On the 25th anniversary of Operation Deepscan, The BBC have run an article and podcast on the Loch Ness Monster worth reading and listening to. Adrian Shine is interviewed on his times at Loch Ness and his views on the 79 year hunt and what may constitute the Loch Ness Monster. Jonathan Downes of CFZ also contributes.
The theme of not quite "getting there" in a final theory continues to this day as Adrian looked back on those three sonar contacts from 1987 which he says he cannot explain to this day. In fact, the general tone of the article may be summed up in one quote:
Nevertheless, Shine says it is hard to dismiss "the honesty and volume" of eyewitness testimony of the Loch Ness monster.
Now this raises a question with me. Adrian is honest enough to say he doesn't quite know what these sonar contacts are telling him. Yet, he could have simply said it was a seal or his favoured sturgeon. But it seems these explanations are inadequate as it was a bit deep for a seal (and did anyone in that mass of boats see a seal surfacing - as it must). As for a sturgeon, again I guess it did not pass muster.
So, fair enough, it was marked inconclusive. But 25 years on, should it still be marked inconclusive? After a quarter century, has no progress been made on what a seal sonar signature looks like or how a sturgeon would behave in Loch Ness? Perhaps the "inconclusive" tag is better served with a "waiting for an explanation" tag.
But if you run out of "normal" explanations, should there be a "sell by date" on them and tentatively conclude it could be an unknown and animate object?
P.S. They mentions "Doctor Who and the Zygons" which features a rather threatening Nessie. The sooner they get this on DVD the better ... perhaps next year?
www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/.../seals/special.asp
ReplyDeleteThe link shows that seals do dive to around 200 metres, and as both UK species have been recorded in Loch Ness they cannot be ruled out from the Loch Ness record.
Better tell Adrian Shine that ... he was non-commital on seals .. probably because they would have surely spotted them at the time.
DeleteMind you, why would any seal in its right mind dive 600ft into cold, pitch darkness with little hope of seeing its prey?
DeleteIt may in theory dive to these levels, but a reason to do so looks decidedly scarce.
Leave the bottom hunting to the specialised creatures ... Nessie!
If a sonar contact could be sustained, and shows no surfacing for a longer period of time than a seal can hold it's breath, then it's safe to rule out a seal as the identity of the contact. Googling this I just learned harbor seals can only hold their breath about 25 minutes, but the grey seal (which has been spotted and photographed in Loch Ness) can stay under for an hour! Hard to sustain sonar contact long enough to rule that out. But while seals can go deep and stay long, their motive is feeding. The fish in Loch Ness stay close to the surface though, so a deep sonar contact lasting even a few minutes is highly unlikely to be a seal. Page 126 of Mackal's "The Monsters of Loch Ness" shows a seal's diving profile overlayed on the sonar profile of an unidentified Loch Ness contact, and it's highly suggestive in that the two profiles are almost perfectly inverted. The seal is a surface dweller that dives steeply, and returns just as steeply to the surface. The unidentified contact rose just as steeply starting from the bottom, stops at mid-water and turns back just as steeply to return to the bottom, move along a bit, and then start another "upwards" dive. Mackal (rightly, I would say) concludes this is a signature profile for a benthic, water-breathing animal that comes up to hunt.
DeleteThe unidentified contact rose just as steeply starting from the bottom, stops at mid-water and turns back just as steeply to return to the bottom, move along a bit, and then start another "upwards" dive
DeleteThat is also the profile of a polypropylene mooring line as used by researchers at the loch in the 70's and 80's.
Do you have a source, link, reference for this statement?
DeleteThanks
Three separate sonar contacts at depths of 78 meters to 180 meters were made at three different locations and one of these contacts was followed for a couple of minutes. They were reported as being larger than Sharks indigenous to the Florida coast, but smaller than a Whale. They don't sound like mooring lines or Seals to me and even Adrian Shine & his team were baffled by the results saying that no creature known to inhabit Loch Ness could account for the readings. One would presume that creatures known to inhabit Loch Ness would include the occasional seal or two.
Delete...probably because they would have surely spotted them at the time.
ReplyDeleteI recommend a period of seal watching after which you may change your opinion! Your questions about any animal's motive for diving to 150 metres would also apply to your hypothetical fish-like amphibian, with the extra burden of being sluggish and cold-blooded.
If I was on my own, perhaps. But with a huge boat, media and support presence in 1987 watching the loch, no.
DeleteSince I take the view that the LNM is benthic, it does not dive down to feed. It rather rises up, but I don't think the LNM is a mid water creature by default.
I think I recognise the style - Mr Raynor?
DeleteImpossible, Dick NEVER posts anonymously!
DeleteTrue!
DeleteMost fish are cold blooded with a few exceptions. The blue fin tuna for example is neither cold or warm blooded but something between. They can selectively warm certain parts of themselves because they have very thin, closely meshed blood vessels that are a type of biological heat exchanger enabling them to regulate warmth with great efficiency. Because almost nothing is known about the LNM who is to say that it doesn't possess some similar unusual characteristic.
DeleteI agree, proposing such mechanisms should not be seen as over-complicating a theory. On the contrary, life is quite diverse in the "tools" employed for survival of the species.
DeleteThey will never understand that the serch must be done underwater,and with a video camera.On the surface or with sonar has always been a waste of time and effort.Do they really want to find what Nessie is?...or maybe they block the underwater video search for tourism purposes.SINCERITY. Sincerity is the virtue of one who speaks and acts truly about his or her own feelings, thoughts, and desires.Learn this Mr Adrian Shine.(With all repect).
ReplyDeleteSounds good in principle. Underwater television was used for some of Operation Deepscan and at other times but I got the impression it was there temporarily as part of an external cash injection (e.g. Deepscan) or some company was using Loch Ness for limited trials/tests of products.
DeleteROVs moving around the bottom of Loch Ness on a regular basis has its merits but the financial will to do it is not there. The Loch Ness centres at Drumnadrochit take in millions per year and just over the Grampians you have ROVs in regular use by the oil industry.
How much would an old device cost to buy? Unfortunately, the paymasters are not necessarily the researchers. I am sure Adrian Shine would love to have a ROV owned and in regular use. I can only assume the bill for initial cost and ongoing maintenance is too high for those with the money.
Well,then it should be a task for the Discovery Channel,The History Channel,or the Nat Geo.They are very good friends of James Cameron,you know,a two-hour-special episode would give them profits.Ten minisubs,equiped with Hi-tech cameras,all the technology available.It wouldn´t cost nothing to them,just a couple of cents.I personally think that there is no interest at all in finding these creatures,because they are not treated as creatures,but as myths and legends.Paul H Le Blonde is one of the best oceanographers in history,he´s been looking for Caddy in Canada since the late 70s,and he has always been kept aside by the scientific community,hes always been working on his own.And do you know why?...because scientists in general don´t accept cryptozoology as a serious matter.We only need a piece of underwater evidence,and everything will be as it should be.
DeleteI thought Nessies were supposed to be sensitive to noise and ROV's are very noisy machines. Ask any commercial diver.
DeleteTrue, no method is perfect. The pitch darkness and peat stained waters are a hindrance as well.
Delete