Copyrighted 2019 By Chris Mentillo
I generally, do not introduce many articles based on Nessie. However, I am into studying, researching, reading, and writing concerning various classifications of mysteries. Therefore, I should indeed, encompass all phases of mysteries.
I suppose the principal rationalization for not incorporating Nessie maybe, because I am (for some unknown reason or another), more engrossed in Bigfoot. Not like this is a valid reason. Anyway, just because I have not seen The Loch Ness Monster, does not mean he or she does not exist. The wind outside exists, but we can't see it. We can see the leaves and tree branches moving as a result of the wind, but we can not see (physically) the tangible wind. The equivalent is accurate to say respecting God. I have never seen God, but just because I have never seen him, does not mean he does not exist.
More than a thousand Loch Ness Monster encounters are documented in an authenticated Sightings Register. It was a science story that made for the headlines: a monster, more than a thousand years of mystery, and maybe, finally, an answer.
Neil Gemmell had that potential for publicity in mind when he managed a team of scientists to look for DNA from the elusive Loch Ness Monster - and that team declared recently that a large eel could be behind all the speculation.
I am unashamedly using the monster as a way to entice interest, so I can talk about the science I wish to talk about, the geneticist and professor at the New Zealand's University of Otago, informed The Washington Post, after a tumultuous day regarding dozens of media interviews.
As previously mentioned; more than a thousand Loch Ness Monster encounters are registered in an official Sightings Register. The records go back as far as A.D. when an Irish saint is said to have rescued a man from being attacked by a river monster.
Rumors escalated when a road opened-up near where the sightings transpired, and when the Loch Ness Monster emerged in the Inverness Courier. One man cursed he saw a very long-foot creature, without limbs, cross the road, directly in front of him and his wife.
Some monster sightings were debunked - a famous photo published in the Daily Mail, turned out to be a hoax, staged with a model head attached to a toy submarine - but interest in the legend endured.
Trying to solve the duplicated reports of a monstrous sea creature, some speculated that the Loch was home to a Jurassic-era reptile, and pointed to an enormous -- extinct animal, called a Plesiosaur. Others speculated about a huge fish, swimming circus elephants, or just floating branches.
Gemmell and his colleagues say they can apply science to rule out some of the theories, after examining DNA in water samples from Loch Ness.
The DNA enabled them to produce a comprehensive depiction of the creatures, inhabiting something Gemmell called, the world's most famous body of water, down to tiny bacteria.
They discovered no proof that the lake harbors a prehistoric reptile, and no DNA from sharks, catfish or sturgeons, and some of the other animals put forth to justify the myth.
There was a lot of genetic material from eels, however. The remaining theory that we cannot refute based on the environmental DNA data obtained is that what people are seeing, is a very large eel, the team writes on its website, revealing the findings.
It is still unclear, the scientists said, whether the loch comprises of an eel, huge enough to account for descriptions of a monster. Some researchers have suggested the eel theory previously, and people have described observing large eels in Loch Ness. A video shot captures, a four-meter marine animal on the loch's surface, that could have been an eel, Gemmell's unit says, they admit that such a large eel would be unusual.
Not everyone is impressed with their findings. Steve Feltham, who retains the Guinness Book of Records distinction for the longest, consecutive Loch Ness Monster hunt, told the BBC that the idea of eels living in the loch was no revelation. Other animals have yet to be ruled out, he added.
A one-year-old boy could inform you there are eels in Loch Ness, Feltham said. I caught eels in the loch when I was a one-year-old boy.
Juvenile eels migrate thousands of miles to Scottish rivers and lochs - lakes or sea inlets - from waters near the Bahamas, the BBC reported. The creatures lay eggs, following their travels.
Confronted at a news conference, with the fact that the heaviest documented, European eel ever caught, clocked in at humongous kilograms, Gemmell admitted, It does sound like a monster, does it not?
But, based on the proof, we have acquired, we can not dismiss it as a possibility, he said, according to the Guardian.
Gemmell is not certain he will be involved in any additional investigation, to back up the eel hypothesis. He said he has accomplished what he wanted with a project that has captivated the public imagination, like no other study he has published. Last year, he said, the scientists work at Loch Ness and generated media stories within a few weeks - before they had finally made a single finding.
At first, Gemmell said, he worried that an exhaustive investigation into Loch Ness was foolish. But then he spoke to his one-year-old son, who told his friends, who thought the project sounded awesome. Seeing these kids interests, Gemmell realized that taking a serious, scientific look at the famous Loch could rally up, public curiosity, in techniques to track biodiversity.
Gemmell's crew took advantage of environmental DNA, the genetic material that creatures leave in their surroundings. This DNA lets scientists study habitats, without disturbing, and harming the animals they are trying to study, Gemmell's team emphasizes on its website.
The strategy will secure a real difference in how we monitor and protect the world's increasingly fragile ecosystems, they write.
A Travel Channel documentary on the team's work airing in Britain and the United States later this month will bring the project to an even broader audience.
Loch Ness attracts people in a way that few other things ever could, Gemmell said.
Comments