It's time for some Nessie culture again as the Commonwealth Games opened in Glasgow last week. It was no surprise that our favourite cryptid made an appearance at the stadium in a serpentine form with a bunnet on its head and a smile.
For something that is not meant to exist, the Loch Ness Monster continues to hold the attention of the Scottish public and how they seek to represent themselves to the world. Admittedly though, like their ancestors' Kelpies and Water Horses, the "Nessie" presented is not an exact representation of what swims in the waters of Loch Ness.
One assumes that the current Nessie presented by today's culture would nod approvingly at the equality and diversity slogans that marked the opening ceremony. I suspect the one forged by the inhabitants of the oppressed and resource-scarce Highlands would have none of it. Back then, it would feast upon your flesh in its watery depths and leave your liver to be buried by your terrified family. A bit of a difference one might suggest.
Nessie also has pride of place in the Village where the Games' competitors live. The photos below show a stone and wood creation which also acts as a bench to sit on. This stylised version of Nessie is an even greater departure from the living reality. The statue's creator, Stuart Murdoch said:
I was honoured to be asked to work with Glasgow 2014 and to produce this sculpture. The
Loch Ness Monster is recognised globally as an icon of this country and
in this work I wanted to represent the nation’s mythology, creativity,
ancient history, as well as to highlight the grit and determination
shown by all the Commonwealth athletes. It is a beast that has
inspired our people since before the first written word. I hope it
inspires all the athletes in the village.
There is perhaps a reference to the Picts and Saint Columba's brush with the beast in that phrase "before the first written word". But how does a statue of Nessie depict "grit and determination"? I don't know, maybe because the beast continues to be reported despite the best efforts of the sceptics to consign it to the same mythological graveyard as the Boobrie, Cu-Sith and the Lavellan?
Meanwhile, back at Loch Ness, what is Nessie making off all this fuss? The cartoonist for the Daily Mail is not convinced she is altogether happy with the way she is being represented! It was bad enough being shown as a saddled up demon steed centuries ago, but a glorified tyre?
Aw. Did you see that cheap plastic Nessie they used for the Games opening ceremony?
Next topic for debate:
ReplyDeleteCould the LNM perform a 1500 metres medley?
And for an example of Nessie in corporate culture [if that's the right word] check out the logo:
http://www.nbft.co.uk/
Also, if you go to Amazon UK and type "loch ness print" you'll find a picture of the LNM with an attractive young lady in tow.
DeleteCannae mind on that ad.
*AnonStg*
When was the LNM first represented with a looped body, like floating tyres? So far as I'm aware, it's not a feature of many – or any? – sightings, at least not recently. Is the idea derived from descriptions and images of sea serpents?
ReplyDeleteProbably, though actually I can't think of many actual sea serpent sightings that fit the classic 'many coiled monster' image too closely either.
DeleteGB, the last few times I've tried to post things on the blog it has reloaded the page and opened the reply box again, deleting the contents which I generally can't be bothered to retype ... any idea why that might be happening?
That may happen on a slow or glitched broadband connection.
DeleteI love the Daily Mail cartoon. Nessie is so sad...
ReplyDeleteHello. I found this page through a search because I was involved in the construction of the Nessie model you see in the top photo for the Games. I was in close contact with the design team. The beast was very deliberately made in a cartoon style with "TYRE" on the side because we had a clear remit. That was to make it purely fun. No one wanted even a hint to the world that Nessie is a real beast because it is not seen that way at all, either in Scotland or internationally. "A fun mythical beastie" was how the entire team approached it. I did not know until I came to this website that some still believe in Nessie as a real animal. I am surprised, and saw with some intrigue that the site author says our model was not like what is living in the loch!! I did not think anyone had a photo to be able to make that judgement! Nevertheless it has been fun reading this site and I shalll forward the link to other team members.
ReplyDeleteBest Regards,
M Dougans
A 2012 poll had about a 1/4 of Scots thinking Nessie was definetly or probably real. So, yes, we exist (like Nessie)!
DeleteI noticed that one of the Scotland members was one Jack Ness. Had he torn past the other competitors at a terrific rate of knots my joy would have been complete.
DeleteBut there's still an idea here for a cheesy comic strip novel about a were-plesiosaur if any 'creative' types haven't already run a mile.
*AnonStg*
Not being funny, but where was this 2012 survey taken? I am 38 and have lived in Aberdeen all my life. I do not know anyone out of kindergarten who actually believes in a flesh and blood monster.
Deletehttp://www.angusreidglobal.com/polls/americans-more-likely-to-believe-in-bigfoot-than-canadians/
DeleteAh, an "online survey", in other words nothing to indicate a randomly selected sample of the population. I think if we randomly sampled 1,000 compos mentis over 18s in my part of Scotland you'd be lucky to find 10 who believe. Maybe 20 "unsures" and the rest would firmly say "No way".
DeleteWell, yoiu're not going to know unless they do it. If they all had a chat with me first, I am sure I could bolster the percentages!
DeleteDelusions of grandeur eh?
DeleteNo, just confidence in my argument.
DeleteFor me this blog has the opposite effect to the one intended by the author. I suspect he believes he has provided, and continues to provide, a rich source of pro-Nessie data. Instead I find myself asking, "Ok we have hundreds of thousands of descriptions of sightings and a myriad of excuses, but WHY NO CONVINCING FILMS OR VIDEOS AFTER ALL THIS TIME?"
DeleteThe facts, or lack of them, sit there as the enormous elephant in this cosy Nessie-loving room.
And it is obvious to me from your comment, you don't read this blog in much depth. And if you have, just accept we disagree and move on.
DeleteWell, it was marginally less cringeworthy than the Tunnocks tea-cakes and Susan Boyle, i'll say that for it. Marginally.
ReplyDeleteNot just the scots who believe GB !!!! Id agree with ur stats old fruit!! Lots of people wer i am believe and lots think hmmmmm maybe!!
ReplyDeleteCan the sceptics claim to have the cleverest people in our numbers? People of science. Who do the believers have, a handful of IT blokes and a couple of brickies?
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
Who are your "clever people"?
DeleteTo 'Glasgow Boy'. I have noticed when examining your blog pages that you don't enjoy difficult questions from skeptics. You'll have your say but when they turn the heat up you usually respond with 'It's obvious you haven't even read the article.', even when the skeptic obviously has!
ReplyDeleteI feel that you're guilty of laziness and ducking the hard questions quite often.
Always remember: an anecdotal report of a sighting can be made up or exaggerated at any moment in time. A good video cannot. So ask yourself in all honesty (and drop the crazy excuses for a moment): Why do we have thousands of sighting reports but not even one good video?
And before you say it, yes buddy, I have read your blog articles and spent a lot of time researching Loch Ness with an +open mind+. Try it yourself some time, it's very enlightening!
Difficult? More like irritating and here's why.
Delete1. Sceptics do not come here to learn. As far as I am concerned, most of you are trolls, semi-trolls and points-scorers. So, the only reason I answer your questions is not for you, but the benefit of others who are like minded to myself.
2. Repetitive questions. Question answered elsewhere but still repeatedly asked. Is this your equivalent of a denial of service attack? I think I may add an FAQ in future, direct you there in future and delete repetitive comments. If you don't like my answers, that;s too bad.
3. Ill thought out quesitons. So, we end up debating about the question rather than the answer. Your "no good video" question is a perfect example. My reply is "how many are you expecting?". You pull some number out of thin air like "4". I reply "Please quantitatively demonstrate how you derived that number.". You then reply with some vague comments but you can't actually prove it.
You see why I regard this as irrritating rather than difficult? And please drop the comment about good videos cannot be made up or exaggerated. It's a certainty we'll start getting accusations of CGI or model Nessies.
"an anecdotal report of a sighting can be made up or exaggerated at any moment in time. A good video cannot"
DeleteMaybe a certain lack of scepticism towards technology here?
What if the George Edwards hoax model had been fitted with a power source? That's before using any clever video-editing tricks.
I was also thinking back to the Steve Leonard programme in 2003. I remember a boatload of tourists gawping at the fake creature in that. You'd think that a fair few of them would have picked up a camera, but I can't remember if they did. Would be interesting to check.
*AnonStg*
I'd completely agree with AnonStg here.
DeleteAs for GB's post above it, aren't you being somewhat harsh and dismissive towards sceptics? I don't agree with most of your theories and conclusions, but when you disagree with me I don't consider you a troll or point scorer. I could easily see it that way but I just think you're passionate about Loch Ness. As for repetition - a quick trawl through the comments shows a great deal of repetition from both sides.
I also think it's perfectly reasonable, after 80 years of this phenomenon, to find the lack of clear images and corpses to be significantly problematic for the pro-Nessie side. I'd suggest that questions about this will never disappear, and nor should they. For sceptics it's the question which never goes away. I think the same is true for believers. It's that inconvenient question which they just can't answer satisfactorily, so they would prefer it not to be asked anymore.
Yeah a few tourists were filming it when they did the Fort Augustus bit.
DeleteI didn't like that programme. Didn't get what they were trying to achieve.
"perfectly reasonable"? Well, answer my reasons for this being all ill thought out question.
DeleteJust to row back on that slightly – for fear of agreeing with GS :) – I suppose you really need to look at the material which was left on the cutting-room floor to work out how long it took for the tourists to notice, pull their jaws together and then start taking films / photos.
DeleteAnd I agree with TTC – it was a stunt that didn't really demonstrate all that much.
(And someone else talked about experiencing problems when posting and losing text. I've experienced the same over the last couple of weeks.)
*AnonStg*
GB's articles on photo & video evidence talk about the stunned paralysed effect, and it's something I can relate to. When I see an amazing, unexpected or rare sight, I am often left wondering, how much of this do I just enjoy before getting a camera out and missing some of it? I remember Concorde flying very low right overhead when I was in London a while ago, I'd never seen it before. I didn't take a photo because I was too captivated by the experience. By the time the thought entered my head it had passed.
ReplyDeleteBrightonlad, I think this "shock and awe" phenomenon which GB has outlined as a theory to explain the lack of videos and clear photos definitely holds some weight. I'd say it's plausible in relation to very short sightings of a few seconds when a solitary person does not have a camera to hand. What I don't accept is that it would happen during sightings longer than a few seconds when a person has a mobile phone to hand. We all know about the significance of obtaining such footage. My view is the majority of observers would capture images of some sort. For these reported sightings of 10+ minutes I believe significant footage would be captured. Yet these long observations of Nessie have mysteriously disappeared with the arrival of the camera phone.
DeleteThis has been much debated on these pages, and I think it boils down simply to this - those who believe in Nessie support the "shock and awe" theory to explain the lack of images, and those who don't believe in Nessie think it's an unacceptable theory.
I notice above that GB is considering censoring out future repetitive arguments from sceptics. Would he apply the same rule to pro-Nessie repetitive comments, such as this shock and awe theory?
Case by case basis ....
DeleteI think every comment is valid and adds to the debate. I certainly enjoy both sides. For the record I am agnostic!
DeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteRegarding 'skeptics' and GB's responses to them. When it's all said and done, this site is written, paid for, and run by GB. It is his party. If he wants to prevent people from pissing into his punchbowl, that's his call. I don't have a problem with that. I think it might be beneficial. The skeptic approach I have seen here does not add much to the Nessie conversation in terms of what people see in the Loch. The word 'tedious' comes to mind when naysayers bray about their various close-minded doubts.
Regards,
richard