iStockphoto
There have been many theories put forth over the years about the Loch Ness Monster since the first report of it being seen in the sixth century.
Ever since Adomnán wrote in the Life of St. Columba about a “water beast” that attacked a man who was swimming in the water, people have been trying to figure out what exactly is happening in Loch Ness.
Among the theories that have gained some traction during that time are that the Loch Ness Monster is some type of undiscovered turtle or a plesiosaur that somehow has survived for decades.
Another theory, bolstered by NASA’s 2020 discovery of evidence of a parallel universe where time goes backwards and the rules of physics are the opposite.
In that theory, creatures like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot actually exist in a parallel universe, which would explain why they are so elusive and have never been captured.
Then there is the theory that was put forth by biologist Roy Mackal in the 1970s which suggested that large eels may be responsible for the many Loch Ness Monster sightings over the years.
Another study of environmental DNA published in 2019 by geneticist Neil Gemmel suggesting a large eel could be living in the loch only added to that belief.
That theory, however, appears to have now been debunked by a new study published in the journal JMIRx Bio.
“Previous studies have estimated the size, mass, and population of hypothetical unknown animals in a large oligotrophic freshwater loch in Scotland based on biomass and other observational considerations,” the research paper reads. “The ‘eel hypothesis’ proposes that the anthrozoological phenomenon at Loch Ness can be explained in part by observations of large specimens of European eel (Anguilla anguilla), as these animals are most compatible with morphological, behavioral, and environmental considerations.”
The most frequently sited estimates of the “actual” size of the Loch Ness Monster come from the Surgeon’s Photograph and the Flipper Photographs. The first pegs the creatures size at somewhere between 3.3 to 6.6 feet long, while the second claims it is between 49 to 66 feet in size.
In the new study, using catch data from Loch Ness, the scientists determined “the chances of finding a large eel in Loch Ness are around 1 in 50,000 for a 1-meter specimen, which is reasonable given the loch’s fish stock and suggests some sightings of smaller unknown animals may be accounted for by large eels. However, the probability of finding a specimen upward of 6 meters is essentially zero; therefore, eels probably do not account for sightings of larger animals.”
So it would seem we’re back to Nessie traveling through portals from another another dimension as the best possible explanation for why she’s been so tough to pin down? Then again, if that’s true, the creature still could be a giant eel, right?