I really like listening to Dr. Rines, but this new theory that Nessie is dead or long dead comes off as a last grasp at straws; if you can’t prove the creature exists, then it must have existed at one time and must be dead now. It falls into that “can’t disprove a negative” area for me; it was never proven to exist, but now it’s dead so you can’t prove it didn’t exist. I echo the sentiment that the implication is a lone creature survived extinction 65 million years ago to swim the loch for all these years, an absurdity that defies common sense, which tells you there would have to be a breeding population that would certainly result in more tangible sightings.

I think the advancements of science, technology, and people’s thinking is no coincidence to the fact that lake monster and sea serpent sightings (especially at Loch Ness) have dwindled down to nearly nothing as time marches on. The fact that most of the photographic or film evidence that points to Nessie being a plesiosaur has been exposed as fraudulent, “enhanced”, or misidentified mundane objects or animals as time wears on is also a factor in the decline of sightings. If somebody keeps telling you a plesiosaur lives in a lake and that’s what you must have seen, then you believe it. When you see something “strange”, whether it’s an otter, fish, wake, boat, or anything else, you immediately think of it as Nessie. The power of suggestion is strong. The power of evidence is also strong, and as much as I’ve always wanted to believe, I now think Nessie was nothing more than a great, mythical tourist attraction for Scotland. I still want to go there just to visit, but I don’t expect to see a monster in the loch. The facts and evidence just don’t bear it out.

Concerning ‘Destination Truth’, I really enjoy the show. The fact that it’s really a myth chase doesn’t detract from the fun, adventure, and research Josh has, goes through, and does. You learn interesting facts about the locales, as you do in most shows concerning cryptids. Proving even one of these creatures to be true is the Holy Grail, but the things you learn along the way about different cultures, lands, environments, etc. are the great thing about these types of shows. Only complaint I have is with the ‘Blair Witch’-style night vision green camera stuff; I can’t stand it and it’s completely overused in just about every so-called “creepy” or “scary” show on TV today. I understand the stealth purposes behind it, just wish there was less of it.

yes that’s the photo I am referring to sorry for being vague there. Despite the many years that have gone by without any follow up at Loch Ness, I think it will always hold a facination with the public and cryptids alike whether there was or not an animal living within its deeps.

Personally I would rather have seen a documentary that explores the friendship between Adrian Shine and Robert Rines. I find it fascinating that these two men on opposite sides of the fence are good buddies with great respect for the other’s scientific knowledge.

If Nessie is real, then even if there were problems along these lines, it seems a bit of a dubious claim to assume that the discovery of a corpse means it is the last one because of the lack of sightings. This is a completely unfounded notion that cannot be proven by the presence of a single carcass, and is a bit of a muddled argument anyway.

Through what means was this conclusion reached? Even if as Mr. Rines claims Nessie had in fact not been seen by anybody since the 70s, which is incidentally false anyway, the finding of a carcass does not indicate anything other than the existence of the animal, no more no less. Many animals have gone a lot longer than that without being seen, only to pop up again. A single carcass found in the Loch means nothing with regards to determining the extinction of an entire species. I find it laughable that that such a dramatic conclusion was reached merely by the image of a single possible carcass. Even if this was the last one left, there is no way to know that by finding a single carcass.

Anyway, it is not described as “the last one.” It seems to be implied that it is the only one. One of these creatures trapped in the Loch for millions of years? Is it a unique mutant creature that developed independently from some other creature in the Loch and caused all of the sightings by itself? The idea of only one is wrong on so many levels, do I really have to explain why?

To anyone actually reading this, make no mistake, I am not bashing Monster Quest as a whole. This is not a dump on MQ. The show actually seems pretty level headed for the most part. I am directing my comment solely at the write up for the Loch Ness episode listed here. I see claims that I find scientifically questionable and maybe a bit irresponsible, so I felt the need to call it out and point out the absurdity of these claims.

I have seen other shows on Nessie that have showed a possible carcass at the bottom…no conclusive proof so far, so we will see, just another tantalizing possibility…but I’m with MM…there is obviously more than one critter in Loch Ness, and even if the blob at the bottom would turn out to be a carcass, doesn’t mean the show’s over in Ness…there have been no dramatic changes to the eco system that I am aware of, and even in NEssie’s hey-day, she wasn’t doing free photo shoots any time a tourist walked by.

So, yeah, I’ll watch with hope–hope that they put together something professional (better than DT), and hope that they can at least come up with some new data on their topics…