Talk:Lake monster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nonbelief

Seriously. who hear really belives any of these. I say this topic is moved to the fiction/legend catorgory. 12:24 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not "Debunkers Central". What you believe or don't is completely irrelevant. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought of moving this to "lake monster" (singular). I'm not sure why I hesitated this time. Thoughts? Michael Hardy 21:44 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it. I don't think this article should even exist, but if it does, it should follow naming policy. -- Wapcaplet 01:03 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Heh. I actually thought you were serious when you suggested it at talk:sea monster. :-) Evercat 01:04 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Surely the Bathtub monster should have given it away? :) -- Wapcaplet 01:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is that like some fierce and angry rubber duck? Evercat 01:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Some accounts have it that bathtub monsters are adorable and modest creatures who are wont to hog the cleaning products, and may have a penchant for raiding the fridge. Others depict the bathtub monster as a slime-covered animal with a single horn and glassy eyes. Another account tells of a ravenous, shrieking animal that turns out to be merely a household cat. There is much to say on the subject of bathtub monsters. -- Wapcaplet 01:14 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I see no reason to have 2 separate articles called lake monster and sea monster. I would like to consolidate the articles, and jest list all the famous mythological and fabulous aquatic beasts of folklore and legend in a single article. I am sure we can make clear that Loch Ness is more of a "lake" than a "sea" -- but it doesn't require an entire separate article to preserve that distinction. Uncle Ed 13:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This should be merged into sea monster Pizza Puzzle

--I thought there was an OKlahoma Lake Monster...--207.69.139.136 03:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This article lacks alternate POVs and Scientific debunking

There have been a numerous studies by Nature Magazine, National Geographic and the Royal British Scientific Academy providing various explainations (based on fact) and have no mention here. Even so, the claim that some monsters may be reminants of extinct fresh water whales or even more ancient Pleisiosaurs when so much common sense (air breathing water creatures require multiple surfings in order to breath yet surfacing accounts are very rare and undocumented via photographs or video/film) defies such silly claims.

In my opinion, people are witnessing wading fauna (Elk, Moose) or very large freshwater fish (sturgeon, eels, carp) that reflect light and who's bodies are enhanced in size due to the optical effect created by water and light. I personally have seen large sturgeon near water surfaces and it indeed looks like a "humped serpent" when you allow yourself to believe it as such.

I agree, but why don´t you add that yourself? Don´t just complain, do something about it yourself! --Danielos2 21:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with the comments about debunking. Nesse would starve to death because Lake Lochness doesn't have enough food. However, I strongly believe in crytozoology and could easily imagine a time traveler like the cylocanth.

Oh, don't be so close-minded. I don't know why WIkipedia dismisses the existence of living dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, etcetra, or just about any cryptid, but it needs to stop. The coelacanth could survive, so could plesiosaurs. Look - sonar readings and recordins show that something lives in Lake Champlain. While Nessie's belief has waxed and waned, interestingly, Nessie has never been proven NOT to exist. Elasmosaurus (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia that dismisses these things; just certain skeptics who edit on Wikipedia and don't understand how science really works. Science is based on logic, therefore it does NOT say: "a lack of evidence proves that this must not exist" -- which is what many skeptics wrongly believe it says. But that is not logical. What science REALLY says is this: "Pending the new discovery of evidence, we DO NOT KNOW at this time whether this exists or not." 192.54.250.11 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Idiocy

Anyone here who has disputed the existance of lake monsters, or contested the existance of this article, please, knock it off. This is WIKIPEDIA, the ENCYCLOPEDIA. I added a neutrality template under "Logical Questions". These are the claims of thousands of people, not just people who created this page. If you strongly believe that lake monsters do NOT in fact exist, then go get money and prove it. Otherwise, leave this page alone, and delete the "Logical Questions" section. God, this pisses me off. --Hyukan 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I think some people need a reminder about what NEUTRAL POV means. It means that your personal feelings about a subject DON'T BELONG HERE... and that means skeptics AND non-skeptics. Think it's real or think it's fake on your own time, not here. The purpose of these articles is to simply present information with no bias EITHER way. If you can't do that, don't contribute. 192.54.250.11 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Egad.

Some people have rather vehement opinions on this topic. I'm confused why certain individuals are so offended by this article and/or its content that they think it should either be moved into the fiction/mythology category or be merged into sea monster. As for the latter, detractors ought to take a rudimentary course in geology (or geography if it's too much for you). Lakes are not seas. They have distinct differences. Salinity for example. Flora and fauna for another. Surface area, volume, geography - lakes are often completely bound by land. And there are others; the list goes on and on. As for the former, skepticism is a curse to science and most detractors, when confronted with all the appropriate data and evidence (specifically acoustic), become neutral in their view toward the subject. I am a scientist and, unfortunately for naysayers, the data gathered on lake monsters thus far warrants further inquiry into the phenomenon. If this is a problem then the scientific method is to blame: petition the scientific community to change the darned process and we can all wind up sitting on our rears for the rest of our lives studying only what we already know and never looking elsewhere.

Cupbearer 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism is a curse? Are you serious? Skepticism insulates the pursuit of truth from flights of fancy; and, let's face it, lake monsters are pretty fanciful. --Rob ^T 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people use the word "skepticism" rather loosely... as in, "anything I don't believe MUST not be true!" which is really nothing more than personal bias. I think that is really what the person above is referring to. True skepticism allows for being open-minded while still questioning.192.54.250.11 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As a scientist, I can tell you that lake 'monsters' are far less fanciful than the laity would like to believe. Don't concentrate so much on the eyewitness accounts or the photos - those are subjective. Sonar and acoustic data is by far the most objective form of evidence in studies of marine (or lacustrine) fauna. Sonar can determine whether an object is animate or not, how big it is, what kind of animal it may be (if any - this is accomplished with diving profiles), etc. Moreover the results have been reproduced by different researchers from different institutions with different biases using different equipment. In science this is a big deal, a major positive in regards to any phenomena under investigation. Acoustic monitoring provides a record of animal sounds that can be checked against a database of known species to identify similarities and possibilities. For example sonar studies at Loch Ness have proven that, at the time of their undertaking, a population of animals existed in the lake with individual lengths in excess of 6 meters. Furthermore acoustic monitoring recorded hundreds of calls (including animal echolocation) that could not be correlated to any organism in call databases. That aside, it was unknown at the time that Loch Ness harboured any creatures capable of using biosonar. This is conclusive evidence of unknown or unidentified life, hands down. Call it a 'monster' if you will to discredit believers. Only fringe elements and Forteans believe in lake monsters. Real scientists concede that many infamous 'monsters' are no more than ordinary creatures that have been misidentified (or whose identity is a mystery based on a shortage of data). In the "good ole' days" when the fishing industry at Loch Ness was at its peak, fishermen regularly reported catching eels between 5 and 7 meters. Monkfish (a junkfish, pun intended) have been reported in other Scottish lochs to grow well over 8 meters. Respectable scientists contend that many monsters can be explained away by gigantism among known animals. Hell, in a neutral-buoyancy environment, gravity does not limit size. This is the reason anacondas in excess of 20 (and in some cases 60) meters have been reported in South America - they are completely aquatic. Ever hear of the giant squid? The giant clam? The giant octopus? There is a reason many marine animals' names contain the word "giant;" they are big. The giant eel hypothesis also conveniently makes the idea of 'sea serpents' seem less fanciful. So you see, not everyone out there is a raving lunatic with a camera in hand peddling Nessie t-shirts by the roadside. Some are respectable scientists from respectable institutions, every bit as skeptic as the disbeliever. Most want Nessie (and the others) to be real, but they want indisputable proof first. In cryptozoology this has come down to actual tissue samples. But do not expect a breakthrough anytime soon; science has enough troubles as it is getting funded for completely mundane studies, and 'monster' research is the death-knell for careers in many circles. Prejudice like yours is commonplace, and people such as yourself probably won't accept the notion that unidentified life goes undiscovered around the globe until you see Nessie hanging from a hook on the cover of the New York Times. By the way, Rob, what are your credentials? The lake monster phenomenon is a scientific subject and surely you must have a degree of some kind that allows you to label a serious research subject as 'fanciful' ... As for me I study geology and medieval history at a major American university and, let's face it, with the evidence at hand science is only telling us to look a little further. And that's all I ask.

Cupbearer 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I am not sure how one communicates privately in this medium but there are some comments above I would like references for if possible a) recent sonar surveys (i.e. not from 1970s) that have shown evidence for large animals in freshwater lakes. b) Monkfish to 8m in Scottish lakes. What freshwater species is a "monkfish"? And please could you produce the reference to them reaching such huge sizes? c) references to the catching of 5 to 7 m eels in Loch Ness? d) Documented references to 20M plus anacondas. e) Papers where acoustic calls from lakes have been matched against databases There are some startling claims in the above and I for one would like more details. Tullimonstrum 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have that information for you in a few days. It'll take some time because I want to be thorough (but mostly because I'm up to my neck in work).

Cupbearer 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

List of lakes

I've broken up the list (according to country), and removed two entries:

• The Lake Worth monster wasn't a lake monster as such. it was just seen in the area around the lake. It belongs elsewhere.
• Faymouth Ency in Cornwall. There's no such place. I searched and the only entries for it are copies of this list. Totnesmartin 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture Hoax?

The caption attached to the Surgeon's picture of the Loch Ness Monster in this article lists it as being a hoax, while the caption for the same picture in the article for the Loch Ness Monster itself claims that it has been 'unsubstantiatedly claimed to be fake'. Can someone confirm one way or the other for the sake of consistency?

The Surgeon's photo IS a hoax. "A photograph supposedly of the Loch Ness monster taken by Robert Kenneth Wilson, a British gynecologist, on April 19, 1934 at around 7:30 AM. Because of Wilson's profession, the picture came to be known as "The Surgeon's Photo." In 1994 it was revealed that the picture actually shows a toy submarine outfitted with the head of a sea serpent." http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/lochness.html Ryoga-2003 07:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

lake tahoe

How come I can't find a reputable source for a monster in lake tahoe anywhere?

Unfortunately, that's like asking for concrete proof that ghosts exist. The thing about lake monsters beyond Ogopogo and Nessie, there isn't much but local legends on most of them. Ryoga-2003 08:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tessie, unfortunately, is a combination of myth, hoax, and vain attempts to attract tourists with merchandise. Elasmosaurus (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Slave Lake, Canada

Theres been reports of a lake monster in Great Slave Lake, NWT.Its only been seen twice and one of the least known lake monsters.Can I add it? TaylorLTD 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro

In the Introduction, the article claims that all of the lakes with monsters "are in a cold climate". However, the article very quickly proves this wrong. Thus, I am taking out the reference ti cold climates. If anybody has a serious dispute with this, speak. 67.166.241.196 00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Turtle Lake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Lake_Monster should be added, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.6.128 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Article undergoing major expansion, question

Hi. I'm about to expand the article list. Should I include river monsters? For now I'll only include lake monsters. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Also, should I leave out the ones that are hoaxes, thought to be hoaxes, are misunderstood legends, etc? For now I'll leave them out. Also, leaving out the river monsters as well as hoaxes should keep this article short enough for reading, and if not, we can still split it into new articles. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1