waters of Loch Ness, despite the normal preference of marine reptiles for sub-tropical waters.

Looking for the lungs

The researchers looked at the habits of modern marine reptiles, such as crocodiles and leatherback turtles, to try to work out how a plesiosaur might have behaved.

They hoped the instruments aboard their search boat would pick up the air in Nessie's lungs as it reflected a distorted signal back to the sonar sensors.

 
The team did find a buoy moored several metres below the surface as a test for the equipment, but, in the end, no Loch Ness monster.

"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.

His colleague Hugh MacKay added: "We got some good clear data of the loch, steep sided, flat bottomed - nothing unusual I'm afraid.

"There was an anticipation that we would come up with a large sonar anomaly that could have been a monster - but it wasn't to be."

The fence post monster

The BBC team says the only explanation for the persistence of the myth of the monster is that people see what they want to see.

 
Loch Ness: A beautiful place to visit - even without a monster
To prove this, the researchers hid a fence post beneath the surface of the loch and raised it in front of a coach party of tourists.

Interviewed afterwards, most said they had observed a square object but several drew monster-shaped heads when asked to sketch what they had seen.

The television programme detailing the investigation, Searching For The Loch Ness Monster, was made for BBC One.
 

No tunnels to the sea, I'm afraid. The loch is a bit higher than sea level, so if there was a direct connection, the water would drain ut until the loch was at sea level.

The only connection to the sea is through the locks and channels on either end. These are carefully monitored by the people who work the systems, and it would be hard to miss a thirty foot sea beasty endangering the ships waiting to pass through.

I'm rather skeptical of Nessie, since unless young 'nessies' were somehow coming either up the river from the ocean, or down the river from the sources of whatever drains into Loch Ness (all, mind you, without being detected by humans living near those rivers), there would need to be a population of these things, in order for them to breed without degenerating from inbreeding. That would probably overload Loch Ness's ecosystem.

and biohazard, you dont have to argue with me if you dont want to, let the others post their thoughts and opinions.

oh and biohazard, you failed to bring up that point a long time ago, you may claim im 'reatrded' but you're just a slow, idiotic, fuck twit who can't bring up sufficient evidence. Oh, and i requested "Evidence" so i could prove them all wrong, or are you just scared in that matter.

That part made me LOL, no offense bio

In Lochness there is an inlet and out let to the sea, I mean there are traces of salt and sea fish within the loch... There are many reasons why a Plesiosaur would not want to be within the Loch, but then there are other reasons why it would travel inland... May be to lay an egg or have it's young.

Reason why may not see them is they avoid us, like all other sea creatures... It's like the Whale Shark you wouldn't know it was there unless you was in the water about 20 meters away from it, and it's massive...

Think of the size and depth of the ocean and the size of a Plesiosaur, then think of the size of a diver and how far they can see underwater...

Finding a Plesiosaur would be like finding a needle in a hay stack... doesn't mean it's not there... You can't prove there is a needle in a Hay stack... And the only thing we have to go on are peoples reports and crap photo's...

I would like to think the Plesiosaur or simular did make it through, and they are alive today... But common sense, scinece, and nature kind of goes against that theory...

an animal can't stay elusive for long, The panda bear was not known the western world until nearly 1900, and the biggest beetle on earth, the Titan Longhorn, wasn't discovered until fairly recently, and the giant squid was only proven to exist about six months ago, so saying an animal can't stay elusive for long is the most blatantly wrong thing you could post.it winds up being caught, like other criminals eluding the law.
Animals aren't criminals, and they aren't evading the law. Theres insufficient evidence to prove it actually exists. wrong again, my retard friend!

No tunnels to the sea, I'm afraid. The loch is a bit higher than sea level, so if there was a direct connection, the water would drain ut until the loch was at sea level.

The only connection to the sea is through the lochs and channels on either end. These are carefully monitored by the people who work the systems, and it would be hard to miss a thirty foot or it could be babies the size of your hand. sea beasty endangering the ships why would they endanger the ships? waiting to pass through.

I'm rather skeptical of Nessie, since unless young 'nessies' were somehow coming either up the river from the ocean, or down the river from the sources of whatever drains into Loch Ness (all, mind you, without being detected by humans living near those rivers), there would need to be a population of these things, in order for them to breed without degenerating from inbreeding. That would probably overload Loch Ness's ecosystem.
There are several reports of nessie on the roads around the loch, most of them relatively beleivable.

and biohazard, you dont have to argue with me if you dont want to, let the others post their thoughts and opinions.
Ah, but I have to inform the uninformed with true information, not whatever it is you spew out.

Ruhani is right about the Loch. If there were underwater tunnels, it would be obvious, especially if they were large enough to allow an animal of such size to pass easily through.

Also, the anatomy of the plesiosaur is pretty much key evidence that one couldn't live in the loch.

To counter your argument against the babies being the size of a human hand? Plesiosaurs most likely had live young, meaning that these young were probably quite a bit larger than you're thinking they are. And then, there would have to be more than just a few plessies, like Saladin said, to keep the population up and, although the Loch Ness is large, it is not large enough and does not provide enough food to support plessies, or keep them from attacking each other during things like territorial disputes, which would probably happen between them, them being as large as they are. Loch Ness also has a high peat content. Visibility in its water is very poor, and that would mean th plessies'd have to have some sort of sonar/echolocation sort of things, and their bodies don't  provide evidence of that at all. In relation to that, if plessies did live in the Loch Ness, the sonar conducted in it wouldn't really affect them. Not to mention if there were underwater tunnels, if, like Ruhani said, they hadn't caused the lake to drain at least a little, they would have at least been picked up by radar/sonar, don't you figure?

Then, it couldn't support them very well because they were reptiles- it doesn't seem the loch is warm enough these days to keep the plessies at a good temperature. Same with deep waters. They're too cold and too dark for plessies.

Also, the fact that some plessie skulls have holes in the top means absolutely nothing. Alligator skulls have holes at the top, and so do snakes'. They do not have blow holes. There isn't enough room in their heads for one, and have you ever seen any animal with a blow hole in its head like that?

In regards to any of the "Nessie" photos? The ones you claim could have real couldn't have been, simply because of the vertical neck. True, it is very serpentine, but the backbone was really rigid, and the neck couldn't raise up at that angle.

Also, bored of thinking up responses. Needless to say, plessies don't live in the Loch Ness these days. Or, you know, at all.

Ruhani is right about the Loch. If there were underwater tunnels, it would be obvious, especially if they were large enough to allow an animal of such size to pass easily through.

Also, the anatomy of the plesiosaur is pretty much key evidence that one couldn't live in the loch.

To counter your argument against the babies being the size of a human hand? Plesiosaurs most likely had live young, meaning that these young were probably quite a bit larger than you're thinking they are. I am talking about pymgy plesiosaurs, as they wouldn't be the same size they were millions of years ago, they would have evolved into smalled creatures. And then, there would have to be more than just a few plessies, like Saladin said, to keep the population up and, although the Loch Ness is large, it is not large enough and does not provide enough food to support plessies, While this was a good point a few decades ago, we now know that the Loch has more than enough fish to support up to 300 normal sized plesiosaurs. or keep them from attacking each other during things like territorial disputes, which would probably happen between them, them being as large as they are. Well, we have never been able to examine them, so this is merely a theory. Loch Ness also has a high peat content. Visibility in its water is very poor, and that would mean th plessies'd have to have some sort of sonar/echolocation sort of things, and their bodies don't  provide evidence of that at all. The bodies of their million year old ancestors, you mean. In relation to that, if plessies did live in the Loch Ness, the sonar conducted in it wouldn't really affect them. Not to mention if there were underwater tunnels, if, like Ruhani said, they hadn't caused the lake to drain at least a little, they would have at least been picked up by radar/sonar, don't you figure?

Then, it couldn't support them very well because they were reptiles- it doesn't seem the loch is warm enough these days to keep the plessies at a good temperature. Same with deep waters. They're too cold and too dark for plessies.

Also, the fact that some plessie skulls have holes in the top means absolutely nothing. Alligator skulls have holes at the top, and so do snakes'. They do not have blow holes. There isn't enough room in their heads for one, and have you ever seen any animal with a blow hole in its head like that?

In regards to any of the "Nessie" photos? The ones you claim could have real couldn't have been, simply because of the vertical neck. True, it is very serpentine, but the backbone was really rigid, and the neck couldn't raise up at that angle. Not to sound crude, but how would you know how high an evolved pygmy plesiosaurs neck raises?

Also, bored of thinking up responses. Needless to say, plessies don't live in the Loch Ness these days. Or, you know, at all. I need to look into that underwater tunnel thing more, I'm pretty sure there is evidence to support it.
[/quote]

by pygmy, you mean small...

and if they were small, how come people claim to see monster sized 'nessies' in the water?

theres bleak evidence that the plessie may've evolved, but seeming as how the world changes... meh....

I am talking about pymgy plesiosaurs, as they wouldn't be the same size they were millions of years ago, they would have evolved into smalled creatures.

theres no way of telling if there are indeed pygmy plessies

While this was a good point a few decades ago, we now know that the Loch has more than enough fish to support up to 300 normal sized plesiosaurs.

which outdated encyclopedia did you get this from?

Well, we have never been able to examine them, so this is merely a theory.

well if havent been able to examine them, theres almost no way of telling they do exist

The bodies of their million year old ancestors, you mean.

theres still no way of telling what kind of plessie, if they exsist, we're dealing with

Not to sound crude, but how would you know how high an evolved pygmy plesiosaurs neck raises?

based on the way people depict them, of course, as its the only evidence of the plessie exsisting as of today

I need to look into that underwater tunnel thing more, I'm pretty sure there is evidence to support it.

...

Bio, are you just pulling information out of your ass? :/

No, not at all.  It will take me a while to find it on the internet though.