Is Nessie Out There? Keep Your Eye on This Loch Ness Livestream to Find Out

Wouldn't you love to go down in history as the person who proved the existence of the Loch Ness Monster?
Wouldn't you love to go down in history as the person who proved the existence of the Loch Ness Monster?
heywoody/iStock via Getty Images

Thanks to Nessie On the Net, a website devoted to researching—and spotting—the Loch Ness Monster, you can now keep one eye on the lake from anywhere at any time.

The 24-hour livestream is broadcast from a hilltop property in the Scottish Highlands that offers an idyllic view of a sheep’s pasture (featuring a couple sheep themselves, if you’re lucky) with Loch Ness beyond it. Given the placidity of the water, it wouldn’t be hard to notice a massive sea creature breaking through the surface.

The first sighting of Nessie dates back to the 6th century, when Saint Columba is said to have saved a man from an aquatic beast by commanding that it return to the depths of Loch Ness. The legend of such a monster continued to crop up intermittently throughout the following centuries, gaining fame in 1933 after the Inverness Courier reported two locals had seen “an enormous animal rolling and plunging on the surface.”

The next year, the London Daily Mail published a grainy photograph of a long-necked creature taken by physician R. Kenneth Wilson—causing people to nickname the evidence “the surgeon’s photograph”—which greatly expanded Nessie’s notoriety. The photo was proven fake in the 1990s, but that hasn’t stopped people from believing in the existence of some type of animal in the lake. Theorists have suggested that Nessie is actually a sturgeon, a giant eel, or even an elephant.

Even if you don’t catch a glimpse of a mysterious beast, the livestream makes for a nice, calming addition to your computer screen—here are seven other livestreams worth checking out, too.

[h/t Nessie On the Net]

Looking to Downsize? You Can Buy a 5-Room DIY Cabin on Amazon for Less Than $33,000

Five rooms of one's own.
Five rooms of one's own.
Allwood/Amazon

If you’ve already mastered DIY houses for birds and dogs, maybe it’s time you built one for yourself.

As Simplemost reports, there are a number of house kits that you can order on Amazon, and the Allwood Avalon Cabin Kit is one of the quaintest—and, at $32,990, most affordable—options. The 540-square-foot structure has enough space for a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom, and a sitting room—and there’s an additional 218-square-foot loft with the potential to be the coziest reading nook of all time.

You can opt for three larger rooms if you're willing to skip the kitchen and bathroom.Allwood/Amazon

The construction process might not be a great idea for someone who’s never picked up a hammer, but you don’t need an architectural degree to tackle it. Step-by-step instructions and all materials are included, so it’s a little like a high-level IKEA project. According to the Amazon listing, it takes two adults about a week to complete. Since the Nordic wood walls are reinforced with steel rods, the house can withstand winds up to 120 mph, and you can pay an extra $1000 to upgrade from double-glass windows and doors to triple-glass for added fortification.

Sadly, the cool ceiling lamp is not included.Allwood/Amazon

Though everything you need for the shell of the house comes in the kit, you will need to purchase whatever goes inside it: toilet, shower, sink, stove, insulation, and all other furnishings. You can also customize the blueprint to fit your own plans for the space; maybe, for example, you’re going to use the house as a small event venue, and you’d rather have two or three large, airy rooms and no kitchen or bedroom.

Intrigued? Find out more here.

[h/t Simplemost]

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

New Study Suggests That Raphael Died from Bloodletting and Pneumonia—Not Syphilis

Fever in the mornin', fever all through the night.
Fever in the mornin', fever all through the night.
Raphael, Uffizi Museum, Wikimedia Commons // Public Domain

On April 6, 1520, Italian painter Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino—better known as Raphael—died at just 37 years old from what was reported to be a fever. While the last 500 years have given rise to various theories about the details of this illness, the most popular explanation is that Raphael’s excessive philandering led to a fatal case of syphilis.

His free-loving lifestyle wasn’t exactly a secret, and painter Giorgio Vasari popularized the idea that this behavior was linked to his untimely demise in his 1550 book, The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects:

"Meanwhile, pursuing his amours in secret, Raffaello continued to divert himself beyond measure with the pleasures of love; whence it happened that, having on one occasion indulged in more than his usual excess, he returned to his house in a violent fever. The physicians, therefore, believing that he had overheated himself, and receiving from him no confession of the excess of which he had been guilty, imprudently bled him, insomuch that he was weakened and felt himself sinking; for he was in need rather of restoratives."

But a new study published in the journal Internal and Emergency Medicine suggests that Raphael’s fever was a symptom of pneumonia—not venereal disease—and the doctors’ ill-conceived attempts to treat the infection with bloodletting contributed to his death. Sources from the time state that Raphael had a high, continuous fever that lasted anywhere from eight to 15 days, which a disease like syphilis wouldn’t typically cause.

“A recent sexually transmitted infection—such as gonorrhea and syphilis—could not explain the incubation period,” the study explains. “Similarly an acute manifestation of viral hepatitis could not be considered without jaundice and other signs of liver failure.”

Since there are no records of any typhus or plague outbreaks in Rome from that time period, and because Raphael didn’t appear to have any intestinal symptoms, University of Milan-Bicocca historian Michele Augusto Riva and other authors of the study landed on pneumonia as the most likely culprit. Though 16th-century physicians wouldn’t customarily treat respiratory diseases with bloodletting, it seems that Raphael didn’t give them much information to go on.

“[W]e are sure that bloodletting contributed to Raphael’s death," Augusto Riva told The Guardian. "Physicians of that period were used to practicing bloodletting for the treatment of different diseases, but it would not generally be used for diseases of the lungs. In the case of Raphael, he did not explain the origin of the disease or his symptoms and so the physician incorrectly used bloodletting.”

Draining a patient’s blood while he fights off a high fever seems like a painfully dimwitted idea by today’s standards, but it definitely wasn’t the worst remedy that Renaissance doctors had in their arsenal—read about 11 other wild ones here.

[h/t The Guardian]