Finally, the two part episode of "River Monsters" at Loch Ness will be televised on British TV on 11th February at 7:30pm. Presumably, part two follows next week. This was first televised in the USA in May last year. More details here.
By some strange coincidence, I will be starting my talk on the Loch Ness Monster on the same day at the same time. Thank goodness for video recorders!
I won't spoil the surprise as to what he thinks Nessie is. While it was not what I was expecting it's a new thought. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter after you watch it.
ReplyDelete~Javiere
Yes, I got wind of his theory a while back. Well, it's not ne you generally hear. I'll hear him out first.
DeleteIt was boring, somewhat ignorant and repetitious. A poor effort.
DeleteI watched it and I was a bit underwhelmed. He didn't seem to take land sightings or long-neck sightings into account, plus I think at least some people that got a good look at Nessie would have recognized it for what he thinks it was (maybe not that exact species, but close enough... trying not to spoil it here). One interesting bit was an interview with an eyewitness who seemed credible and normal. I have a theory that many locals have seen Nessie and just don't want to be associated with the circus of it all.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise there. I guess Jeremy is not going for the plesiosaur theory then!
DeleteNo. There are shots of him poring over ancient records, but I think he's just using Nessie as an excuse to go after this other animal. One intriguing sequence about Nessie involves hump-sightings that look like overturned boats. That made me think of the current post on Steve's Loch Ness Salamander site, which came out long after this show aired.
DeleteSome folks don't want to be associated with reports of alien abductions or demonic possession, either -- especially when they turn their neighborhood into an international joke. And make no mistake: most people consider The Loch Ness Monster just that.
Delete" And make no mistake: most people consider The Loch Ness Monster just that."
DeleteAlways been that way since day one.
Hey GB, I just thought of something, there were many cases such as the Greta Finlay sighting and a few others where the observers have experienced abject terror having witnessed Nessie and from a distance at that. I know of no animal that has struck such fear into people from being viewed. I've seen Crocs and sharks in water and I was like cool, my butt was firmly planted with enough land between myself and them, but I wasn't terror stricken. Another curious thing about sightings, maybe something you could address in the future.
ReplyDelete~Javiere
Yes, some were terror stricken, but others were not. But I suspect the sight of that long neck and humps would inspire shock and awe.
DeleteNot to upset Mr Plambeck, but I suspect that this an argument against all long-neck sightings being salamander tails. What would make a leather-cheeked gamekeeper black out in the bottom of his rowing-boat or cause H. Cockrell to stop night-drifting?
Delete*AnonStg*
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSteve, Greta Finlay's close up view defies conventional expectations in that what we assume is the "head" is the first thing we instinctlively look at as potential prey (it contains the teeth and eyes fixed on you!). To see nothing in terms of eyes or mouth from 20 yards suggests there is more to the Loch Ness Monster head and neck than is normally discussed.
DeleteOf course, on the flip sceptical side, to not see a deer's eyes, ears and nose is an even more ridiculous proposition.
I'm late to the party it seems! I'd think a big enough tail under the right circumstances could terrify -- for all her reported fear which I quite take to have been genuine, Greta Finlay couldn't report the most distinguishing features that would have made a head a head: no eyes and no mouth, yet she probably had one of the closest sightings of anyone. The stalks are intriguing, but two knobs don't prove it was a head. Now for a lovely shot of a salamander tail (actually a California newt) doing a nice impersonation of a neck sighting, here's a shot I found on flickr:
Deletehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/kayucian/5527032775/
Even more fun, click two more into the slide show and there's a mating pair giving us a shot that could almost stand in for the Hugh Gray photo!
Now Cockrell did NOT report a long neck and tiny head: just the opposite. He reported a large head only a couple feet ahead of the back. With a wide mouth opening and closing to reveal a red interior. There's a front view headshot of A. davidianus with mouth wide open on my blog -- to have anything like THAT swimming towards you in a one man boat would scare anyone, even at the 6 foot scale of A. davidianus. Now imagine something like that but larger, coming up to have a look at you, alone in your kayak, out on Loch Ness, at night. Terrifying could be an understatement, even though it's "just" a salamander.
No problem, Steve!
DeleteThanks for that, Steve.
DeleteIf i'm sceptical of salamanders then that's what you get for encouraging me to read Holiday!
One or two questions, either to answer here or incorporate into a future blog:
1. If it's a tail that's above the water then does that mean that the creature is propelling itself backwards?
2. Slugs might be particularly sensitive to sharp noises and surface winds. How would a salamander react/
3. What would be the effect on salamander or slug physiology of rapid ascent or descent through several hundred feet of water?
4. Are there characteristic deformities of salamanders that would result in 'gargoyle' reports?
*AnonStg*
Had I known that would happen *AnonStg*, I'd have insisted you only read Ivan T. Sanderson's forward to Holiday's book, and stop immediately after Sanderson finishes extolling the many virtues of amphibians as the candidate!
DeleteWhatever their taxon, sightings suggest these animals have fairly strong paddle like appendages or flippers, so motion will always be possible in any direction independent of the long axis, that is the tail (or neck) pointing up or down. Now when the head/neck OR tail, whichever one calls it, is reported above water, the animals are reported to be stationary or moving slowly with only one or two witnesses having ever said otherwise! Which is what we should expect anyway, as no animal swims at high speed with any part significantly breaking the surface and creating drag.
I'll ponder the other questions. As to whether a slug or amphibian would be comfortable with rapid changes in depth I can't say, but that they should be capable of doing so is physically possible because they aren't encumbered by swim bladders, which limit the speed of depth changes in all ray-finned fish, including the eels.
And lest we forget, we have proof positive amphibians can be found at the bottom of the Loch: http://meta-religion.com/Zoology/Other/toad_loch_ness.htm#.UvArb5Fv2So
I haven't seen the show. A search on YouTube and Animal Planet website gives a hint of what Wade thinks the "culprit" of the sightings might be, but I'm not sure, as there are only snippits of the episode. I won't spoil the suspense for others, but on the face of it I think his theory is ridicules, if he means what I think he means. Another case of a naturalist with expertise in one field adapting his experience to a totally different situation. The locals know what they've seen, no need to convice them!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, I think I will find that Jeremy would have to stick to the River Monsters ethos rather than go off on the trajectories myself and others travel upon!
DeleteI just love that it sounds like Wade took one look at the loch in question, shuddered, and decided to hunt for the LOCH NESS Monster... elsewhere! Even if he found a giant unknown sea monster in Greenland, it still wouldn't have been the LOCH NESS Monster, now would it? :-) As it is, his proposed culprit is about the slowest swimming creature for its size in the sea, and apparently easily baited with meat on a hook. It's a bit insulting to every Nessie hunter there ever was to say it's something that couldn't outrun a rowboat, and comes up for dinner whenever called.
ReplyDeleteIts not a tail. Most sightings of head and neck say they are moving forward with head and neck at the front. .therefore cannot be a tail. Why do people miss these simple points?
ReplyDeleteI thinck wrong boy so dont spoil it.
ReplyDelete