Scientists use environmental DNA evidence to explore where the Loch Ness Monster really derived from. Subscribe to Discovery UK for more great clips: www.youtube.com... Follow Discovery UK on Twitter: / discoveryuk
25% of the DNA still unidentified means that it could easily be a species we haven't encountered, yet. Some kind of OTHER giant fish or eel swimming in the loch. Greenland sharks live for up to 500 years. So it's entirely possible that *something* is down there.
Oh, give it up. The water temperature, extremely low biological content of the loch, & its relatively young age, all prove on their own the "monster" doesn't exist, & when you take a closer look at the eye witness accounts, & the supposed video evidence all reveal themselves to be extremely suspect. This DNA study is only the nail in the already half buried coffin.
@@MakoRuu If so, lakes in Europe are super weak on bio content, because the main, determining factor is sunlight penetration, which allows phytoplankton growth, which is the base of food chain, & because of all fhe peat leeching into fhe loch, the water is basically coffee brown, & light only penetrates to about an eight foot depth, which means low biological content. And if you watch footage of the bottom of the loch, it's nothing but lifeless mud, punctuated by a stick, here & there, & the very occassional eel. Adrian Shine, who has scientifically studied the loch more than anyone else, has stated that the loch could not support a breeding population of large creatures. You think you know better than he?
@@wassamattau5787 The problem I have with believing "experts", is that experts claimed that rogue waves didn't exist while sailors claimed that they did. As science so often seems to, once video evidence was captured of such a wave, the scientific community suddenly was ok with them. Imagine being a person arguing that experts were right and that rogue waves where a conspiracy theory, only to have the rug pulled out from under your argument. When people see things they should be treated seriously. There's more than enough evidence to assume that something lives in Loch Ness, at least part time.
Neither do Plesiosaurs, as Paleontologists discovered that from studying Plesiosaur fossils, their necks were no where near as flexible like people used to think they were, and if they attempted to raise their necks out of the water like in all the “photos” they would break their necks and die
A European conger eel is the most likely answer, they've catched them of the Devon coast before and one caught presently was at least 20kg so it's highly plausible of that or its an unknown species of eel that can grow to such lengths. The reason being is that there is no catfish or sturgeon in the loch it seems so it would thrive with no rivals. Equally a resent video online shows an eel caught going up the river towards the loch so highly likely it is an eel.
Something about insanely deep waters remarkably close to a highly populated coastal region or island is absolutely terrifying. The same is true of the South Coast Gulf in Florida/Louisiana/Alabama, I love it but standing on the beach facing southward in the direction of Haiti and Guatemala and Hispaniola , with the *entire* Bermuda triangle within sight, is frightening for the same reasons, especially at night, considering the legitimate presence of Saltwater Reptiles also.
We were always told the Pacific California Coast is where you can wade out and the ground slowly but surely fades out beneath you , whereas the Mexican Gulf has a shallow portion for about 20 ft before it drops off at a depth comparable to open ocean. Which is why it's terrifying, the Loch Ness is for the same reasons, it's tiny, but there's no ground beneath that water, it's depth is insurmountable, which is why it frightens one.
This is just about the limit Professor Gimmell! We will now have to genetically engineer a small plesiosaur (in Jurassic park style) and let it loose in this Lochness lake so that the legend is upheld 🤔 but remember, Plesiosaur DNA can be just about as elusive as the Plesiosaur like Lochness monster itself ! 🐲🐾
Last year 23 people saw one in Banks Lake, Wa. All descriptions were same and nobody knew each other. 1 said they were anchored and swimming when a large black log bumped into their 30 foot family boat, they reached down to push the log away, (It was as long as their boat) and it wiggled and dove deep. No swimmer or skier has ever been bothered. One old local gas station owner had previous knowledge of it and said there's more than one, and told them to keep their mouth shut, otherwise the lake would be flooded with scientists and hunters.......
The eDNA only explains recent sightings over the past year. The monster is probably a composite face: early sightings of giant animals are sturgeo onr seals, some are wels, and more recent sightings are eels.
The Japanese found the Loch Ness Monster in 1977. It is a prehistoric dinosaur, very much so a plesiosaur. There could be different types of plesiosaurs. The one that the Japanese found was ginormous and fit all of the eyewitness descriptions. The Japanese found him not too far from Scotland. He hadn't been dead that long. He had not decomposed that badly.
@@amberslagle5436 I never stated that it was a new news report. You're claim that what the Japanese caught was a dead basking shark is your interpretation. If that factually was a basking shark such to as you say then maybe so. My friends saw the photo from different angles and all agreed that wasn't a shark of any kind of type they had ever seen. I simply commented about the famous photo
If you are referring to the Zuiyo-maru carcass it’s almost certain that was a decomposed basking shark. Sharks once decomposed barely resembles what it used to look like. Trey the Explainer made a good video on it.
@@BBQporkramen there's no factual DNA evidence verifying that's a basking shark, and that looks nothing like a decomposed basking shark. Interpretation varies
The only problem, is that eyewitnesses describe an animal with the skin texture of a whale and the shape and appearance of an overturned boat. Eels have a fin going down their backs and aren't stationary, they are fish and tend to be active and move a lot. The most likely explanations are that the mysterious animal in Loch Ness is probably a reptile, amphibian or mammal. It isn't too far fetched, because certain reptiles, amphibians and mammals have been known to move to places to reproduce and stay near the mouth of the river that connects the lake to the sea. The only eels in Loch Ness are the small species that grow no more than 3.5 feet. But then again, who really knows what the Loch Ness mystery animal is, just because there was a significant amount of eel DNA doesn't mean it is a full on eel, maybe the eels are a food source to the mystery animal that has been seen for centuries.
Like he talked about sasquatch, & got so terribly, unforgivably wrong, even in the face of the Sierra Sounds recordings, which, if you are not ignorant regarding that form of evidence(& the world's premier crypto linguist, & numerous sound analysis experts who've studied the recordings, have all explained why they have to be real, & what they mean), you understand _are_ irrefutable scientific proof of the existence of an as yet unacknowledged, non-human primate living in the wilds of North America(& it is only one of multiple forms of such proof, which includes DNA, video/film, dental impression, track/dermal evidences, which again, if you're knowledgeable about any of these forms of evidence, & aware of what has been collected, you undetstand these creatures most certainly exist, just like the absurd number of credible witnesses all claim)? I like a lot of what Joe does, but when it comes to subjects like this, no thank you.
This now should be easy to find. Mearly post cameras everywhere with constant recording. After 6 months or a year u either have enought footage to form a plan or no footage and game over I believe underground caves could allow hiding preventing being found.
I hate to say your wrong, Nessie eats eels, this creature is so unique and comes into this area, remember this rule, what brings in a smaller preditor brings in bigger and meaner, your on a track, what eats Moray eel???? Something with huge teeth and maybe has a smell like a eel but is not...keep looking for answers.
If it is a eel why has there been pictures of flippers back in 1972 it's clearly a pleasiosre in loch ness the description matches what everyone is saying it probably has evolved into living in fresh water
I read a book about the LOCH NESS MONSTER and there was a picture of it's fin and it was a diamond shape so all you need too do is look at the fins of the creatures and if you find one with a diamond shapes fin then there you go.
They should be focusing on the vast DNA that could not be identified or explained. Surely that’s more important? Their findings unfortunately have brought absolutely nothing new to the table. Of course there’s Eels in the Loch, there’s Eel in most Scottish Lochs and there’s zero evidence of any giant Eels, in Loch Ness they grow very little over a foot long.
‘It cannot escape the building blocks of life'... Yet the research team didn’t find any seal or otter DNA within the Loch even though they are both frequently seen and visit the waters. This DNA experiment brought absolutely nothing new to the ‘mystery' of Nessie.
One video I saw said they didn't find seal DNA but they are seen in the Loch from time to time, is this true? In any case if you have something that is 25% unidentified then there is a possibility they have something that someone doesn't know about. What it is, is anyone's guess. The one thing he didn't say is the creature is a figment of someone's imagination and that he invites more scientific research, which is still needs to be done even if this thing is not what we want it to be.
This isn't enough, DNA doesn't last long. The mystery animal of Loch Ness have left the loch long before they mounted this expedition, meaning that any possible DNA traces has degraded due to the crrtain conditions of Loch Ness. The eels themselves are probably a food source for this mystery animal of the loch.
Why don’t they send a submarine down there and if it was nessy they would just capture it for testing in science labs or it would be bought out by a rich company and put in a tank at a zoo
I could have sworn I once saw a Loch Ness program where they showed the Lake having some kind of connection to the ocean. If that were the case maybe the real monster is only visiting to spawn or something like that. Like salmon. Maybe only occasionally visiting it doesn't leave enough plesiosaur DNA for that guy to pick up.
are they not able to scan the whole lake? what sort of imaging technology do we have suitable for this? would such an animal of significant size have any heat that could be picked up by thermal?
People suggesting this thing is a pliesosaurus don't use common sense. "IF" this loch monster monster exist it's definitely not an air breathing animal, considering the amount of time it spent submerge underwater.
I still find it absurd that people seem to be talking about one single animal. How old is that thing by now 50 a 100, 200, 300, >1500 years? Will people still be seeing Nessy a 1.000 years from now? And one is not a viable population, a healthy breeding population would consists of many animals and could never go under the radar unless they hide all the dead bodies that should have been washing upon the shore or s;potted on the lake since the year 564 and even earlier...
Has no one in the scientific community thought that a species has evolved since the prehistoric age? That dna unknown to us cannot be guessed based on crocodiles and birds since paleontology shows dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs, and birds are fundamentally different even genetically. And we even have for example marsupials, who are derived from mammals but isolation has made them altered to fit the environment. Could Loch Ness see a similar scenario.
No way is it an eel or an organic entity, whatever it is this has been seen way before the 1600s, if it was organic it would have been caught or properly filmed by now.
How about bird DNA again? There must be birds that die in the loch. Perhaps clams, undiscovered invertebrates, worms. etc. for the unknown rest of the DNA.