Cryptid File 001C The Loch Ness Monster, "Nessie"

My Thoughts: When I was a kid, I fervently believed in the Loch Ness Monster. On any given day you could ask me, and my immediate response would be "Of course the Loch Ness Monster is real! It's a Plesiosaurus! Bigfoot's the fake one!". The problem was, I was a dino-nut as a kid (well... I still am.), and as soon as I heard that Nessie might be a relic Plesiosaur, it was on like donkey kong. The idea of a modern-day Plesiosaurus was just too cool for me to ignore, and I just kind of set it in my mind that it had to be real.
Over the years, my opinion on this iconic cryptid has changed a lot. Putting aside the overwhemling cool-factor of a surviving prehistoric animal and looking over the details, I've lost a lot of my faith in this one's existence.
For starters, there's the problem of what kind of animal it would be. Is it a Plesiosaur? A long-necked seal? An eel? A newt? There are a lot of suggestions, but none of them really hold water. A Plesiosaur hasn't got the neck structure to rear it's head out of the water in the famous "S" pattern, and being probably cold-blooded, they wouldn't be able to survive the low temperatures of the loch. One might argue that the Plesiosaurs in Loch Ness have evolved to be warm blooded- but in that case (this is a problem with the seal theory as well), the increased metabolism would mean that they'd need to eat much more often- and, even though it's got more fish in it than we once thought, Loch Ness hasn't got a food supply big enough to feed a healthy population of warmblooded, twenty-foot long predators.
Also, if they were Plesiosaurs or seals, that would mean they would be air breathers- and if that were so, and there were a whole population of them, we'd be seeing numerous Nessies surfacing throughout the day. And if they were giant seals, they'd be sunbathing on the shore, wouldn't they?
The other theories, like eels and amphibians and such, lose credit in my eyes because 1.) The difference in size between the reported creatures and the average representative of that group is waaay too big and 2.) The behavior of swimming along the surface, head above the water, is not something that any fish or amphibian does, at least as far as I know.
Throw in the fact that glacial ice pretty much kills the "Mesozoic ocean-goer gets trapped in Loch Ness" theory and that recent mapping of the Loch's floor has largely debunked the "Nessie's hiding in underground caverns" idea and you kind of get the impression that the Loch Ness Monster is running out of excuses. While theres still some photographs left unaccounted for, Loch Ness seems to be teeming with mirrages, optical illusions, easily misidentified wildlife, hoaxers, and tourism loving locals. There's no doubt in my mind that most of the eyewitnesses who visit Loch Ness are sincere, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have made an error in judgement when they had their sighting.
Then again, there are a few sightings and photographs which seem pretty hard to explain away, and though a lot of the scans come up empty handed, I do find it weird that some of them catch readings of creatures that are too large to be native animals and don't disperse like schools of fish.
So, while I currently don't think this creature exists, I'm still keeping an open mind. Afterall, there are Lake Monsters than I think to be the real deal, and nature has a funny way of throwing curve balls at you. So, I'll say that I don't think that there's a Loch Ness Monster now- but on the inside, I'm kinda hoping that I get proven wrong someday.