# Can the Loch Ness monster question be reopened?

Have I done enough to improve this question to get it reopened?

Coda: If the first comment by WetSavannaAnimal aka Rod Vance had been posted as an answer, I would have accepted it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

• But what is your question? If rouge waves are possible or if rouge waves could be identified as a Lonch Ness monster? Dec 24 '13 at 12:25
• @jinawee, I am suggesting that rogue waves occur sporatically and create the illusions of monsters. We know the waves occur and the suspicion is that when a rogue wave encounters a steep side somewhere away from shore it will disappear without reaching shore (like the normal more shallow waves we are used to seeing). Dec 24 '13 at 12:50
• But what is the precise physics question? If it's just Could this shadow-like area explain the sightings? It's not about physics, it's about physchology. Dec 24 '13 at 12:59
• I like the idea of rouge waves - sounds pretty Dec 24 '13 at 13:08
• @FredKline: Your comment here is exactly the reason why your question should be posted on skeptics.SE. Dec 26 '13 at 3:00
• @KyleKanos, If we rephrase the scenario I edited into the OP to read: A physicist is ... and sees the posted image ..., she would say, "Wow, a rogue wave. You don't see that very often." It would be up to the psychologists to explain how people would see it as a monster. Anyway, I've passed this idea along to Myth Busters. Maybe, they will see some merit in it. Dec 26 '13 at 12:54
• @FredKline: The whole point of this site is to answer questions about physics and your edited question still shows no physics question. Dec 26 '13 at 15:52
• I don't see how this is a physics question (which is the sole purpose of this site)
– user29350
Dec 27 '13 at 18:50