tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post2944688892730391571..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: New Record Depth for Loch Ness?Glasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-89850314693286295862020-06-04T08:42:32.514-07:002020-06-04T08:42:32.514-07:00It is almost 900 ft they even saidbit in a documen...It is almost 900 ft they even saidbit in a documentary from years ago if keith went over it 3 times and it still read 889ft then u have to take his word for it i dont believe adrian that he says it was an echo ot if keith went over the spot 3 times there are a lot of caves down there and probably caves with air and huge spaces for a family of 4 plesiosaurs or elasmosaurs could live and i think thats why u dont see them at the surface often because they have hugenair caves and canals where they can hide but i do believe there arent many left it would depend in how many there where sincenthe first sighting even without the new trench depth there are side tunnels on the side walls that could lead to caves of air since its too dark at those depths there is probably no way even with mini subs or anything to tell for sureAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05988154239920003253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-62474822651205304182016-01-22T17:38:56.379-08:002016-01-22T17:38:56.379-08:00This may be of some (indirect) interest also; if t...This may be of some (indirect) interest also; if the Chinese findings are accurate there may be an entire "Lost World" under the Antarctic giant canyon: <br /><br />http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/19/c_135024588.htmOlrikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14519546544726111480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-87017017814761431502016-01-22T17:32:27.048-08:002016-01-22T17:32:27.048-08:00General article about this...
http://news.discove...General article about this...<br /><br />http://news.discovery.com/animals/loch-ness-trench-spurs-monster-speculation-160122.htmOlrikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14519546544726111480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-38904793885116703002016-01-22T04:57:50.558-08:002016-01-22T04:57:50.558-08:00It does take someone to have a bit of common sense...It does take someone to have a bit of common sense I suppose!Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-32971451693313589922016-01-22T03:29:32.011-08:002016-01-22T03:29:32.011-08:00A reader by the name of "noblefir52" ema...A reader by the name of "noblefir52" emailed me to make this suggestion about depth verification:<br /><br />"Bypass all of the technological debate by using a non-technological method of depth verification: the tried and proven technique of "sounding." You yourself have used the sounding map of the Loch in a few of your articles. There was no sonar when that chart was made, yet no one seriously doubts its depth readings. Nor should they, as the system is quite simple and very low-tech. It is not subject to those who enjoy arguing for its own sake. One cannot simply parrot inanities about echoes, steep sidewalls or thermoclines if a standard sounding system is used. For, it is difficult to debate with a weighted, marked rope.<br /><br />If the boat captain can relocate his place of discovery a third time with his sonar, then the sounding equipment cannot fail to give a true depth reading at that location.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-46283684485030373332016-01-21T04:49:53.111-08:002016-01-21T04:49:53.111-08:00I was taking a look at some 3d sonar technology on...I was taking a look at some 3d sonar technology on sale, and it wasn't an exhaustive search but I seem to be finding that the imaging technology has a fairly short range. 30-120m was the general maximum distance, which is a fair bit shorter than the claimed 300m, at which there appeared to be a long shape with a hump. Maybe I'll stand corrected on this as I am certainly no expert, and I was quite surprised to see the level of detail that this up to date sonar can resolve. But it did seem to be at fairly short ranges, and a lot of the units seem to be designed for use on remote vehicles.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-90630237271518787942016-01-20T06:46:05.537-08:002016-01-20T06:46:05.537-08:00A new recorded depth of nearly 900 ft? All these y...A new recorded depth of nearly 900 ft? All these years right under the nose's of the main Sceptics? Surely not.Nessie hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16229224123946060762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-68788212450899944792016-01-20T01:22:29.021-08:002016-01-20T01:22:29.021-08:00The other consideration is why they hadn't not...The other consideration is why they hadn't noticed this before since I assume this was a regular route for the Jacobite Cruises?<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-90598512818885089522016-01-20T01:16:09.444-08:002016-01-20T01:16:09.444-08:00I tend to think this may be a new record if it is ...I tend to think this may be a new record if it is true that he went over the same spot and confirmed it. But it it useful to use another instrument to verify this.<br /><br />If it was side echoes, I would presume being a somewhat random event it would produce different readings each time.<br /><br />If side echoes do persistently confuse the picture, one wonders how any depth could be tested.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-65442523662176738622016-01-19T18:27:23.165-08:002016-01-19T18:27:23.165-08:00Martin I know very little about sonar, and had the...Martin I know very little about sonar, and had the same thought as you, but KS claims he has state of the art 3D sonar so maybe he can see such details?hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-49498323869153396312016-01-19T14:37:28.640-08:002016-01-19T14:37:28.640-08:00From what I gather, Adrian Shine would be a good m...From what I gather, Adrian Shine would be a good man to listen to over this issue. I'm also a little confused as to how Mr Stewart identified a humped 'something' that was possibly mobile. I was under the impression that sonar needed some expert interpretation, and what you see isn't quite what you get. I'm as enthusiastic as the next man, but this may not add up to much, even though Mr Stewart may be a genuine guy.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-82086147821267181472016-01-19T14:03:45.751-08:002016-01-19T14:03:45.751-08:00Even without this latest deep find, there are plen...Even without this latest deep find, there are plenty of deep trenches or crevices for any population of large animals to hide. So, the suggestion that Nessie's hideaway has been found is a bit presumptuous and premature.John Alvaradohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18069155979480353745noreply@blogger.com