Skeptical about Lake Monsters

[lpetrich]

I've been skeptical for a long time about lake monsters, but I did not have anything definite to work from until relatively recently, when I discovered the population of seals in Lake Baikal. Seals are a good ecological model for lake monsters because they have similar size and likely eat a similar size of fish, about 10 - 30 cm long or thereabouts. That population has enabled me to estimate how much lake-monster biomass a lake can support, and I have made such estimates for some lakes that are well-known for their supposed lake monsters.

Lake Baikal is in a cold temperate or boreal climate zone; it is surrounded by forests. So other cold-temperate-climate lakes may have comparable nutrient inputs, thus maybe having comparable fish biomass densities, and from there, comparable fish-predator biomass densities. Since the fish are supported by phytoplankton, and since phytoplankton can only grow in the well-illuminated, upper parts of the lake, it is therefore more reasonable to scale by area than by volume.

There are about 60,000 of the Baikal Seal or Nerpa (Pusa sibirica) living in Lake Baikal; each seal has an average weight of about 75 kg, though the seals can reach 150 kg. This implies a seal-biomass density of 4.5*106 kg -- 4500 tons of seal.

Its surface area is 31,494 km2, implying 1.91 seals/km2 or 143 kg/km2 of seal biomass.


Lake Champlain, between New York State and Vermont, is the home of supposed monster "Champ". It has an area of 1130 km2, implying a population of 2150 seals or 1.61*105 kg of biomass.

A population of lake monsters there would likely be borderline viable, since one needs at least a few hundred individuals to avoid troublesome genetic drift.


Loch Ness, in central Scotland, is the home of the most famous such supposed monster, "Nessie". It has an area of 56.4 km2, implying a population of 107 seals or 8.06*103 kg of biomass.

A population of lake monsters there would be on the borderline of viability -- at best.


A further problem with lake monsters is that if they are descended from land vertebrates, they would have to periodically surface for air, as every known aquatic descendant of land vertebrates is known to do. This would make them readily and frequently visible, but sightings of these monsters are too rare for that.

[Pendaric]

I don't think they exist, but I'm going to Loch Ness in July so I'll keep an eye out and my camera ready.

[DMB]

Nessie rakes in the cash from tourists. And you want it to exist as well?

[Uthgar the Brazen]

For the record, I'd like to point out that I suggested decades ago completely draining the loch to find out for sure. Mr Groening owes me royalties.

[Brianna]

I heard they died to global warming :)

[Jobar]

In a science fiction novel by Larry Niven, there's the lyrics to a filksong about all the extraordinary methods of searching which have been used looking for Nessie; but despite it all,
We cannot find
Cannot find
Cannot find
The monster in Loch Ness!

I'll keep looking for it; it's quite amusing.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't think they exist, but I'm going to Loch Ness in July so I'll keep an eye out and my camera ready.

I've been Nessie watching several times -- but never saw anything, unfortunately.

[dancer_rnb]

Maybe most of the people who see it get eaten? :evil:

[BioBeing]

Loch Ness, in central Scotland, is the home of the most famous such supposed monster, "Nessie". It has an area of 56.4 km2, implying a population of 107 seals or 8.06*103 kg of biomass.

See!! Proof that not just one Nessie, but in fact one hundred Nessie's exist! ;)

[David B]

I once saw a documentary on this which gave what I thought a compelling explanation for some at least of the alleged sightings.

It was that under certain weather conditions, at some times of day, cold air could fall down the mountainside, creating a narrow layer of cold air at the lake surface. Viewers (or cameras) at near lake level could see apparent large changes in size, and the impression of vertical movement, of things like small rocks or floating logs or birds sticking out of the water.

It was claimed that these could easily be mistaken for a monster, especially if there was some expectation of seeing one, and iirc the footage they showed of that sort of mirage backed up that claim.

Some alleged sightings and photos are fakes that have been more than adequately exposed as such.

David

[Anne]

If it is true as speculated that Ness has underwater channels connecting it with other lochs, then your wo9rk doesn't rule it out for there.

We also don't need a 'viable' population. Just a few methusalahs...

I'd like for them to exist, but am dubious. The great lakes ought to have them more, anyway...

[BioBeing]

If it is true as speculated that Ness has underwater channels connecting it with other lochs, then your wo9rk doesn't rule it out for there.

We also don't need a 'viable' population. Just a few methusalahs...

I'd like for them to exist, but am dubious. The great lakes ought to have them more, anyway...

That would just them access to a larger food supply, meaning there could be even more of them. Also making odds of them being seen even higher. Plus you are now adding another unproven layer: great long navigable underwater channels.

[Faid]

So I was wondering: Did anyone ever find out whether those underwater flipper pictures by Rines were made up?

[David B]

Not knowing about these, I googled them.

http://www.lochnessinvestigation.org/flipper.html

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence presented which ties the time of the sonar event with the time of the photographic event, and so no correlation can be assumed.

The original "flipper" photographs do not differ significantly from test shots of the loch bottom.

The enhanced "flipper" photographs show incongruous shadow features which I cannot explain other than as deliberate artistic improvement, i.e."retouching".

The published sonar record and expert interpretations ignore the required presence of the camera equipment, boat and mooring system on the paper record, and the mobile nature of both sonar and camera.

These observations lead me to conclude that any suggestion that the photographs and sonar record are due to a nearby large aquatic animal are not supported by the evidence presented.

David

[Daynna]

I read a good book on the topic:

Lake Monster Mysteries
http://www.amazon.com/Lake-Monster-Mysteries-Investigating-Creatures/dp/0813123941/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238214612&sr=8-2

Got the book after hearing the author interviewed on Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast.

[David B]

I read a good book on the topic:

Lake Monster Mysteries
http://www.amazon.com/Lake-Monster-Mysteries-Investigating-Creatures/dp/0813123941/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238214612&sr=8-2

Got the book after hearing the author interviewed on Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast.

I see that Joe Nickell is one of the authors. He's one of the good guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nickell

David

[Anne]

Joe Nickell is cool. We know him personally.

/name drop

[Ronin]

Joe Nickell is cool. We know him personally.

/name drop

Post photos or retract!

Oh...and give him my best regards, love his work.

:p

[Anne]

uh... I can get a photo of us with him next time we see him...

And I'll happily tell him people love his work. Personally, I love his office. It's full of really cool junk...

[Anne]

oh, and my comment about the great lakes---

they are deeper, larger and older (?) than the lakes that have monsters. And they were home to the scary fishes like this (a long time ago)
http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z207/Zecret_inc/th_dunkleosteus.jpg

and this (today)

http://www.outdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/sturgeon.jpg

If anyone should have monsters, it should be us.

[hecaterin]

I'm quite sure Loch Ness has a monster, we saw her! And collected a tooth! Nessis is Real!11!one!!

Monster, tree stump; tooth, pointy rock, whatever. Add enough whisky and they're the same, right? :) It was heaps of fun playing with deliberately self-induced pareidolia. I bought a little stuffed toy green monster called "Drunken-Ness" to give to my friend Ness.

[Pendaric]

oh, and my comment about the great lakes---

they are deeper, larger and older (?) than the lakes that have monsters. And they were home to the scary fishes like this (a long time ago)
http://s192.photobucket.com/albums/z207/Zecret_inc/th_dunkleosteus.jpg

and this (today)

http://www.outdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/sturgeon.jpg

If anyone should have monsters, it should be us.

That's a monster in it's own right. I'd crap myself if I saw that anywhere near me in the water.

[Danhalen]

That's a monster in it's own right. I'd crap myself if I saw that anywhere near me in the water.The dunkleosteus or the sturgeon? Sturgeons really are not scary.

I love the dunkleosteus fossil we have at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

[Faid]

Not knowing about these, I googled them.

http://www.lochnessinvestigation.org/flipper.html

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence presented which ties the time of the sonar event with the time of the photographic event, and so no correlation can be assumed.

The original "flipper" photographs do not differ significantly from test shots of the loch bottom.

The enhanced "flipper" photographs show incongruous shadow features which I cannot explain other than as deliberate artistic improvement, i.e."retouching".

The published sonar record and expert interpretations ignore the required presence of the camera equipment, boat and mooring system on the paper record, and the mobile nature of both sonar and camera.

These observations lead me to conclude that any suggestion that the photographs and sonar record are due to a nearby large aquatic animal are not supported by the evidence presented.

DavidHaha, I knew it. I checked the photos again recently, and while they seemed incredibly genuine to me when I had first seen them, now they cry "tampering" from a mile away. Photoshop has helped us become more perceptive about some features.

[Anne]

That's a monster in it's own right. I'd crap myself if I saw that anywhere near me in the water.The dunkleosteus or the sturgeon? Sturgeons really are not scary.

I love the dunkleosteus fossil we have at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

I dunno--- I'd be scared of sturgeons.

Armored living fossils and all that...

If they ever came in close enough to shore to be seen. they are deep sea fish... or deep lake, in this case...

http://www.freewebs.com/crappiehunter/Teeth.JPG

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/staff/gazrok/fish.jpg





Anyone else want me to say hi to Joe for them?

[Anne]

oh, and my comment about the great lakes---

they are deeper, larger and older (?) than the lakes that have monsters.


Yes they are.

Loch Ness apparently was formed during the "Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, the current ice age or simply the ice age, refers to the period of the last few million years (2.58 Ma to present). " Note: there were not even dinosaurs by this time, so the theory of a trapped dino is completely moot.

On the other hand, there were dinosaurs in the Great Lakes. And if you count living fossils, then Sturgeon do count.

The Great lakes have mutated a great deal over each of the past ice ages, but have had water in the general area on a huge term starting "1.1 to 1.2 billion years ago, when two previously fused tectonic plates split apart and created the Midcontinent Rift. A valley was formed providing a basin that eventually became modern day Lake Superior. When a second fault line, the Saint Lawrence rift, formed approximately 570 million years ago, the basis for Lakes Ontario and Erie were created, along with what would become the St. Lawrence River."


eta: ok, I just figured it out. they are 22 THOUSAND percent older than Loch Ness.

Sorry, I am amazed by the Great lakes. they are sooooo cooool on soooooo mnay levels...