The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
If I had to compose a mission statement for this blog it would probably go along the lines of "To reclaim the Loch Ness Monster". Because when it all boils down, there are essentially two competing theories to explain what people claim to see in Loch Ness. The first is that there is a large, unidentified creature (or creatures) in Loch Ness and the second is that all witnesses have either misidentified natural phenomema or have hoaxed their story. It's as simple as that and you take your position accordingly.
Since the 1980s and the publication of "The Loch Ness Mystery Solved" by Ronald Binns in 1984 and "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence" by Steuart Campbell in 1986, things began to turn more towards the "natural" theory as opposed to the "monster" theory. The excitement of the 1970s with the various pictures and expeditions was over and the vacuum was filled by a more skeptical line of enquiry.
This began to gain some extra impetus with the arrival of the likes of Richard Dawkins last decade and his polemic style against the general belief that he may call the "incredulous" or "unscientific". Though targetted at supernatural beliefs, Nessie also became fair game for the "logicians".
This is reflected in the stance of those who are willingly or unwillingly defined as experts on the subject by the media whenever a photograph, film or sighting is reported. They explain it away as something perfectly natural and that is the end of the subject.
So this website comes in to that general environment with several aims.
1. Demonstrate the inadequacies of the "natural" theory when examined against various cases.
2. Promote and discuss the "monster" theory where possible in its various aspects.
3. Keep up to date on the latest sightings and ideas.
4. Provide information on the historical aspects of the Loch Ness Monster going back to the genre of folklore.
5. Examine the cultural aspects of the whole phenomemon.
Now this does not mean that the aim of this website is to try and prove that every photograph, film and witness report is of a large unknown creature. Clearly, misidentification and hoax has played its part in the Loch Ness Monster story and it would be fanatical to pretend otherwise. It goes without saying that "evidence" such as the photographs of Frank Searle are hoaxes. I also accept that the 1975 Rines photographs are misidentification. I accept (with some reservation) that the Surgeon's Photograph is a hoax. That list is not exhaustive and regular readers of this blog will know that evidence that has been classed as hoax or misidentification has been challenged already here.
So, the evidence is there. It is a matter of challenging the assumptions and explanations proffered by skeptics and prove that there is more to this subject than mere waves, logs and otters.
The head shot of Nessie in the Gray photograph symbolises the clash of theories for me. It's a dead swan's arse, it's a trick of the light, it's a wave. Look more closely though and you will see a fish like head looking at you with its beady eye, mouth open in a laughing manner almost saying "Catch me if you can!" to all of us whichever side of the debate we are on.
Those who wish to contact me on this subject can do so by email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Various third party images and quotes are used under fair use legal guidelines. In other words, in such instances the permission of the copyright owner is not required. However, out of courtesy, the blog endeavours to attribute the image or quote the author with an appropriate reference. Any such lapses, please email me to sort out the attribution.
Where it is felt that permission of the copyright owner is required, we do so. However, note three circumstances where this is impractical:
1. The provenance of the work is not known.
2. The presumed author is known but there is no practical way to contact them.
3. The author has been contacted but has not replied in a reasonable time.
In those three circumstances, the blog uses the work anyway. If an owner of a copyrighted work feels fair use is not applicable then please contact me. Note I may ask you to prove you are the copyright owner!