The Loch Ness Monster is one of those enigmatic mysteries that are so difficult to prove.  If there is a monster lurking under the water of the Loch, then it's being very elusive.  Of course, the water is deep and dark, making for a needle-in-a-haystack type of search. 

The main thrust of evidence for the Monster is eyewitness testimony.  If so many people are seeing weird things in the Loch, then something strange is going on.  But, as of now, there is no compelling evidence that suggests that the Loch Ness Monster is anything but a lively piece of folklore. 

There is a lot about the Loch that is mysterious that has nothing to do with the Monster.  It is a remote location, lying in the midst of dense forests 7 miles southwest of the city of Inverness.  The Loch also has the dubious distinction of being the former home of the black-magician, Aleister Crowley. 

I think the web page for The Loch Ness Monster Research Society sums it up best for us:

Science deals with facts, physical evidence upon which it can produce answers. No physical evidence has yet been found of the beast of Loch Ness, thus science can offer no positive
explanation for the sightings, other than optical illusions, misinterpretation of natural phenomena.

The only flaw in this logic is that it, if we read it correctly, takes a common view of "science," referring to it almost as an organization rather than as a method of discovery.  The Nessie researchers should use science to prove their theorem correct.  As yet, they have been unable to do so.  When they can offer some compelling scientific evidence that the Monster exists, then skeptics will have to admit the possibility.  Until then, it's all eyewitnesses and grainy photos.  That's just not enough! 

Further reading of The Loch Ness Monster Research Society shows that they understand that need for scientific proof.  To tell you the truth, I hope that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is one thing they can prove.