Proof of Loch Ness Monster?

Starting way back in 1871 with Mackenzie (possibly even earlier) up to 2007 with Gordon Holmes there have been well over 100 sightings of the "Loch Ness Monster" and still most people question whether or not this creature exists. I have never personally seen it, but then again I have never seen a lot of things that I believe in.

How many things can you think of that you believe in? Have you seen any or all of them? Have you ever seen a dinosaur? Didn't think so. But you have seen their million year old bones, right? So what makes you believe? Why is it so difficult to believe that this type of thing can still exist?

It has been said that Nessy is a dinosaur. We believe that they existed 230 million years ago and yet we can't accept that this could be one. Is the fact that we have found their bones and not "Nessys" the only reason this can't be accepted?

There are animals that hibernate for long periods of time, awaiting the next desert storm, buried deep in the sand. In close relation to hibernation is estivation, a dormant period of escape from heat and drought. Other ways animals avoid excessively high or low temperatures and destructive increases or decreases in the water supply are encystment and the following dormancy. So could it be that the "Loch Ness Monster" hibernated for many years awaiting a suitable environment?

So why do we need to spend so much time trying to disprove something of this sort?

I believe that people spend WAY too much time and money trying to prove what is fact and what is fiction, about things that aren't all that important. Why not go spend that time and money trying to cure diseases and or something that will help people with things that we already know are factual? Just think how far Cancer or HIV research could be with all that extra funding and time.

If in fact the "Loch Ness Monster" does exist, it has been there for a very long time without hurting anyone or anything. There aren't any reports of it eating small children in the area or anything. In fact the research has not, so far as I can tell, even figured out what it does eat. This tells me that this creature isn't even making enough of a dent in it's surroundings to be of any kind of threat.

This is simply my point of view, I know. But I think "faith" or "belief" is enough in some situations. And the kind of situation where the money is virtually being wasted to prove or disprove a thing, when there are SO many areas that it could be better applied, benefits nobody! What good does the scientific community gain from proving or disproving the Loch Ness Moster exists? How will it help the world?

If I seem cynical to you, understand this. I believe in faeries! And the power and "personality" I have from my love of faeries is shared with friends and family everyday. It's something I wouldn't trade about myself for all the "proof" in the world. And a LOT of Scotland's people in the surrounding country side, that have a LITERAL affection for "the guardian of the loch", would lose something that is part of who they are.

Quite literally, the "mystery" needs to stay "mysterious" sometimes. Or it's just another thing. Sometimes things are special because they are mysterious. And some things should be special. If the Loch Ness Monster IS real, then the only explanation possible is... something special.