Over the past few days, you may have seen article headlines such as “Scientists say new fossils point to existence of Loch Ness monster,” or “Loch Ness Monster Existence Plausible, Scientists Say,” or “New discovery makes Loch Ness Monster ‘plausible.’” Though I prefer America’s weirdness, I am a general connoisseur of the strange. And the Loch Ness monster of Scotland has long held a special place in my heart. So when I became aware of this “story” via Twitter trending, which presented it similarly, I got excited: Had a fossil of Nessie been found in the “dark Scottish lake” in which she allegedly resides? Was some other proof unearthed? A tunnel to the ocean, perhaps?
In truth, it was nothing of the sort. Actually clicking on one of the stories revealed the somewhat boring truth behind the sensational headlines. Let’s pick on the New York Post, whose headline “The Loch Ness monster may be real, scientists now say” was probably — unsurprisingly — the most lurid of all. Here’s what has actually been “revealed”:
According to a new joint study, released Wednesday by the University of Bath and University of Portsmouth in the UK and Université Hassan II in Morocco, fossils of plesiosaurs were found in the Morocco portion of the Sahara Desert, reported Newsweek.
The study — published in Cretaceous Research — suggests that 100 million years ago, the desert was once a body of freshwater where hundreds of carnivores lived together.
Several fossils including teeth from adult plesiosaurs that measured 9 feet in length and baby plesiosaurs — measuring 5 feet long — were found at the dig site.
So we don’t have new evidence of a plesiosaur — the extinct creature long put forward as a possibility for what Nessie might actually be — currently existing in Loch Ness. We don’t even have evidence that such a creature might once have inhabited the loch. Instead, we have evidence that, at one point, this type of animal may have lived in freshwater thousands of miles away. And so it could, theoretically, have lived in Loch Ness — or it could be there currently, I guess?
Nonsense. What we have here is a classic case of Loch Ness monster clickbait. I am firmly against such things. Let the settlements around the loch profit from tourism; let a thousand History Channel shows about Nessie bloom; and, by all means, let there be legitimate scientific investigations into the lake and into the possibility of Nessie’s former, or current, existence there. But spare me this cryptid sensationalism. Goodness knows there are worse problems with the media, but this is still an example. When there’s real news about stuff like this, I want to be the first to know. But don’t try to get me to click on something that doesn’t directly bear on the reality (or not) of Nessie.
It sure is a relief that we never get this kind of thing when it comes to UFOs . . .