Just arrived today in the post and I will presently be reading their section on Nessie for review on amazon.com and on this blog. The Nessie section is just under 60 pages, so there is something to get one's critical teeth into.
I see some have posted reviews solely on their Sasquatch section and panned it. The members of the choir the authors are preaching to have not surprisingly acclaimed it. I wonder how many of them have a half decent knowledge of the Loch Ness Monster story to critique it against? You can be sure I will be thorough in how they treat my favourite cryptid.
Glasgow Boy how do I contact you re this footage I shot.
ReplyDeleteDavid Elder
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402134/Could-finally-proof-Nessie-exists-Amateur-photographer-snaps-large-black-object-moving-beneath-waters-Loch-Ness.html
David,
Deleteshimei123@yahoo.co.uk
Look forward to chatting
Hello Mr Elder, I was led to expect a call from you some time ago regarding your footage. If you wish to discuss it with me please contact me via my gmail address.
DeleteIts just algae propelled by decomposing logs mr raynor.nothing to see here..
DeleteThere is precious little algae in Loch Ness and I have never seen a decomposing log propelling anything at all. I did however film a similar Nessie a couple of days ago and I have added it to my website at http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Oddities3.htm
DeleteThere have been many strange waves on the loch -- and even more sceptics willing to debunk them.
ReplyDeleteIt's the Toblerone-shaped ending to this one that gets me.
*AnonStg*
It's a 400 page book, I would rather get the focus of the review done right away. I will of course state that the review refers to the Loch Ness Monster chapter only.
ReplyDeleteIt seems perfectly reasonable to me that people should comment according to their own area of expertise and knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI mean amazon and here.
ReplyDeleteI would add that I am not qualified to speak on the other chapters. In fact, I doubt some of the published reviewers are either. Based on the errors, weak assumptions, inaccuracies, omissions and good points I have so far found in the Nessie chapter, it would be a reasonable assumption to assume this standard propopogates through the rest of the book.
ReplyDeleteBut if I only had a passing acquaintance with the subject of the Loch Ness Monster, would I have noticed any of this and given it five stars?
Sharon, if I was ready to give 5 stars based on a partial reading, I don't think you would be so upset. :)
ReplyDeleteI see that I am not the only one lumping crypto zoology and creationism into the same category. ;)
ReplyDeleteEasy to lump ... but ridiculous. Proponents (some sceptics don't like "believe" even though they will use the term themselves) have sightings, video and film. Just because a sceptic disagrees with this evidence of course does not render them redundant - it's all about opinions.
ReplyDeleteComparing acceptance of a sighting report from (say) 2010 with acceptance of a text from Genesis written thousands of years ago is just plain stupid and probably a form of trolling!
Neither stupid nor trolling. Both require faith, boersatz personal missions, and both require a refusal to accept facts that discredit belief.
ReplyDeleteThis blog exists to dispute these so called "facts".
ReplyDeleteSo does AnswersInGenesis.org. That still doesn't mean that speculation trumps data and hard science gathered by professionals rather than dedicated amateurs..
ReplyDeleteThere are no "professionals" involved in the Loch Ness mystery.
Delete"Professionals" have weighed in every step of the way.
Delete