Animation Source Forums

I think that's plesiosaurus.

It can't be a plesiosaur and here's why. There would have to be a large number of them to support a population of such a long period of time. Also, to support such a population they would need lots of prey and there simply isn't that much in Loch Ness to sustain such massive creatures. Also, if the above conditions were met, a body, or even a part of a body would have had to have turn up by now so the whole theory about it being a plesiosaur is not feasible. What I think it could be is a unique, un-discovered species of animal that evolved in the lake over time.

On topic: I do think that pterodactyls and birds like them can still exist today, but it would have to be in an extremely secluded and un-inhabited part of the world to avoid being caught or seen by humans. In fact, on Destination truth they went looking for a monster called the Ropen which is supposedly a pterosaur or pterosaur-like creature.

Part one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSBZ23qns5o
Part two:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26d_Lj9rGjI&feature=related
Part three:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c--s5urxJo&feature=related
Part four:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFa72vImBHQ&feature=related
Part five:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4nmPsYOjew&feature=related

Please watch this video and tell me what ya thought.

To answer your arguments,
1) Is it outside the realm of possibility that the Loch Ness monsters are precisely why there are so few fish? Many prey animals, such as rabbits, have far many more offspring than will ever reach maturity to allow for those picked off by carnivores. Besides, your concept of an animal having evolved in the Loch over time leaves both the problems you presented unanswered. There's no evidence to back up your view.
2) Loch Ness' water is such that bodies do not float, they sink. A woman once drowned less than six feet from shore in that loch and they could never find her body. Who knows, then, what might lie on the bottom farther from shore?

Ya know what Dragon Tamer? Why don't ya read this:[url]http://www.lochnessproject.com/ADRIAN_SHINE_ARCHIVEROOM/papershtml/loch_ness_dual_beam_acoustics.htm
[/url]

Perhaps I will when i find the time.

There is another possiblity. Lochness has high concentrations of certain types of mosses, theses in turn feed many micro creatures, plankton for example, so it is entirely possible the creature adapted to be a filter feeder and feeds on the abondent plankton, and before you say that could support one, Humpback Whales are filter feeders. Even more, the creature could of became an omnivore and feeds directly on the moss and there have been sightings of the Lochness Monster on land, it is possible they come out of the lake at night to feed in the forested areas around the Loch. Also, there are thosands of miles of tunnels under the lake, many with air pockets they could hide in and possibly live in, there's no way to search theses tunnels completely, even draining the Loch wouldn't work, they'd still be able to hide in theses places.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/ozfossil/ ... osaurs.htm

How did they breed?
Like turtles, they probably came ashore to lay eggs on sandy beaches.
No nests have ever been found, but if they laid eggs, they had to lay them on land. There is no evidence at all that plesiosaurs gave birth to live young in the water.

Did they dive deep?
Probably not. Plesiosaurs are found in shallow seas and even freshwater lakes. They were able to dive down, but they fed near the surface and had no need to go deep. Being reptiles, they had to breathe air, so there would have to be a good reason for them to leave the surface for a long time.

Did they stick their heads up out of the water?
They would have been capable of doing this, but again there seems to be no good reason why they should. They could do it to see if they were close to land, but we just don’t know if their vision allowed them to see in this way. Rival males could have fought each other with their necks and both sexes might have courted each other with their heads out of the water.

So based on all that info, people would have had to have found their eggs or nests on land. Also, they would swim at the surface so I think people would have eventually had better luck of seeing one. Lastly, they had to stay near the surface so using all the caves and staying at the bottom would have been a big no-no. I think I just blew your theory out of the water now so lets get back on topic(pterodactyls)

Did anyone watch the video?

How you know plesiosaurs weren't mamals? You can't base these narrow-minded opinions on what we aren't sure of. If plesiousaurs were mammals they would have no need to lay eggs on land or at all, and could support their young similarly to whales, and of course,there is a slight posibility that they could lay eggs in the water like a fish. And maybe I'm going all out here, but they might even have had an advanced way of insuring the egg's ascent to the surface and eventually to shore if they were reptiles, like the density of the egg could be less than the water or something. The animal world is full of oddities like that.

We don't know these things, so it's pointless to scrutinize every detail anf fact we think we know. Because we aren't sure of anything besides maybe bone structure. I get where the 'facts' come in, the 'there is no evidence that they ever...' and the 'scientists believe', but every single one of these theroys can be disproved with this: "Plesiousaur fossils came in many varietys, so how can you be sure that the Loch Ness plesiousaur was not a deep-diving, baby-bearing, incredibly secretive kind of animal? No one can until we can observe the actual animal." And that's where I've left off myself. I think maybe its easier not to make assumptions before we know the truth.

The plain fact is, we don't realy know anything one way or the other about plesiosaurs, extinct or not. Even you yourself use the words "could have," showing that you really don't know. It's entirely reasonable to suspect that these are a species of plesiosaur we now nothing about from fossils, but even if they are a known spcies it's still arrogant to say we know everything when clearly we really know next to nothing. As for the breathing argument, crocodles have raised nostrils and eyes for minimum visibility. Maybe Nessie does too. Or, another thought to consider: Some descriptions of Nessie mention things on the head that look like blunt horns. Who knows, they could be breathing tubes.

Exactly what I said.

If ya bothered to follow my link(which ya obviously didn't) then the first thing ya would have read would have been that they are reptiles!! While I'm not saying that there is zero chance of it being a plesiosaur I am saying that all evidence suggests whatever the creature is it isn't a plesiosaur.

Now, can we get back on topic?

All evidence suggests. Now, that means that it isn't positive. How can you possibly even attempt to counter that? Now, you may be right. I'm just saying that I disagree. Hey, if pterodactyls can show up a million years later, then why can't plesiousaurs?

I'm not saying they can't I'm just saying that they are not mammals and even ya have to find it hard to believe that nobody has found any eggs, or bodies or whatever. Also, this is the last big point I will make about them before I go back to pterodactyls:

What would prey on them? Every creature needs something to keep it's population in check and there is nothing in Loch Ness that would be able to be considered a predator or threat to them.

Thats something to go on...maye the water pressure wears down on their physique and gives them a short lifespan so they'd die naturally at a younger age. There are numerous bacteria and diseass to consider as well. Also, I know most plesiousaur fossils were identified as reptiles. But there are ways for different classes of animals to function abnormally. For instance, platapuses(sp) are mamals, yet they give birth to eggs. Some sharks, fish of course, have been known to give birth to live young. There is no way to be sure of the nature of the Loch Ness creature unless we know from observing it or finding credible evidence.

That I can agree with.

Off topic but the type of birth ya were talking about with sharks is called Viviparity and it is when they give birth to live young. The other two methods a shark can use are Oviparity which is when the embryo develops in an egg and the last and most common one is called Ovoviviparity in which the young are nourished by their embryo and then are born alive. However, in rare cases some sharks have done parthenogenesis which is when the female had not been in contact with a male yet it conceived pups.