Wednesday, 24 August 2011

ABOUT THIS BLOG

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
Proverbs 18:17


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 shimei123@yahoo.co.uk

LEGAL STUFF

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!

Finally, the blog's policy on moderating comments can be found here.









10 comments:

  1. nice blog bro

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi
    I came across your blog when I was doing research for my own blogpost about mythical creature tourism. I was interested to discover the destinations you write about - it's always fun to hear about unusual travel destinations.
    Here's the blogpost I published recently; I get the feeling it might also be interesting for your readers, so feel free to use it how you will:
    http://blog.easytobook.com/cool-stuff/mythical-tours/

    Raissa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks,

      I estimate the Nessie in your picture is about one mile across!

      Delete
  3. Hi, Glasgow Boy! I want to know what, exactly, your opinion is, about Nessie's identity. In other words, what do you think the Loch Ness Monster is? Personally, I believe that it is most likely to be a giant, long-necked pinniped. However, I would love to know what your opinion is! Thanks! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is by far the best Nessie source of info I have come across ! I have scoured many sources too. Keep up the great work !! This blog is awesome, Cheers from Niagara Falls Canada

    ReplyDelete
  5. Charlie Niven20 May 2013 00:47

    Really impressive blog-probably one of the best around in any category.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A quick note of thanks from some one who has searched for a long time for somewhere on the internet which takes the Loch Ness Mystery seriously, thank you so much for this blog.
    I was aged 6 in 1975 and can clearly remember the media hype around the Rines photos, to the extent that I made the Blue Peter Nessie (I'm sure John Noakes made it) with my Mun and sisters.
    I visited the Loch in the late 70s and spent the night in my with my Dad and sister in his old Vauxhall Astra at Foyers carpark and had the dubious pleasure of meeting Frank Searle and visiting his expedition and even as a youngster of 10 thought he was an arse!
    I also corresponded with Tim Dinsdale and one of my treasures is a hand written letter he sent me, it is a mark of the man that he took the time to write to me.
    I thought I had a good collection of Nessie books but one look at your library would suggest otherwise!
    I do have a first editions though of the original Tim Dinsdale's book and the outstanding Peter Costello book, which I would suggest is a 'must have' for any keen student of the genre.
    I would also suggest 'Sea Serpents and Lake Monsters of the British Isles' by Paul Harrison as a good book to have.
    I would like to know in the opinion of this blog as to the reason for the decrease in the number sightings in the last few decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Tom!

      I didn't get to the loch until 1982. It was a memorable visit. I wish I had looked up Tim Dinsdale, not knowing he would be pass away five years later. He was one of the good guys.

      The decrease in Nessie sightings is a controversial question. It is (IMO) down to a combnation of factors.

      1. A noisier loch keeps Nessie further down.
      2. The Nessie population has decreased due to lower fish stocks.
      3. Sightings are being reported less due to prevailing scepticism.

      Delete