Saturday, 8 February 2014

First blank Year since 1925?

Gary Campbell, president of the Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, has been quoted as claiming that 2013 was the first year in which no there were no sightings of the Loch Ness Monster since 1925. You can read the story here and here amongst others.

He admits that people did come forward on three occasions claiming to have spotted the creature, but these have been dismissed as waves and a duck. I presume one of the reports was the wave-like Nessie or Nessie-like wave filmed by David Elder last August. That one is certainly in the inconclusive category which leads to a problem in deciding what is and what is not a Loch Ness Monster sighting.

In fact, it depends who you ask. Ask any of the leading sceptics whether such and such is a sighting of Nessie and you will get the answer "No" at all times in all places. In other words, no sightings ever since 1925. Ask people such as myself, Gary Campbell, Steve Feltham or other pro-Nessie researchers and you will get a "Yes", "No" or "Don't Know" depending on the case.

The other point is that there is often a delayed reaction in people coming forward with accounts, sometime decades past. The classic example is 1933 when the monster hit the headlines and people started to come forward with stories of sightings going back 40 years!

So I am confident not only that the creature has been spotted in 2013 but that these stories will be forthcoming in due time.

In fact, I have already mentioned a story which has "Nessie" written on it for me. To requote from my review of 2013, it appeared on the Facebook page of the cruise company, Cruise Loch Ness. It goes like this:  

Three different people came to the Wheelhouse today to tell me that they had seen something in the Loch on the 2 o clock cruise. They all described a long black thing on the surface behind the 'Royal Scot' it was visible for a few seconds before disappearing. I wish they'd said something when they were watching it, as I was busy looking where we were going and missed it !! 

This happened on April 5th just the day before the "Nessie at 80" Edinburgh Symposium. The skipper, Marcus Atkinson, gave me further details: 

I was skippering the Royal Scot when this happened, and it was me that posted on Facebook. It is unusual because, over the last few years no-one has ever mentioned seeing anything, then on one trip three different people from different parts of the boat came to the wheelhouse and mentioned seeing something? I remember that it was a flat day with no wind, and everyone pointed to the same spot on the loch.

At the time I didn't think much about it because - they were all pointing to the place on the Loch where the Royal Scot turns around. This off the horseshoe scree and on a windless day the wake from our voyage up will slowly move across the Loch, at times it does look like several humps moving across the water. Because I didn't see it, it's hard to say anything really. Other than I wish someone had pointed it out at the time!



102 comments:

  1. None of the 3 separate people carried cameras or phones on a Highland tourist cruise? That is remarkably strange!! Please post this comment Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think you have read the accounts properly, else you would have not said this.

      Delete
    2. Ok please enlighten me. As far as I can tell, 3 people claim to have briefly seen a dark shape while on a Loch Ness sight-seeing cruise - surely a time when virtually everyone would have a proper camera or their phone at the ready - yet no one clicked. Again. What detail am I missing?

      Delete
    3. The only mystery at Loch Ness is how no one manages to reach into the pocket to grab their camera phone. Or perhaps real the mystery is how one can insist on cherry-picking facts to support their stance rather than exercising common sense.

      Delete
    4. People do reach for their camera phones, you're making this up!

      Delete
    5. Then where are the videos?

      Delete
    6. They'r eout there, but they don't meaure up to your "high" standards. Tell me, where are the videos of the Loch Ness Sturgeon espoused by Adrian Shine? I don't see you taking him to task over the absence of evidence for his theory!

      Delete
  2. As far as I can tell this is just on the word of the cruise operator. Can't find any details of the "three people".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have met and chatted with Marcus on several occasions by email and face to face. I am happy with the trustworthiness of his account.

      Delete
    2. That's all very nice, but it means absolutely nothing except that believers can sleep comfortably tonight knowing that someone thinks they saw The Loch Ness Monster last year, and because of this, there's still a Loch Ness Monster to go on believing in. I suppose if someone told you they saw Santa Claus, then we can go on believing in him, too?

      Delete
  3. Well, spotting Nessie is an arduous task. For instance, Tim Dinsdale saw the monster in ONLY three occasions during 27 years watching the loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too right, and of one those was a "flash" sighting. As seasoned monster hunter, Alastair Boyd, said after being transfixed by a large hump sighting, he defied anyone to just pick up their camera and take a shot.

      Of course, some can but his point was that seeing the monster is not like spotting a cat or dog ....

      Delete
    2. It's absurd that people believe tales like Marjory Moir's where it's reported that an animal brazenly gives a spectacular display for 14 minutes, or Dinsdale's surface film where a "hump" travels on the surface for a considerable distance, or reports of Nessie sunning herself at the side of the loch, or 3 baby Bessie's closely following a family yacht... yet also believing that Nessie will only give a 2 second glimpse of herself now we all have camera phones and so many visit the loch with high quality DSLRs (yes they do). The paucity of any good photos or videos just cannot be reconciled with the older reports of lengthy views of a monster.

      Delete
    3. Excuses. Come on, people. I "saw" The Loch Ness Monster and not only had the time to grab a camera, but I changed batteries, as well.

      Delete
    4. You forget sightings are down since the 1930s and 60s. You also give a false impression here, events like the Moir and Dinsdale events are very rare.

      Delete
    5. I do not regard your "sighting" as any kind of benchmark in this discussions, especially when you refuse to show us what you photographed.

      Delete
    6. I don't regard it as a benchmark, either -- because it was a disturbance on the water that I had the sense to recognize as such. But since you insist on missing the point, I'll spell it out (in caps): I SAW SOMETHING STRANGE, AND I FILMED IT.

      Delete
    7. Without seeing it, it is pointless discussing it further.

      Delete
  4. The only real mystery at Loch Ness is how we continue to take eyewitness sightings seriously in the era of the iPhone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you overrate the iPhone's camera.

      Delete
    2. No GB, they are pretty good. Enough pixels for a scenario like the one described above to be worth photographing. If the dark shape was clear enough to be "the monster", then it was clear enough to get on camera or camera phone. If it wasn't clear enough then it has to be filed under "inconclusive".

      Delete
    3. I don't think so. I have taken comparison shots with a real camera, they're crap. And, anyway, it's not likely you would suddenly become a "believer" on the production of a picture of a dark shape in the water. You would always come up with an alternate explanation, no matter how daft it was. Hence the pointlessness of this discussion.

      Delete
    4. True, a dark patch is just a dark patch. You on the other hand probably consider it prof of a monster.
      I've just watched a YouTube video of Rines' final sonar trip where they spent 12 days scouring the loch bed with sonar to locate any lumps and bumps, in order to find a carcass. Plenty of lumps found, but no carcasses. Presumably your monsters neither sink nor float when they die.

      Delete
    5. Some I do, some I don't.

      All carcasses hit the bottom, but that is another article....

      Delete
    6. Hello Gatekeeper ekm...you are failing at your job.occult science dictatorship pdf william lyne.

      Delete
    7. I wasn't aware that I was failing at anything, nor was I aware that I had a "job" in regards to pseudoscience.

      Regardless: the burden of proof lies with the believers. I don't need to prove anything -- quite the opposite, actually.

      And whether or not the iPhone is as good a camera as the Red Epic is meaningless, and another attempt to dodge the issue. A bad video is still a video to support a claim. This isn't 1933. There's NO excuse for eyewitness testimony, alone and undocumented. We live in a different age now. Wake up.

      Delete
  5. It's like you do everything possible to avoid the point at hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Translation: you don't accept my point of view, ekm! Just because I give a point of view you don't accept, does not make it any less what it is.

      You're overegging the iPhone pudding, to mangle a well known phrase.

      Delete
    2. I note the conspicuous absence of Campbell's comment about camera phones in your above article.

      Delete
    3. How so? The article is not about cameras, it's about the lack of sightings in 2013.

      Delete
    4. "Everyone carries a camera with them these days," said Mr Campbell, explaining that in the past, eye-witness accounts were taken at face value.

      "People can now take a picture of what they see and that gives you a clear idea of what people are reporting.

      "In years gone by, people rarely carried a camera. If they did, by the time they got it out and were ready for taking a photograph, whatever it was had gone. Thirty years ago, we would take people at their word.

      "Nowadays, we don’t have to rely on eye-witness evidence. People are still seeing things in Loch Ness but they have much better technology."

      Sounds like even the believers are seeing the issue you're choosing to ignore. The fact that you refuse to address it speaks volumes.

      Delete
    5. I don't think Gary Campbell can be referred in the plural as "believers". Again, calm down, you'll get your article on cameras. I do my main talking in articles, not hidden in comments that few will read.

      Delete
  6. Back in 2010 Richard Preston took a picture with a camera phone of something in the Loch opposite Aldourie Castle. The image was of reasonable quality but still wasn't considered by many to be anything more than light reflections of some kind on the waters surface. I believe that Adrian Shine was the main proponent of this explanation, saying that it was just a reflection from the white house on the hill in the background. It could be as easy to say that it was a disturbance in the water caused by something momentarily breaking the surface, as Mr Preston thought it was. I,m with GB on this one regarding camera phones and they were considered to take good quality images back in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thought EKM didnt believe in the monster. So why does he spend all his time on these sites? Numpty

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comments sections seemed to be filled more with sceptics' comments than others. Must be trying to convert me, it won't work.

      Delete
    2. I hardly spend all my time here, Dennis, but even if I did, why should a lack of belief equal a lack of interest? Use your brain.

      Delete
  8. Anyone else noticed a huge contradiction here? Glasgow Boy dismisses iPhone photos as poor quality, yet champions hazy, blurred old photos like Lachlan Stuart's and Hugh Gray's and the Dinsdale "boat filmed through a net curtain" movie!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hazy to you perhaps .... not me.
      I also champion recent photos, get it right!

      Delete
    2. Chasing Leviathan15 February 2014 at 13:44

      If I may, can I please ask you to clarify your "boat filmed through a net curtain" statement? Are you commenting on the unclear nature of the film, or are you suggesting Mr Dinsdale was responsible for a deliberate hoax?

      Delete
    3. I presume it is a reference to the theory that Tim Dinsdale filmed the object with his car window rolled up - which may or may not mean anything.

      Delete
    4. I merely meant the film looks like a boat filmed through a net curtain, because it's so hazy. I don't actually think a net curtain was used.
      I don't think it was a hoax, but I am 100% certain it was a boat. After seeing the frame overlays there's no other logical conclusion.

      Delete
    5. Chasing Leviathan16 February 2014 at 11:52

      Thanks for the reply. I agree with you the film is so unclear that identification of the object is all but impossible by simply viewing it in isolation. I also agree the video stacking exercise has raised a valid alternative explanation to the animal theory. I think it is certainly possible Tim Dinsdale made an honest mistake and I think none the less of him for that.

      But I think the jury's still out on this one for me. Dr Henry Bauer has raised some interesting points in the film's defence and I'd like to see further debate on this crucial piece of evidence (and ideally repetitions of the image-stacking exercise to prove repeatability, though I suspect time and money may be a problem here) before it is consigned to the 'Misidentification' file.

      And thanks for the car window theory, GB. I've heard this one before. I suppose it is possible that might have been the case, though Mr Dinsdale's own description of events in LOCH NESS MONSTER suggests otherwise, (though the language is just ambiguous enough to be unable to rule it out entirely). Sadly, the only person who could settle the question one way or the other is no longer with us.

      However, if the photograph he took showing the camera position in his car when he took the film is accurate, there's no question about it - the window was down and the lens was outside the window frame.

      Delete
  9. Hello, GB,

    You may have addressed this point before, but I notice in this sighting the water was described as 'flat calm'. It seems that many of the sightings occur under these conditions. A flat calm surface would enhance sightings, of course, but it makes me wonder if the atmospheric conditions that cause 'flat calm surfaces' could be used as an indicator for future potential sightings. Perhaps Nessie surfaces during rough water conditions, but somehow I doubt this. It seems to me a stable water column, i.e. a 'flat calm', is preferred by Nessie. In your data base, do you consider weather conditions, temperature, barometric pressure ?

    Regards,

    richard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was always said that bright, calm conditions were "Nessie Weather" but I wonder how much that was more observer oriented? I suspect the Loch Ness Monster does not care what the surface conditions are like and is motivated by other instinctive factors.

      Delete
    2. I don't know if the evidence is good enough to tell us whether the animals prefer calm, sunny weather (which is of course plausible) - as GB implies better visibility (and simply more watchers - more people visit the loch in summer, though I've always been a depth of winter visitor) could easily account for this.

      Delete
  10. There were sightings of f the royal scot fort augustus in april and a sighting from invermorriston in july so yes there was sightings in 2013

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, you got a source for the July sighting?

      Delete
  11. Hmm Raynor, Shine, EKM, all skeptics but once believers! Sounds like sour grapes to me that they have not seen anything. A case of ' i havnt seen it so it cant be true' !! Why else are they still involved in the mystery??? If you dont believe you dont bother simple as that !! 3 men gutted because they have not seen the monster! They cant hack the fact that other simple people have seen the monster and they have not , despite their so called expertise @

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you were right, I would agree with you.

      Delete
    2. So we're not allowed to comment on Loch Ness unless we believe in a monster for which there is no evidence? Good grief. When I read things like that I can see why belief in Nessie persists among a tiny proportion of our adult population.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Dennis, hard to figure out. Dick Raynor is a strange mixture of skeptic, researcher, engineer and tour boat skipper, had ties to the defunct LNIB and once filmed a disturbance in the loch which has been judged by other researchers as genuine and by the late Roy Mackal no less. Adrian Shine was at one time affiliated with the LNIB also, presently, I believe, founder, operator and curator of the Loch Ness Exhibition Center devoted to showcasing the Loch Ness phenomenon. I don’t know much about EKM, other than that he is a film maker, once believed in Mokele-embembe or still does, persistent skeptic on this blog and an annoying thorn in the side to GB I would assume. All three once open to the possibility. Why they are still involved in the mystery is a mystery to me also, go figure. If there is nothing to it, leave it alone. But everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, live and let live, I say.

      Delete
    4. It's a bit like ex-alcoholics, once they are off the drink, some of think we should all be teetotal!

      Delete
    5. Possibly, but having met Dick Raynor I have the utmost respect for his approach. It's fine to be sceptical, actually it's healthy, but there are things in Loch Ness which aren't explained even by someone of Dick's intimate knowledge. Unlike some other former researchers he has not taken a dogmatic 'no monster is possible' line

      Delete
    6. Not sure about that, Ben. When a straw poll was conducted at last year's "Nessie at 80" symposium, I am pretty sure Dick put up his hand when those who did not believe in a Loch Ness Monster were asked to put up their hands.

      Delete
    7. Whats going on is explained in the book ,Occult Science Dictatorship,availiable as a free pdf.The powers that be,use Synergy,to sabatoge,disrupt and co-op thought consensus to their masters approved outcome.ekm is a classic minion.raynor,dale drinnion and his moose in the water also.The nwo,will insert a minion into a book club recently formed no matter how small who will volunteer to print flyers,run errands etc,and to manipulate using trained psych tech to controll the general opinion toward his bosses desired outcome.the elite are control freaks.

      Delete
    8. I might normally be offended by being labelled a "minion," but considering the above comments are the paranoid ramblings of a confused conspiracy theorist without grasp of spelling, punctuation, or the use of a space bar, I'll consider a compliment. Better to be a minion than emotionally and intellectually compromised!

      Delete
    9. Being asked whether or not you "believe" in the "monster" is kind of a loaded question, reminds me of the one "have you stopped beating your wife?" Those that know me know that I'm extremely optimistic about an unidentified species of bottom-dwelling well-hidden animals being at large in Loch Ness. But to "believe" in a finding before it's actually made is perilous to the scientific method. Words matter. Not sure I'd have put my hand up at that meeting either.

      Delete
    10. Temperature rising here, I will being to delete comments ...

      Delete
  12. Deep down they all still think there is something in the mystery otherwise they would not still be coming on these sites. Simple as !! If you dont believe 100% then you would not bother! Laughable really.EKM said he took a video of what he thought was a monster on his one and only visit then after realising he made a pratt of himself filming the wind hitting the loch decided nessie didnt exist !! Lol i wish someone could of filmed him running up and down the shore shouting to his wife ' its nessie its nessie ' ! Ha ha what an idiot lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a very firm non-believer, yet I find the subject enthralling from a psychological and sociological perspective. I believe Nessie is a fiction which has built up in the collective consciousness. People like Roland and Steve Feltham fascinate me, how they allow their desire for a monster to exist to colour their judgment so much.
      I think the believers should thank us sceptics for being here to balance things out. Otherwise you'd have your own unchallenged pixie-goblin land where any fantasy is accepted as fact.

      Delete
    2. Glad you know me better than me ....

      I assure you I find the sceptics' arguments half baked and ill thought out. You should be thanking the "believers" who balance out such nonsense.

      Delete
    3. Nicely put GB! It's a Yin and Yang thing

      Delete
    4. I'm the firm non-believer above, and much as I disagree with Roland I admire him too. He allows our sceptical posts on his blog and lets our voices be heard.
      Roland, have you considered adding a forum?

      Delete
    5. I find it intriguing that Roland allows comments from his supporters in which name-calling is permitted, but won't post my response in which such a line of argument is called into question. You've got your wish: I'm finished here. It's clear that discussion isn't desired. I hope folks like Dennis continue to assist in discovering the true nature of The Loch Ness Monster.

      Delete
    6. Not really, I think the comments section is adequate (and means less maintenance for me!)

      Delete
    7. "You've got your wish: I'm finished here."

      All comments get published (unless too abusive). More sceptical comments I hold longer while I think of an appropriate answer.

      Delete
    8. I really hope ekm doesn't quit just because of a bit of nonsense. His questions are needed here!

      Delete
    9. Come on ekm you are an asset to this blog. Don't go tripping over your bottom lip now.

      Delete
  13. To all,

    If the behavior of PEOPLE, rather than something in or of the Loch itself, was the real reason for thousands of reported sightings over the years, then sightings would NOT stop. Because PEOPLE don't change.

    So what did change? The only other choices are the behavior of the Loch itself, or the behavior of certain animals in it.

    We have a statistical aberration (no sightings in 2013) that cannot be explained by the NON-existence of Nessie. Think about that.

    And thanks GB, I seem to have a subject for my next article. The comments here have gotten me riled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. General belief and coverage of Nessie has declined massively. It's like when the X Files first aired - there was a huge spike in reports of UFOs. As media interest in Nessie declines, so does the public interest. As public scepticism increases, the urge to see waves as monsters decreases.
      I like your style though - that's the first time I've ever heard of a lack of Nessie sightings being put forward as further proof of Nessie! :-)

      Delete
    2. I'd hoped someone would catch the acute irony in that!

      Now if you take the internet itself as a form of media, it would seem to me public interest in the Loch Ness mystery is at an all-time high. Virtual media isn't ignoring the subject -- sometimes I wish they would the writing can be so uninformed and bad. Consider all the crypto blogs, where Nessie is at least the #2 topic right behind Bigfoot. And now Facebook groups like Lake Monsters. Whether these newish readers are weighing in more on the side of skepticism, belief, or well balanced scientific neutrality is another question entirely.

      Then of course we have GB's wonderful blog right here, constantly opposing the forces of pessimism while keeping us well informed of developments. This seems quite a popular place, and rightly so.

      When I say people don't change, I mean they don't change in certain fundamental ways, which have always included a need to believe in things like Nessie. And there will be many of those among the millions that visit Loch Ness every year. But when even the wishful thinkers don't think they see any signs of Nessie in the Loch, as opposed to the better luck of all the wishful thinkers in the past, then something really is oddly amiss. (Or not as the case may be -- went looking at a reported sightings register, and it seems there were earlier years with only a couple reported sightings, some followed by a dozen in the next year.) I'd love to believe the internet has changed us into a culture of scientifically savvy, well balanced individuals. But my skepticism on THAT count knows few bounds -- reading the stuff that's out there can be horrifying!

      Delete
    3. Steve, I'm assuming from your spellings that you're American. I can only speak from my experience as a lifelong UK resident born in the 1960s. Without the slightest doubt, there has been a huge shift in UK adult public opinion away from belief in Nessie since the 1970s. Back in those days people were really intrigued by this American team and their sonar contacts and underwater photos. Many were sceptical, but also many UK adults wanted to know more. We had people like Rines, Sir Peter Scott, all lending the subject some credibility.
      Then came the discovery of the famous anagram, and people in masse felt they'd been duped (rightly or wrongly). Finally, when Operation Deep scan in 1987 only showed a couple of inconclusive targets, rather than the necessary 30+ needed for a colony, that was pretty much it for the LNM over here. Since then it has become little more than a weak joke in the public's eyes. If I asked 20 random people at my workplace if they believed in Nessie, I would expect 20 negative answers.
      Internet forums can skew perception of how many people believe something, because the small % of believers find sites like this and post.
      Foreign belief in Nessie seems stronger - a summer trip to the loch will show dozens of visitors from the USA, Japan and central Europe. Nearly all armed with cameras and visiting the exhibitions.
      So yes, Nessie might generate global interest, but in the UK the subject is embarrassing to most.

      Delete
    4. A poll in 2012 found about a quarter of Scots thought the Loch Ness Monster was definitely or probably real.

      Delete
    5. I'd love to know the source and demographic of that poll. I know many Scots, none of them believers.

      Delete
    6. Yes, Anon (14 Feb) I'm American. Not easy to admit on the day you read a new poll by the NSF (link at bottom) showing 26% of us Yanks didn't know the Earth orbits the sun. And don't even ask about evolution!

      Which reminds me, there's another group of wishful thinkers I might expect to report seeing Nessie if they visited the Loch, even if they hadn't: creationists. Although I never quite followed their "logic" as to how the existence of Nessie would refute evolution.

      If the population of the UK can be characterized as skeptical, and the population of the US can be characterized as, well, gullible and uninformed, then the demographics of the tourists to Loch Ness might matter in this discussion.

      Steve

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-in-four-americans-dont-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun-and-only-half-believe-in-evolution-9131721.html

      Delete
  14. I'm familiar with Dick's position yes... but there's a difference between 'I don't think there is an unknown creature based on the evidence so far' and a comment I believe Tony Harmsworth made that it is 'absolutely impossible' for a monster to exist in the loch.
    Re Steve Plambeck, not quite sure about the logic of 'people don't change' (in that people can be responsive to changeable cultural environments) but more importantly, find your salamander theory very persuasive, esp as these animals can be dormant for much of the year and need less food than one might think. Have you looked at Elizabeth Campbell's book on Loch Morar? There is a sighting mentioned in that where someone saw the creature on the bottom in Meoble Bay, impossible in Loch Ness due to the peaty water, but the description to me sounded very giant salamander like... further evidence!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis:

      I filmed an anomaly on the water created by an abrupt storm that was racing up the loch on a clear day.

      I was a non-believer at the time of this visit.

      I note that you make your arguments by using words like "idiot." That's the best you're capable of?

      Delete
    2. Hi Ben, Yes I agree Dick Raynor’s reputation and depth of knowledge are beyond reproach. Just to make my position clear, I didn’t mean to denigrate his character or Adrian Shine’s in any way or Erik Kristopher Myers (EKM) for that matter. I hereby retract my “strange” comment about Dick, poor choice of the word; I should have said “curious”. I’m sure they are all decent individuals. My comments were just detached, objective observations. I think all three believe there is some phenomena in the loch which remains unexplained. Dick Raynor, after all these years is still trying to come up with a reasonable explanation, and is still “sitting on the fence” so to speak, you might say it’s his obsession, just as it is with us believers! His position is probably one of “no corpus, no LNM”, Even Adrian Shine believes there is “something strange going on in the loch”. But I think he subscribes to the big fish theory, as does Dick. I’m sure that if one day, definitive proof of some unknown, unusual animal not in the experience of human existence turns up, they will all agree and say “well, we all knew there was something to the mystery, we just needed hard proof”. Maybe the real mystery is why it has continued to be such a mystery after all these years! It’s a good thing to hear all points of view from skeptics and believers, after all that is the purpose of this blog. A good dose of skepticism keeps the juices flowing. How boring it would be if we all agreed on everything! One day, hopefully within our life time, the mystery will be solved, then what? I have mix feelings about that because it’s such a darn good mystery and that’s the fun of it. Well, I guess we move on to Bigfoot!

      Delete
    3. And here exactly is why it will never end. If something was found then it would be over. But that isn't going to happen. And no matter how many university studies say there's not enough food for a colony of predators, there will always be some believer who thinks he knows better, No matter how many years go by without solid evidence there will always be believers. You can't prove Nessie exists (because she doesn't), but equally we can't prove she doesn't because we can't drain the loch.

      The eternal stalemate.

      Delete
    4. Ben, no I haven't read the Elizabeth Campbell book but it sounds like I need to, so thanks for the recommendation. I just snatched up a used copy at Amazon, and there's more there at very reasonable prices if anyone else is looking. Also a pristine new copy if there's any "rich" collectors after one! Too rich for me anyway, but the used copy should suffice.

      Now would that be the 1969 Bob Duff sighting in Meoble Bay you were referring to? Sounds like the same account as I just found quoted from Costello's "In Search Of Lake Monsters". More morphological detail than in any one Loch Ness sighting than comes to mind, and a near perfect description of a giant salamander a bit under 20'. I'd never seen this before. Well well well...! Perhaps I've been fishing in the wrong Loch :)

      Delete
    5. That's the sighting I mean, yes. Loch Morar is definitely worth a visit - beautiful place - but you have to be ready to do a lot of walking. Most of the loch is not adjoined by any roads.
      John A - even if the creature's existence is established I suspect it will remain pretty mysterious, I wouldn't worry. Clearly with something so elusive it would be a long time before we had a thorough knowledge of its biology and behaviour. And plenty of animals we do know exist remain mysterious - eels are pretty weird.

      Delete
  15. It's important to bear something in mind. Dick Raynor and Adrian Shine came to their respective points of view after years of hands-on investigation at the Loch. In Raynor's case he is, to the best of my knowledge, the longest serving active investigator at the Loch. And I think Shine did the Ness mystery a huge service by attempting to get the focus off of the plesiosaur bandwagon and into the huge fish theory. The late Professor Roy Mackal (RIP) discussed sturgeon in his book, and I was intrigued by what he wrote back then (I got the book Christmas '76). Disagree with these guys if you must, but at least show them some respect - they've put the time and effort in so in my view they've earned that respect!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have, but I respectfully disagree with them. Adrian is somewhat open minded. I am not sure about Dick Raynor.

      Delete
    2. I think Dick Raynor is more open than he lets on and most people think. He just doesn't conform to the popular belief in a "Monster" or the plesiosaur theory. He is not totally closed to the idea of some unknown animals or other natural phenomena in the loch. Somthing about the word monster sends him into a tizzy. He's still looking for something. As much as his name has been brought up recently and as a well known pesonality in the Loch Ness saga a whole article about his beginnings and his involvment in the Loch Ness mystery could probably be in order and maybe even included in the Monster Hunters section, although the "Monster" title poses a problem. Or maybe in The Legacy of Past Reseachers section would be more appropriate some day. How about a Well known Skeptics section. Just a thought.

      Delete
  16. But the fish counts are diffrent with every diffrent one taken. Fishing experts on discovery channel said there was 10 times more fish than imagined. And i have fished loch ness numerous times and if you know were to go there is plenty of fish.

    ReplyDelete
  17. A non believer who videos a storm whilst shouting ' monster monster' is indeed that EKM, an idiot !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok, Dennis, civil tones please, even if ekm has left.

      Delete
  18. Firm non believers who find the subject enthralling???? That says it all lol

    ReplyDelete
  19. To avoid being confused with the skeptical anonymous poster, I need to say that I was the one who posted about respect for Shine and Raynor, but I forgot to sign my name at the bottom of the post. Sorry for any confusion.

    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Paddy, I whole heartedly agree with you. So many times the unpopular opposing team is vilified, but I am of the opinion that thier involvement has kept the fires burning, so to speak, by drawing attention to the controversy and keeping it alive, so they too have a role to play in this ongoing play. As I mentioned in a previous comment above, skepticle researchers like Dick Raynor and Adrian Shine deserve some recognition, after all they've spent some time in the trenches.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but some or all of them do not reciprocate and regard "monster believers" as something from the stone age.

      Delete
  20. Hang on EKM . I Remember you calling people ' gonads ' on here a few months ago lol. So its ok for you to namecall but you dont like it back haha typical idiot lol

    ReplyDelete
  21. GB, to me the skeptics are Ronald Binns and Stewart Campbell. They're the ones who've argued for the no Nessie viewpoint (although Binns did somewhat allow for Shine's sturgeon theory). Adrian Shine and Dick Raynor are skeptical of the plesiosaur theory, and (presumably), by extention, the plesio-lookalike theory by virtue of the fact that they have turned up no solid, unambiguous evidence of the existence of such an animal in Ness and Morar after years of intensive investigation. It is this fact that caused them (and Binns) to re-evaluate and re-interpret the older data. Basically, they were forced by circumstances into this position. But in the case of Shine and Raynor we need to bear in mind two points: 1.) They don't deny the sightings record, but just try to find alternative explanations. 2.) Both men (Shine in particular) think there very well could be some sort of large fish behind the early tradition (before the rise of the Nessie legend in 1933 when whatever was being seen quickly morphed into a plesiosaur with assistance from Alex Campbell and Rupert Gould) and some of the contemporary sightings. In Raynor's case, he's not about trying to prove any particular theory (he's been there and done that with the LNI to no avail), but is just trying to find answers to what people have seen and continue to see in the Loch. But he also puts cameras down on the off chance that something interesting may swim by.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, I couldn't have put it better myself and that's the best explanation I've heard! Binns, if I remember correctly, spent some time with the LNI, but maintains that there is absolutely nothing there except people's imaginations and local fauna mistaken for "monsters".

      Delete
  22. The above comment was by me (Paddy). I forgot to sign off again. Or maybe it was the wine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought as much Paddy, excellent analysis. I think even Dick Raynor would agree!

      Delete
    2. Quite possibly - may ask him, am off to Loch Ness tomorrow and am hoping to meet him for a chat while I'm there. Hopefully by this time next week I'll have some inexplicable photos to post for GB's analysis (though it's never happened yet, alas)!

      Delete
    3. Give us your report when you return, Ben.

      Delete
  23. Im not suprised we draw a blank in loch ness. We dont have any great watchers like Dinsdale and Rines anymore. If our best hope is the hopless steve feltham who said george edwards photo was the best he had ever seen when everyone else could smell a hoax miles away lol. Doesnt give us much hope im afraid .

    ReplyDelete