Wednesday 7 May 2014

Thoughts on the Loch Ness Kelpie

Ten years before anyone had heard of a Loch Ness Monster, M. Oldfield Howey published his "The Horse in Magic and Myth" in 1923. It was reviewed in the 4th April edition of the Aberdeen Press and Journal. You can read that review below to which I shall add some comments after.





Note first the comment that "Loch Ness, it seems, was a special favourite with kelpies ..." to which we add our own "Amen". In my book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness", I collected such accounts and found them well ahead of any other loch with a tradition of the Each Uisge, I was not aware of this book, so am glad to add it to the growing list. Doubtless, others will turn up as the months and years pass.

The other point is the link between the Kelpie and the Boobrie. The shape shifting between the aquatic and the avian is only hinted at in one or two tales, but this reference reinforces that link. It makes one wonder what the folklorists thought the actual basic form of the underlying entity was?

The final thought concerns the idea of the Kelpie spending time on land. This seems as counter intuitive as the idea of a horse spending time in water. Though it is not mentioned here, the main reason for these ventures onto terra firma was as a predator lying in wait, its true intent hidden from the victim and the end as swift as the strike of a cobra.

So why would a creature which reigned supreme in the water be framed as a greater danger out of the water? Why not do the obvious and have it grabbing its hapless victims as they walked by the shore or as they worked in their boats? My own opinion is that real land sightings of these creatures were the kernel for this departure from the obvious modus operandi of a water based beast.

Mr. Howey has his own interesting theory that it was actually native, wild horses that may have seeded the story of dangerous, supernatural equines. However, this idea seems to be limited to the far extremities of the north of Scotland in Sutherland and it is not certain when such animals were ever extant in Scotland.

Though written ten years before Nessie, the two sides of the arguments are still visible. Was it a creature just beyond the ken of men or a simple case of misidentification? Some things seem destined never to change!

87 comments:

  1. Two arguments yes but further proof that 1934 didnt start the story of the loch ness monster.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd bet a case of Guiness that Nessie is biological and not beyond man's understanding. I'm not averse to the so-called 'paranormal' in some instances, but this particular creature shouts organic to me in all its manifestations. Wakes, humps, linear motion and splashes indicate a living critter, imo. When indisputable truth for Nessie arrives, it will be a sad day for skeptics and an interesting day for free-thinkers at the same time.

    Regards,

    richard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic10 May 2014 at 04:21

      But the day hasn't arrived, and that's the believer's insurmountable problem. That day would have arrived long ago if Nessie were real.

      As for the ancient kelpie myth, is it really to be believed that such a creature has roamed Scotland for thousands of years and not once left a fossil or skeleton anywhere to be found? The kelpie is a myth - just like a fire-breathing dragon or a phoenix rising from the ashes.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree Richard, although I am not a proponent of the paranormal explanation, I do believe that some unknown, unclassified animals are lurking in those waters. The evolved/modified plesiosaur theory notwithstanding, I believe that when we do get to the bottom of this mystery, that it will turn out to be a creature with the morphology or very close to a plesiosaur.

      Delete
    3. Yes, the Kelpie, as expressed in the stories is a myth. It is the underlying truth that is being sought.

      Delete
    4. GS, do you, as a sceptic, think that people should stop looking for any answers to the mystery of Loch Ness. There are many stories both older & more recent suggesting that further investigation is necessary and perhaps it is only the believers who have the endeavour, persistence, and determination to carry out this task. I doubt that there are many sceptics out there prepared to devote so much of their time and resources to such an activity. Many things that people have discovered have been learned this way and I'm sure the same applies at Loch Ness.

      Delete
    5. Geordie Sceptic11 May 2014 at 05:10

      Pete, good points. My reply is that over the many decades from the LNPIB in the 1960s onwards, there have been several extensive and technically savvy explorations of the loch and the "mystery". Every single one of these searches has - in my opinion - reinforced the theory that Nessie exists in the human mind, and is not a physical entity.
      Believers come to increasingly desperate theories to explain away the lack of video evidence, absence of corpses, lack of sonar contacts and lack of adequate food (yes I take the university and biologist studies over Glasgow Boy's). Yet the only logical explanation after all these years is that the myth has built to the extent that anything not instantly recognisable on Loch Ness becomes a monster to the viewer.
      Clearly, in the light of these opinions, sceptics such as myself would consider any further large scale searches to be merely treading over old ground. Expensive, time consuming, and ultimately destined to always yield the same negative results, yet never enough to dampen the enthusiasm of the believers.

      Delete
    6. The shorelines of Loch Ness have become progressively busier over the last half century. At the same time technology has leapt forward significantly - how many cameras and portable video recorders do you think pass the loch daily? Yet in the face of this, sightings have decreased and evidence has slipped further away rather than being brought closer.

      Surely even the most fervent of Nessie believers must accept this is a fundamental issue that undermines the credibility of their side of the debate?

      Delete
    7. I have been thru this argument many a time. There are various possible reasons for this drop.

      1. Less people are reporting sightings.
      2. The media reports less of the sightings told to them.
      3. The Nessie population had dropped with the fish stocks and so appear less often.

      Pick the choices according to your own personal bias.

      Delete
    8. Geordie Sceptic11 May 2014 at 13:40

      As stated - increasingly implausible attempts to explain away these obvious facts which bury the Nessie myth for all but the keenest believers. Whenever there's a clear pointer that Nessie's a myth, you can be sure a believer will dream up an excuse, no matter how absurd it seems.

      Delete
    9. Nice to see every point I made has been dismissed without the slightest attempt to critique them. Is that how scepticism works? I thought you guys were the champs of critical thinking? That reply make you look more like a chump!

      Delete
    10. 1. Highly doubtful. I have lived on Loch Ness-side for 30 years and i don't believe sightings are going unreported.
      2. Even more highly doubtful. Nessie is still good media fodder. If a sighting is reported to media, they'll use it.
      3. Hmmm.. it's possibly i suppose, though these days 'less often' seems to be pretty much never.

      Delete
    11. 1. How would you know that? Does everyone around the loch and beyond talk to you about their unreported sightings? An increasingly sceptical environment is no motivation for people to come forward.

      2. No. I have scanned the papers for years. In times past, a sightings would get a column, but now it seems you have to produce some picture, film or sonar hit to get a mention. Only the Hargreaves sighting got an airing in the last few years without having to produce an image of some sort.

      Delete
    12. I don't know it Roland, i'm passing on what i believe to be the case as someone who's more familiar than most with what's going on around the area.

      I'd say the lack of sightings reported in media is down to...well, the lack of sightings.

      Delete
    13. Geordie Sceptic11 May 2014 at 23:58

      I think 2. is because the public wised up over the years. The endless tales of dinosaurs swimming next to boats, humps roaming about for 15 minutes - they were exciting and believable to many people up until around the 1980s, but by that point people were beginning to say, "So where are all the photos and films?" Now in the era of the mobile phone it's become laughable for witnesses to claim clear sightings without evidence to back it up. The public has largely lost interest in the story, the papers reflect that. I can genuinely say that outside of these discussions I know not one adult who believes in the monster.

      Delete
    14. Geordie Sceptic12 May 2014 at 09:21

      I'm still waiting for a description of the limbs on a 30ft monster which can zip through the water as fast as a speedboat, AND climb onto the land and move up high enough to cross a road, and be a predator while doing it.
      Whoever comes up with a good answer, there's a job as a monster designer on Dr Who waiting for you.

      Delete
    15. " The shorelines of Loch Ness have become progressively busier over the last half century. "

      Well, perhaps the answer to the reduced no. of sightings is that the surface of the loch has also become progressively busier with motorised vessels. In A.D. Cameron's "The Caledonian Canal" it's said that there was one canal cruiser in 1971. In 2012 there were 64 for hire.

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
    16. Claims of going as fast as a speed boat is a very rare class of sighting. It is one thing to clearly see humps and a long neck, but estimating speed is difficult and therefore less reliable as data.

      I thought this locomotion thing was discussed elsewhere?

      Delete
    17. Geordie Sceptic13 May 2014 at 10:35

      It was discussed eleswhere in typical fashion - some crazy half-baked theory emerged but no one could describe anything logical. The leopard seal was mentioned as a blueprint, however this animal is only up to 12 ft long and out of the water is extremely cumbersome and slow moving unless it is on ice. Scale such a creature up to 30ft, take away the ice, add slopes, rocks and plants in the path and the whole concept falls apart. A flipper limbed animal of that size just could not make it up over rough terrain and roads. And then catch prey too? Fantasy time again. It's simple physics.

      Delete
    18. You're not thinking hard enough, GS. Stellar's Sea Cow was up to 30ft and went on land.

      Cathcing the prey was, as I said, not a matter of chasing.


      Delete
  3. Nice! I had never heard of the 'boobrie' before (-I wonder how it got its name...:) ), but reading about it did make me think of the strange 'whistle-like' and sort of alarming sound that we kept hearing from different spots around us at Boleskine cemetery, the night after I had taken the photo at the Loch. I thought it must have been some strange bird that I was unfamiliar with, and may be it was. Or, was it... In any case, the 1923 book seems interesting, so I think I'll be looking into that...

    ReplyDelete
  4. GS would devote the time because he obviously hasnt got anything much better to do. I bet hes moithering in bigfoot sites and ghost debates when he isnt in here!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic11 May 2014 at 05:36

      Wrong. I grew up with the Nessie story, that's what I'm interested in. Thanks for the personal dig though.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic, it seems to me that if you grew up with the Nessie story, you've been exposed to all the irrefutable evidence of some strange phenomena going on in the Loch and are not quite convinced. But that’s OK only time will tell, maybe not in our life time, but sometime soon, I hope. Perhaps you are what I call some skeptics “a Closet Believer”, hope you come out soon. You are straddling the fence and not quite willing to make the jump yet. You probably don’t believe Men walked on the moon either. You are probably a skeptical person by nature and suspicious of everything that does not fit you’re paradigm of the world.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic13 May 2014 at 15:40

      Ha ha, I like your style John. The irrefutable fact is that there is no evidence beyond the anecdotal, and by now (in fact decades ago) there would have been if Nessie were real.
      However I will concede one thread of doubt in my dismissal of Nessie has emerged in my mind since Roland posted one particular video a few months ago, it's a small doubt, but it is there.
      Do none of you have any small doubts? Neither side can know 100% that we are correct, so I think a slight element of willingness to consider the opposite view is healthy.

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic13 May 2014 at 15:43

      And by the way, people who think men didn't land on the moon are usually conspiracy theorists, and I've found that those kind of people believe in stuff like Nessie, ghosts etc

      Delete
    5. Well to be fair, there is far more evidence supporting man having walked on the moon than there is for the Loch Ness monster! And i say that as someone who is open to the possibility that there's something worth investigating at Loch Ness.

      Delete
    6. What was the video that got you thinking GS? Where can i find it on here?

      Delete
    7. Geordie Sceptic16 May 2014 at 14:53

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8R8YNWxWh0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      That one Trevor.

      Delete
  5. There is something to investigate in loch ness. My good friend saw a large creature 12 years ago and he was a non believer. He said it was bigger than his boat which is just short of 20 foot. He said it was dark brown in colour. And this is a man that has spent hours on loch ness fishing and would not be decieved by a wave or a wake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, John. It is the sum total of all such reports by reliable witnesses that propels this mystery, not photos, films or even sonar hits.

      Some witnesses will lie and some will be deceived by known phenomena, but not everyone, not everyone by any stretch.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic14 May 2014 at 09:45

      But all you have is words, just people saying they've seen A, B or C. I know first hand (yes, FIRST HAND) how seeing something on Loch Ness can morph in one's mind within literally minutes into something "monsterlike" and convince a person they've seen an object quite different to what was actually there.

      Delete
    3. 'But all you have is words.' says GS. No kidding. All anyone has are 'words' plus the memory of whatever event it is they've witnessed. Skeptics just have 'words' and nothing else. GS is an example of the saying, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?" Witnesses have experiences they put into 'words'; GS has 'words', but no experiences. I'm going with the witnesses. They inhabit a larger, more colorful and interesting world. Plus, there is a certain amount of arrogance or hubris present when a skeptic disses the experience of 100's of people in favor of his doubt.

      Regards,

      richard

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic15 May 2014 at 04:36

      Richard, you have made a fair point, but eventually a time is reached where the lack of proper evidence poses an insurmountable problem. Eyewitnesses cannot go on reporting sightings ad infinitum without real solid evidence emerging, or we naturally reach a point where we say "Enough. I need evidence or I'm not going to believe this stuff anymore."
      A fair point wouldn't you say?

      Delete
    5. I agree, I'd place my money on witness testimony any day of the week. Until we get a good, clear, close-up pic of the beast at close range showing head, neck and hump, or preferably one on land, or better yet a carcass, the best we can go by is eyewitness experiences by reliable, honest people. GS must also think people leave their brains at home or enter the Twilight Zone when they visit the Loch. To paraphrase a well-known saying “More people have been convicted in a court of law by eyewitness testimony alone and hung than by any other type of evidence”.

      Delete
    6. I have enough faith in human nature to be pretty sure the majority of sightings are reported by 'reliable, honest people'. So i don't think many witnesses are lying or exaggerating. However, i do think a whole lot of witnesses are mistaken. It's been covered a lot on this forum and elsewhere in the Nessie debate, but it's very easy to be hoodwinked at Loch Ness. I think people see unusual things where, on any other body of water, what they are seeing probably wouldn't register as at all unusual. The context plays a big part.
      I've mentioned a couple of times the otters on Ness Islands. When i see these animals on the banks of the Ness, i know straight away what they are. That's why i've never bought into the Spicer / Otter family theory - you don't need to be David Attenborough. However, when you see them in the water, it's hard not to notice the parallels with a range of reported Nessie sightings; humped back, prominent V-shaped wake, evidence of tail movement, the way they submerge for significant periods of time. Their 'footprint' in the water any time i've seen them is suggestive of a bigger animal. If they're on Ness Islands then they are definitely using the loch. There's no doubt in my mind a lot of Nessie sightings can be attributed to otters.

      Not all though. Not my any means.

      Delete
  6. I agree. And a lot of sightings have been witnessed by more than one person. Sometimes up to 7 or 8 people have seen it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's that 100% thing again. Nobody can 100% dismiss all of the sightings either, so the Loch Ness mystery goes on. Intriguing stuff to both sceptics & believers.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic14 May 2014 at 22:51

      Psychological experiments have shown that a group of witnesses can very quickly all turn to the same flawed recall of a sketchy event, providing one of the witnesses describes his/her version of what happened early in the process. The others get swept along and are quickly convinced that they saw the same details. This is a known phenomenon among groups of witnesses and it's one reason why the police attempt to separate them as early as possible before taking statements. You may reply that the witnesses are often separate at Loch Ness, but you can be sure that word has travelled locally before the media (and therefore you and I) learn of a "sighting".

      Delete
    3. An over simplistic attempt to explain away sightings. Note the emphasis on the word "sketchy" as if some people never have had a clear view of the thing, no one has ever used binoculars, etc. It's a poor theory.

      Of course, when someone claims to have seen something less than 100 yards away, the theory completely breaks down and then you will doubtless resort to calling everyone in that class a liar.

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic15 May 2014 at 04:30

      I guess Nessie only becomes "sketchy" when a camera is to hand eh? Her good old trick over the decades of only being crystal clear when she can't be photographed or caught on video.

      Delete
    5. "You may reply that the witnesses are often separate at Loch Ness, but you can be sure that word has travelled locally before the media (and therefore you and I) learn of a "sighting"."

      And if something were seen from both the north and south sides of the loch, was that the case until a few years ago? Of course, even poor unenlightened Teuchters now have access to Fleecebook. Techie progress, eh?

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
    6. Geordie Sceptic15 May 2014 at 15:03

      Yeah seen that too Anonstg. Some clear view from a mile away on the south side eh?

      Delete
    7. I've been thru your "should be better evidence with cameras" argument with ekm and others. I refer you to my previous articles. If you don't like them, there is nothing really more to say.

      These psychology arguments cut no mustard with me. When people like yourself began to suggest Greta Finlay had actually mistaken a deer for a monster at 20 yards, I knew there was no convincing you guys with such ridiculous explanations.

      You've got a great theory there. If it's not misidentification, it's a hoax. If it's not a hoax, it's misidentification. Now go and look up the words "tautology" and "unfalsifiable".

      Delete
  7. No Mr Sceptic this is a man who has lived and fished Loch Ness for 30 years. He knows what he saw.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Really Mr Sceptic. So your saying in the case of Mr Cameron and 7 seperate witnesses that they did not see a huge hump crossing the loch in the early 60's ? I dont think anyone can mix up a huge hump crossing the loch and turning leaving a wash.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess they get auto-assigned to the "liar" file.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic15 May 2014 at 04:27

      Hey guys, I can see from the reactions that you really do not like the existence of this known psychological phenomenon, but don't get angry with me - I didn't design the human brain!
      I've seen Cameron discussing his sighting, and oh what a shame no one had camera phones in those days eh? No group of people could ever claim such a long and vivid sighting these days without digital evidence to back it up.
      I think they saw something, but what we will never know. I have heard the theory that it could have been the exposed part of a tree trunk travelling with underwater currents against the direction of surface ripples - a known condition that occurs in Loch Ness. I've not heard him describe a huge wash being thrown up. Maybe that part is an embellishment, who knows. Also could have been something like a sturgeon. No photographic evidence means we'll never be any the wiser.
      I'd file this under "Not enough evidence to conclude anything". I don't think Cameron appeared to be lying about it when I've seen him.

      Delete
    3. Known phenomenon? Yes.

      Over egged for this situation? Yes

      Delete
  9. Ah so 10 or 12 guests at the craigadorroch hotel imagined they saw something because the owner did. Or the 8 or 9 guests at the inchcharnadoch hotel imagined seeing a hump moving through the bay because someone pointed it out? Ah right ok !

    ReplyDelete
  10. 30ft sturgeon ? Right ok Mr Sceptic

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geordie Sceptic16 May 2014 at 10:13

    Wow guys, have I touched a nerve on this page or what?!
    You're making me feel guilty now - like someone who just told a bunch of 3 year olds that Santa isn't real!

    ReplyDelete
  12. So now Mr Sceptic is saying that there is a possibility of 30ft creatures in Loch Ness. Something he has always scoffed at before.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Haha Mr Sceptic you cant even answer our answers.and when you do you contradict things you say .you just cant accept the fact that it was you who thought he found out santa was real because you didnt have the answers to the sceptics questions .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Geordie Sceptic16 May 2014 at 14:54

    So much anger on this page! Chill guys, there's always Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why cant GS put his views across without trying to belittle the believers on here with silly comments about santa claus? - everyone is entitled to their opinion wether you believe or not. Why does he have to come here and lower the tone with his scanty remarks. Put your questions across by all means but no need to make fun of people and try and belittle them. He should not forget that he was a big believer once- or so he says !

    ReplyDelete
  16. Again he wont answer my question. Come on Mr Sceptic dont lose the argument that easily. So you now believe there could be a 30ft creature in Loch Ness ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic17 May 2014 at 10:38

      Well, 30ft 2ins to be precise, and wearing a Tam O Shanter, playing bagpipes, and curiously able to avoid all scientific attempts at detection. 5000 witnesses can't be wrong!

      Delete
  17. Still cant give a serious answer . A well defeated sceptic thats all i can say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic17 May 2014 at 14:48

      Yes john, all your evidence has defeated me, and Nessie stands bold and proud, firmly accepted by the public and scientists as a living, breathing giant creature in a lake.
      I hang my head in shame at this defeat. How did I not notice the proof all along?

      Delete
    2. Have you got round to replying to my request to look up "tautological" and "unfalsifiable" yet?

      Delete
  18. GB he doesnt get round to answering any questions unlike us. Hopeless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic18 May 2014 at 02:03

      If you really need me to reply to your question, no I don't think a 30ft monster has been spotted in Loch Ness. I think it's possible that a sturgeon or two could have got in there and led to witnesses inflating the size of what they saw.
      We are not obliged to answer every question posed to us on here John. It's pretty obvious that any question I ask you will be answered along the lines of "The witnesses weren't mistaken, they saw a monster", and anything you ask me will be answered with the belief that a mistake or hoax was made.
      Interesting that GB uses the word "unfalsifiable".

      Delete
    2. Interesting that GS has not repiled about the word "unfalsifiable".

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic18 May 2014 at 03:51

      Well you have falsely accused me of saying Greta F mistook a deer from 20 yards. A total rewrite of a previous conversation, designed to suit your angle GB.

      Delete
    4. I said "people like yourself". But, seeing you are on the subject, what do you think Greta Finlay saw?

      Delete
    5. Geordie Sceptic19 May 2014 at 04:08

      "People like yourself" is a bad phrase GB. People like yourself believe Nessie is a surviving plesiosaur, others like you believe she's a ghost from a 4th dimension. See? We can't just lump all sceptics into one group, nor all believers.
      Will get back to you on Greta's report, but once again with no footage we're all merely speculating.

      Delete
  19. AH so th witnesses are now inflating the size of things. Ok Mr Sceptic best leave it at that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic18 May 2014 at 08:59

      Correct john, it happens. Video footage might help prove otherwise, but very strangely no one has ever filmed one of these spectacular events, so we're none the wiser.

      Delete
  20. Quite funny really Mr Sceptic saying we are all now gutted cus we have found out santa clause is not real. Yet we all still believe . Isnt he the one who is believer turned sceptic ? So poor old Mr Sceptic is the one who found out santa isnt real at a grown up age . Bless his cotton socks because he is still bitter, he didnt have the nouse to fight back against the sceptic questions put at him when he believed. Now it looks like he is bitter against us because we have the answers. Never mind Mr Sceptic you can slways try bigfoot or something

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic19 May 2014 at 11:44

      As I recall I was around 7 years old when I made the transition from believer to disbeliever. It was just after the Rines flipper photos I think. I remained interested in the search for Nessie purely from a curiosity perspective - it seemed rather strange to me that grown ups were still seriously searching. Many years later I was watching the news, assuming the Nessie myth had been pretty much forgotten, when to my great surprise there was a piece on Operation Deepscan which was about to happen. I was amazed at all this time and money being put towards what I assumed we all now knew was a myth! Then when the pitiful results were announced I just assumed that really was the end of it all - done and dusted.
      But here were are, about 27 years later, with people still trying to dream up reasons for no videos, no sonar indicating any colony, no carcasses. And so it goes on...

      Delete
  21. Geordie Sceptic19 May 2014 at 22:52

    Unfalsifiable is a word applied to something that cannot be proven to be false. Prime examples of unfalsifiable situations are 1) The notion of a 30ft monster living in a lake too huge to drain; 2) Eyewitness reports of a monster with no video evidence to analyse; 3) The concept of carcasses vanishing into silt too quickly to be found; 4) The idea of monsters avoiding sonar sweeps of the lake by hiding at the sides.
    "Unfalsifiable" is a word tailor made for the Loch Ness myth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. I asked about "unfalsifiable" and "tautological" in regards to a sceptical theory and instead you apply it to monster theories.

      I will be happy to answer in regard to monster theories, but in fact that was not the quesiton being asked. Can I presume you are incapable of providing a lucid answer?

      Delete
  22. Geordie Sceptic20 May 2014 at 04:19

    GB, I responded to you and lucidly pointed out that pretty much every one of your pro-Nessie theories is utterly "unfalsifiable". Of course my views on what people saw versus what they think they saw are also unfalsifiable.
    So here we have it - one giant unfalsifiable mess. Which is why I say we should regard everything except *scientific evidence* as pure speculation.
    How easy it is for either side to throw unfalsifiable theories out there. Your blog pages and the resulting debates contain little else, if you're totally honest with yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sceptics think (or give the impression) that all their theories are based on scientific evidence. One of this blog's targets is to blow this ivory tower stance away.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic21 May 2014 at 15:54

      Ok how about an agreement - from now on I never support anything which is not backed up by hard, solid scientific evidence, and you do the same? No unproven theories dressed up as likely truths, no speculation, just hard proven facts. Do we have a deal?

      Delete
    3. That would stifle creativity and debate. Out of the ferment of speculation comes the best ideas. Its a market place of ideas, some don't sell, some do. I was just watching a program on Drake's Equation and Fermi's Paradox. These scientists have not the slightest shred of evidence that alien lifeforms exist, but it doesn't stop them speculating, hoping, believing and still calling it science.

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic22 May 2014 at 03:00

      I thought you might not buy that idea. At least we now agree we're dealing with speculation when it comes to Loch Ness. Science has very little to do with it.

      Delete
    5. I think you are being too purist with your assertion that science has little to do with the Loch Ness Monster.
      You examine the data, you formulate a theory, you critique and make some new predictions about future data based on it.

      That process has been largely followed but most theories do not (IMO) survive the process - and that includes sceptical theories.

      The main dispute revolves around the "data" - eyewitness testimony, films, photos, sonar. There is no agreement on what consitutes the real data.

      Delete
    6. Geordie Sceptic22 May 2014 at 23:24

      The "There is no Nessie" theory still stands above any other theory. All the other theories are based on anecdote and hearsay. No convincing photos or videos exist, otherwise the public and scientific community would take the subject as seriously as they did in the 1960s and 1970s.

      Delete
  23. Dont know why uou bother with him Mr Watson. He says he cant understand grown ups believin in nessie and here is a grown up spending all his time in here arguing about nessie and he isnt a believer You couldnt make it up haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic20 May 2014 at 10:53

      It's mainly your antagonistic comments which keep me here John. I feel the urge to educate you.

      Delete
  24. scientific sid20 May 2014 at 13:12

    Operation deepscan did not proove that there is nothing there. For a start it only covered 60% of the Loch. In fact i doubt it was this much./ 3 large contacts were had and experts said they were bigger than sharks in florida. So unless you are an expert on sonar and can give a diffrent reason for these contacts then lets hear it./ Interestingly on the second run no contacts were found. So were did the 3 contacts go ? For me this was proof that they are able to avoud sonar, the chances are they kept to the side walls or the deeper waters that were not covered. So if 3 creatures did this how many more did on the first run ? /

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic20 May 2014 at 14:27

      The shoal of fish dispersed? Sonar experts no longer think the targets indicated animals larger than sharks. Look into it.

      Delete
    2. Source? Adrian Shine (last time I talked to him) was still not sure what the targets were.

      Delete
  25. Think you need 2ceducate yourself first Mr Sceptic haha

    ReplyDelete
  26. scientific sid21 May 2014 at 14:36

    Very strange that as the experts in question compared the sonar strengths to sharks they picked up in florida. I dont need to look into it because i know what the experts said and didnt say. Maybe your experts are different ones to mine /

    ReplyDelete