Tuesday, 9 September 2014

The Scots, The English and Nessie

So, in nine days the voters of Scotland decide whether to stay in or opt out of the United Kingdom. The main arguments will revolve around currency, tax, oil and so on. It is not likely that Nessie will figure in the debate, which is no surprise but it should be remembered that the Loch Ness Monster is a top attraction in one of Scotland's major economic sectors - tourism.

Whether tourism will decline or rise as a result of independence is unknowable. But the whole debate made me look at who's who in the Loch Ness Mystery. As it turns out, the leading sceptics of the notion of a monster are all English. They are Adrian Shine, Tony Harmsworth and Dick Raynor (pictured below).





Though it has to be said that Tony on at least one occasion has tried to pass himself off as a Scotsman (below). Now, all this English Scepticism, is this a conspiracy against Scotland's Nessie? After all, they don't have any lake monsters in England. Why should Scotland have one if they don't? It's just not fair!

Conspiracy? I would say probably not (though I am now bracing myself for some fruity comments).



But if Scotland does gain independence, will Tony have to dust off that kilt for continual wear? Will Adrian have to dye his impressive beard a ginger colour? Will Dick have to stand in front of the mirror practising his Och Aye The Noos in as guttural tones as he can muster? I would say probably not.

Then again, perhaps all three will be fleeing across the border the day after independence is announced? I would say probably not. But it is all not doom and gloom. After all, our own Steve Feltham is English too and a believer in Nessie. He can be an honorary Scot anytime.




But to be fair, you don't have to be English to be a sceptic. Nessie has had her most able defenders from south of Hadrian's Wall. The roll of honour includes Rupert T. Gould, Tim Dinsdale, Ted Holiday, Alastair Boyd, Paul Harrison and Richard Carter (though one can never be quite certain of every birth country).

So, with there being ten Englishmen for every Scotsman, it is no surprise they have invaded Loch Ness. But where are the Nessie loving Scotsmen? Who has stepped up to the plate for home grown research and hunting in times past?

Well, there was dear old Alex Campbell who stood up for the monster many a time. As a result of this, he has become the especial target of the sceptics. But that is another article in its own right. Constance Whyte, who wrote "More Than A Legend" is an uncertainty. I don't know if she was a Scot. The aforementioned Alastair Boyd has a Scottish sounding name, who knows?

All in all, a meagre harvest as Scots have stood back and let the English dismantle their monster. Come on, lads! We can do better than that. Will independence send the English sceptics homewards tae think again and spawn a new generation of Scottish monster hunters? I would say probably not, but who knows.

And should any English sceptic take this article seriously? I would say probably not. After all, they don't take anything else this blog says seriously.













122 comments:

  1. What about us welsh ???? :))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, i wondered if Holiday was Welsh (he lived in Wales) but he may have been a Yorkshire man.

      Delete
  2. Hadrian's wall is not the border. Unless you know something about Alex Salmond's territorial ambitions that we don't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I remember George Edwards having a pop in one of the local papers at Nessie-debunkers who were from down south but living locally. Prompted a sharp response from one or two individuals named in this article i seem to recall.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, I was born in Glasgow but have lived in England for 49 years so what where do I fit in lol. I could have played football for either Scotland or England but just one thing stopped me from doing this, I was shit at football :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. English Nessie Hunters claiming a Scottish Granny don't count!

      Delete
    2. Forgot to mention that my gran was Italian. The plot thickens eh. Mind you, it should give the conspiracy theorists food for thought.

      Delete
  5. I think it's more a sign of a primitive, folklore-driven society up in Scotland, compared to England. It's a hangover from the water horse myth. England discarded its myths much longer ago, due to a more advanced and scientific approach to the world around us.

    I'll tell you now I'm only joking, otherwise I might end up inside a giant burning wicker man on a clifftop!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Water horse is no myth.BTW,what Geordie,do you call that 6 foot thick long rough textured skinned animal that passed very close to that diver in the loch? I've noticed you haven't answered that comment from anonomous.very curious how you skeptics have ignored that
      One...

      Delete
    2. Hi, can you link to the photo or video please?

      I assume there is one, otherwise you're just discussing anecdotal hearsay which can't be scrutinised.

      Delete
    3. Actually Geordie,the diver,who GB,posted on this blog,fortunately had an IMAX camera with him but ,alas,gave it to Adrian Shine soooooo......

      Delete
    4. Simply not true.

      If a diver reported seeing a pair of 10ft long sturgeons in the loch, but had no camera, would you just accept his word?

      Delete
  6. “After all, they don't have any lake monsters in England. Why should Scotland have one if they don't? It's just not fair! “

    You have to keep any eye on these Inglese devils. I was reading that Derwentwater had a floating island that surfaced at certain times of the year. But it looked vegetable rather than animal. Cheap foreign imitations n that.

    Stop Press: Crisis for Steve Feltham! Dores Inn is up for sale for 750K.

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wales has one ....teggy in bala lake !!! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Afanc you for that information.

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
  8. On a more serious note bala lake has a unique fish called the gwyniad which is the only lake anywhere to have them landlocked! Hmmm maybe another lake cud be unique in having a landlocked creature but slightly bigger.... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. If perchance Scotland did become a sovereign state, I wouldn’t expect anything to change. The Lochness Monster is deeply entrenched in its history and culture. As for Adrian Shine, Dick Raynor and Tony Harmsworth picking up stakes and hightailing it out of there, don't hold your breath, all three of them have been long time residents and are also deeply entrenched. On the one hand they all have done pretty good for themselves riding on Nessie’s coattail. Adrian Shine, as founder of The Lochness Exhibition Center has run a lucrative enterprise, Dick Raynor has his tour boat business, is an accomplished photographer and consultant and Tony Harmsworth has his books to sell and ironically was once a Nessie believer. Steve Feltham, bless his heart, has been a long time Nessie supporter, but I don't think he'll ever become a millionaire selling clay Nessie figurines. Tourism will most likely remain unaffected. To most people the mention of Scotland brings to mind The Lochness Monster, Kilts, Bagpipes and good Scottish whiskey all in that order. The aforementioned notables can rest assured that their station in life and in the highlands will remain untouched So, unless an independent Scotland started serving deportation papers on all Englishmen, the status quo will remain in place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Scotland kicked out the English they would lose half their business leaders.

      If England booted out the Scots they would lose 90% of those strangers who ask for a pound for a cup of tea.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. John, it's "Loch Ness", not Lochness.

      Delete
    4. I knew that, please excuse my lapse in spelling.

      Delete
    5. John, was your entire post a spoof?

      Delete
    6. Yes it was! How keen and perceptive of you. It was an attempt at wit and sarcasm with a little parody tossed in. After I posted I had second thoughts: “Oh! Oh! I think I’m going to come under fire for that one!” I was expecting to be dragged over the coals actually. I hope I didn’t ruffle any feathers with my British cousins, known for their stiff upper lip. Come on lads, where’s that wonderful British humor. GB seems to have weathered the storm, so far!

      Delete
  10. Looks like Mr Harmsworth isn't a sceptic after all. I've just copied this from his website:

    "What we seem to be left with is the sightings of single humps in the water. The Loch Ness Project believes that even these are cases of mistaken identity. The webmaster, in common with many others, however, does not believe his sighting was mistaken identity and this leaves the whole matter open"

    The very same website which advertises his boat tours. Is he a sceptic or a believer? Or does that depend on his audience?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Seems Nessie has already voted "No" and moved to England. Perhaps Adrian, Tony and Dick can follow after her?

    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/399323/SCOTS-REFERENDUM-Has-the-Loch-Ness-monster-just-left-Scotland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Along with pretty much every business apart from off licences.

      Delete
    2. Referendum aside, what do we actually make of the image in that picture? Looks a bit 'The Lost World' to me, in a too-good-to-be-true way. Only a single image - no before or after shots to provide any comparison, and once again no moving image.

      Thoughts?

      Delete
    3. It was allegedly time lapse, so one would hope for further images. My suspicion is we have a lake just over the Scottish border one week before the yes/no vote. Hmmm!

      A bit depressing because if it is CGI, it highlights again the problem of distinguising the real from the fake.

      Delete
    4. Just another daft photo I'm afraid.

      Any "one shot" photo of a lake monster is ridiculous, unless there is a long automated time lapse. If we're talking about photos like the Mansi Champ pic, or those recent anorexic snake Nessie photos, you can write them off for one obvious reason. If people can click once they'd click repeatedly until the animal submerged. It's obvious really.

      Delete
  12. My direct ancestry is English, but like many in the U.S. I've got plenty of Irish and some Scots in my ancestry too.

    I hope to visit Scotland someday (including Loch Ness) no matter how the vote comes out. Nessie doesn't care about politics!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe they could use the oil money to fund another operation deepscan run by locals and do it properly this time .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Re. Adrian Shine:

    I have absolutely no idea why anyone could have anything other than admiration for this man. Look at what he's done at Loch Ness:

    Using accepted methods he has studied the biology, chemistry, physics and history of the loch, to determine nutrients, the overall size of the food chain, any possible natural phenomena causing the monster reports, such as known animals, underwater waves etc. He has over several years done far more to increase scientific knowledge about the loch than anyone posting here, without question.

    He seems to be a polite, open and honest man. Blatantly he would be a richer man if he came up with tales of hump sightings, sonar hits etc, but he doesn't - because he's a man of scientific integrity.

    While the rest of us read books on Nessie, Adrian Shine has the wherewithal and organisational skills to run a sonar curtain down the loch in Operation Deepscan. It might not have been perfect, but it was easily the best ever scientific attempt to determine whether a colony of animals might exist in the loch.

    So let's give Shine the credit he deserves, even if some of us would prefer him to believe in monsters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know about others, but Adrian has contributed a lot to the field of Loch Ness research. It has to be pointed out that the sturgeon theory he proposed is not a catch all theory. It is rather a theory that would only explain a small percentage of reports. The bulk he would put down to the usual misidentification and hoax suspects.

      It is that last main theory that I find inadequate. I think Adrian maintains an open mind on the subject and he may even admit to some cases he cannot explain (though what these are I cannot say).

      Delete
    2. But to comment on food supply without allowing salmon &c to enter the loch and yet allow sturgeons to enter the loch? What sort of science is this?
      Also, I distrust people who grow long beards to bask in the glory of 19th century intellectuals. (And people with large moustaches are very probably sending a coded message that Nietzsche / Nessie is dead.)

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
    3. I thought salmon runs have been taken into account by Shine? They are quite brief in terms of contributing to the annual food supply. I assume no one believes a large conceptual beast like Nessie could gorge itself enough during the salmon runs to be able to live on hardly anything during the rest of the year? Also, any animal predating on the annual run of salmon would cumulate where the food supply is most concentrated - in the river. So why no reports each year of humps where the river meets the loch during the salmon run?

      Delete
    4. No, his study clearly states that the richer littoral regions were not taken into account. Neither were the abyssal region, only the top layer of the open pelagic zone. Refer to my article.

      Delete
    5. Hi GB. Have you contacted Adrian requesting a reply to your analysis? I would like to read a reply. Thanks.

      Delete
    6. We chatted about it at the "Nessie at 80" event last year. He agreed on some of my points in terms of ranges of interpretation but not all.

      Delete
    7. Salmon runs don't last long, so for most of the year the food source in the loch is very low. Light can't penetrate very far.

      Delete
  15. Yes 30 years of work at the loch and he says nessie is a 9 foot fish. Yes big credit from me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As GB says, it's not that simple, Sid.

      Delete
  16. My point anon. More chance of monsters than 9 foot fish .

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thirty years of active reasearch and what do we have off Shine? An operation deepscan which did not cover the obvious places the side walls and the bays, totally inaccurate fish counts, 9 foot fish, a sturgeon in his pond and a very ordinary exhibition centre. Lets give him a big clap .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 30 years and no monster tells me there's nothing unusual in Loch Ness, rather than anything bad about Shine's work there.

      Who would fund another Deepscan type event anyway? Throwing away a few hundred grand on chasing unicorns?

      When so many years roll by and a team finds nothing to support the idea of a colony of monsters, you have to face the uncomfortable truth eventually.

      Delete
    2. I think you are overstating your position. Even Dick Raynor admits there are sightings he cannot explain. You appear to be more confident than him.

      I have said it often enough on this blog that the misidentification/hoax theory is inadequate. You need to think outside the box more here.

      Delete
    3. GB, I agree that eyewitness reports are interesting, but they aren't backed up by good photos and films. You have formulated a theory which enables you to reconcile the eyewitness testimony with a lack of decent images, but I haven't. For you, the eyewitness testimony cannot be written off. Equally, for me, the lack of any convincing images or carcasses cannot be ignored.

      It's not a case of either of us needing to think outside the box more, it's really just a simple stalemate.

      Delete
  18. Hang on G sceptic Shine admitted 3 large contacts so there was something there. He said he couldnt explain it. So what has he solved in 30 years ? Nothing i say.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with GS that Adrian shine is a decent bloke and will have the time of day for anyone ( even brickies) :))) !!! And actuallly he did sum good for the believers cus in 1987 he prooved there was at least three large moving objects in the loch!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake you raise a good point. At the time Op Deepscan was widely regarded as the final nail in the coffin for Nessie. I'd be interested to understand why. In other words, what was the significance of the 3 contacts, and why was the event considered bad news for Nessie believers?

      Delete
    2. The so called nail in the coffin was a media invention. Prior sonar experiments clearly showed Nessie was not an open pelagic creature.

      Delete
    3. So just to be clear GB - you believe Nessies generate sonar hits, correct?

      Delete
    4. The Dinsdale film object was pretty damned pelagic, agreed?

      Delete
    5. Yes, the creatures are capable of returning a sonar hit. The mechanism and consequent frequencies/strengths of such hits is an open question to me.

      Yes, the Dinsdale film was shot in open water, that tends to be where the creature is statistically more likely to be seen by road observers.

      Delete
    6. Like I think Trevor said, if nessies put on such bold, brazen displays as the boat in TD's film, they would have been filmed many times in the 54 years since.

      I'm really not sure about Operation Deepscan and the sonar hits. If the media overplayed the lack of hits, I guess someone from the sponsors might have been tempted to overplay the "bigger than a shark, smaller than a whale" thing. You'd have to ask why Adrian Shine, who was at the very epicentre of Operation Deepscan, does not believe in Nessie. There must be a reason for that. Who knows eh? I personally can't say either way if the results support one side or the other, but I note with a sigh that a believer is certain 3 monsters were detected.

      Delete
  20. Well im no expert on sonar so i listened to the ones that where. And at the time they felt the three targets wer interesting. One even said bigger than sharks but not as big as whales. Ive also seen other experts on sonar saying they wer puzzled by sonar hits they obtained. Yes GS i dont know why deepscan was doomed a failure for believers cus three targets in 60% of the loch ???

    ReplyDelete
  21. On the subject of sonar contacts and what not, whatever these 'targets' the sonars pick up they seem very sensitive to interlopers within their vicinity. I remember a lake monster episode on the old Arthur C Clarke, where this sonar team had to remove their footwear before going on a hunt because they claimed from previous experience that Nessie was very sensitive to noise. Apparently when the team, who were operating during a night shift, registered an underwater contact around five o'clock in the morning, Nessie had been disturbed by some yacht owner who had been in the process of flushing their toilet!
    I also remember the (possibly) late '90s programme with Robert Rines whom received a sonar contact but swiftly lost it when they attempted to home in their underwater camera which had been installed on their boat.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not sure bout pelagic myself. Truth is we dont know what these creatures are! I believe a lot of creatures will spend a lot of time in the side walls or the deper waters. But they will come out too. Thats why i was excited about three targets in 60% of the loch seeing as the sides were not covered. And on another run they had nothing. Had the three targets gone into the sides? Who knows. I would like to see another deepscan done but like someone said who would fund it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. And again.......they not monsters :) thats just a name given to them !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were just sonar hits, nothing more.Thermoclines? Closely packed fish? A seal? A plesiosaur-like water-breathing 30ft "monster"? Who knows!

      The results of the recent BBC and Rines sonar searches surely must dampen your enthusiasm... despite the get out clause that they mostly hide on the sides.

      Delete
    2. Your theory that there are monsters on the sides is not based on them being detected on the sides, rather, you say they are on the sides because that's the area where sonar is generally ineffective.

      So it's not actually a proper theory at all, it's more a case of "So we can't find anything in the main body of water, so let's say they are in places we can't really search properly", much like the hilarious theory that Nessie darts into underwater caves every time someone switches on a sonar beam.

      Delete
    3. Wrong again, GS. They inhabit the sides because that is where the food is most concentrated. swimming out into the pelagic zone is rather wasteful on energy, so best to just let the fish come to you.

      Delete
    4. So this is all pure theory dressed up as fact??

      You wrote: "Prior sonar experiments clearly showed Nessie was not an open pelagic creature"

      I took this to mean that prior sonar experiments showed targets at the edges, but apparently not. Your sole "evidence" that nessies are at the edges is that sonar hits are not obtained in the pelagic zone, plus fish exist at the edges!

      This is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I'm sorry GB, you are talking totally theoretically without a jot of evidence to back it up. It's like me saying unicorns must exist in the woods because we don't see them in fields and there are berries in the woods.

      Delete
    5. Wrong again, GS.

      Sonar hits are obtained in the pelagic zone, just not the numbers expected of a colony of creatures regularly inhabiting that zone. I did not say there were never hits in that area (and even there, you will have the usual disputes about interpretation).

      Work on the inner edges of the loch are much less extant due to previous restrictions, but as sonar technology becomes better and cheaper, we hope for more work in this area.

      The work in the abyssal and benthic regions is also a matter of debate.

      Delete
    6. No pelagic zone hits for rines makin him sure the monsters extinct
      no pelagic zone hits for bbc makin them sure no monsters

      Delete
    7. Applying strict logic:

      "No pelagic zone hits meant no pelagic zone monsters at the time"

      Except of course others do get hits - e.g. the recent Marcus Atkinson sonar reading. But do sceptics (or anyone) even know what a monster sonar hit looks like?

      Delete
    8. I thought the Atkinson sonar thing had been widely written off. Didn't he publicise the image just as he was launching a business which involved sonar searches for Nessie??

      Delete
  24. BBC????? Lol tell me more GS ???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3096839.stm

      Delete
    2. I talked to a rep from the sonar company who did the 2003 sonar work. This was not an Operation Deepscan sweep, they just did it bits at a time. And, yes, they did not do the closer shoreline.

      Delete
    3. Who was that rep?

      Delete
    4. Why? I spoke to him in 2011, he has access to the survey's raw data and even provided me with a sonar TIF file map.

      Delete
  25. GS u asked me if the BBC sonar sweep dampened my enthuisiasm! Well the answer is no it didnt. It was done in bits and over a few days so completly pointless in my view. Deepscan wasnt the best but at least it did it one sweep! Sense tells anyone the BBC trial coulldnt proove anything!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 600 separate beams detecting nothing is strongly indicative of no colony of large animals. I agree it doesn't actually prove that once and for all, but it's a very noteworthy result that can't be ignored, any more than the 3 hits in Operation Deepscan can be ignored.

      Delete
    2. What do you think it means by "600 separate beams"?

      Delete
    3. Maybe something like 120 degree beam, 0.2 degree angular resolution ? Dumbed down by the media. Read about it at http://www.km.kongsberg.com/ks/web/nokbg0240.nsf/AllWeb/620F423FA7B503A7C1256BCD0023C0E5?OpenDocument

      Delete
  26. Not really GS i blieve it took 4 days so if thats correct they covered only a quarter of the loch without the side walls so really about 20% of the loch in one go. 1 in 5 chance of getting a target so in my opinion .....pointless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does it say only a quarter of the loch?

      Basically as long as any search covers less than 100% of the loch you guys are more than happy with no sonar hits at all. The never-ending impossible to disprove monster myth. I wonder if these conversations will be continuing 200 years from now? What a thought!!

      Delete
    2. Except "no sonar hits at all" is a false statement. But as I said, those will be disputed and disbelieved anyway. Especially since GS can't tell me what a monster would look like on sonar!

      Delete
    3. During the above mentioned 2 searches there were "no sonar hits at all", but you're happy to brush this aside.

      As for what a monster sonar hit would look like... well obviously I don't think they exist, so how would I describe something that doesn't exist?! Like me asking you if manure from unicorns would be good for my rosebeds :-)

      Delete
    4. That implies you will default to "some other explanation" no matter what the sonar presents to you - since you do not have a "monster sonar hit" template to compare real data against.

      Delete
    5. Correct. Until there is some kind of substantial evidence that a colony of large animals previously unknown to science actually exists in Loch Ness, then I will indeed assume that any of these extremely rare sonar hits are signs of natural phenomena known to science. No one with any faith in science would assume anything else.

      It's been said time and time again - the burden of proof categorically lies with believers. Until you provide any evidence, I'm afraid Nessie simply does not exist other than as a figment of the imagination.

      Delete
    6. Well, I guess your time is up here then? Nothing to see, move on.

      Delete
    7. If only he would Glasgow Boy, if only he would.

      Delete
    8. Can't handle different viewpoints huh kid?!!!!!!

      Delete
  27. Im glad uve asked GS that question GB .. i was wonderin wat 600 seprate sonar beams meant!! GS ....over to you........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, I wasn't there, but my assumption on what 600 separate sonar beams means is six hundred sonar beams which are projected into the loch. All coming from separate sonar machines. Six hundred of them, or three times two hundred, or five hundred and ninety nine plus one. Sonar beams. Separate. Not together.

      I still want to see the source which says only 0.25 of the loch was covered. Until I see that from a reliable source I do not believe it.

      Delete
  28. He also cant tell you what 600 seoerate sonar beams means either GB even though he used it as a base for his argument !!!! And GS i explained why only 20 % of the loch was covered in one go......... maybe you missed that bit?????

    ReplyDelete
  29. You dont need a reliable source GS. work it out yourself!! If it took four days to do the whole loch then its 4 X 25 !!! And you s ay nobody would fund another deepscan type sweep but truth is nobody would fund it cus its a no win situation. Deepscan tried to proove there was nothing there but instead had three targets which was then said it wasnt proof of large creatures.!! A no win situation. It didnt proove either way. And as for the BBC they suprisngly kept their findings quiet despite claims of no nessie. But taking four days to complete the loch prooved they underestimated the size of the loch. and four days to do 100 % equals 25 % a day!!! Nessies had 75% to hide in plus the side walls !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't find anything to suggest they only covered 25% of the loch each day. Anyway, by any measurement, the following statement from the BBC team cannot be anything but bad news for the believers camp. If you try to ignore this, you're simply in denial:

      "We went from shoreline to shoreline, top to bottom on this one, we have covered everything in this loch and we saw no signs of any large living animal in the loch," said Ian Florence, one of the specialists who carried out the survey for the BBC.His colleague Hugh MacKay added: "We got some good clear data of the loch, steep sided, flat bottomed - nothing unusual I'm afraid."There was an anticipation that we would come up with a large sonar anomaly that could have been a monster - but it wasn't to be."

      Delete
    2. Well, they didn't do what you quote, did they? The top 10 metres was not covered (where most of the open pelagic fish are) nor the shoreline up to 10m in depth (where most of the littoral fish are). It's just a soundbite which summarises to the exclusion of detail,

      And you totally ignore the other times sonar hits have been recorded as if this BBC search was the only one ever done. Sometimes you get a hit, sometimes you don't. These are not open water swimmers.




      Delete
  30. GS im suprised you used your base for argument on a sonar sweep you obviously no little about. BBc one was a farce.....so next one please????? Did u say Rines??? Tell me more ????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, you clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the BBC search yourself. You hadn't even heard of it! You know nothing about the methodology, yet you've decided it's fine to declare that only 25% of the loch was searched. Yet again it's a case of hating the results of a sonar sweep, so just writing off the entire event as worthless. That is a very poor attitude to research jake, and it shows me why you'll keep believing in nessie no matter what happens.

      The following excerpt should ring alarm bells for any believer. A colony of 30ft monsters could not always avoid the sonar beams, yet apparently you seem to think that always happens:

      "We went from shoreline to shoreline, top to bottom on this one, we have covered everything in this loch and we saw no signs of any large living animal in the loch," said Ian Florence, one of the specialists who carried out the survey for the BBC.His colleague Hugh MacKay added: "We got some good clear data of the loch, steep sided, flat bottomed - nothing unusual I'm afraid."There was an anticipation that we would come up with a large sonar anomaly that could have been a monster - but it wasn't to be."

      Delete
    2. Jake is quite right to suggest they covered 25% a day. It may have been less, this was no Operation Deepscan.

      Once again, you misrepresent to gain debating points. A colony of 30ft monsters? You know fine well that they will come in different szie from juvenile upwards.

      A little thought oin your part would also come to some conclusions on the rarity of sonar hits. We have a creature which is only reported breaking the surface a few times a year. In fact, checking my databse for that year (2003) logs only three sightings. Now apply your brain here. Three surface breakings over 365 days cannot translate to much open water activity below. Sonar hits are the exception not the rule.

      I answered your BBC quote elsewhere.

      Delete
    3. Breaking the surface and swimming underwater are surely 2 different things? Forgive me but I thought sonar detected underwater creatures.

      As for 25% coverage per day, well how amazing that once again all the monsters somehow know to avoid the parts being scanned.

      Like I say - for you guys even if a new Operation Deepscan created a curtain covering 99% of the loch, you'd grasp at the remaining 100%. If it covered 100% you'd talk about underwater caves,or the colony being away on a day trip down the River Ness.

      Sonar searches showing no hits are bad news for you. It's that simple.

      And Jake - your question mark and exclamation mark keys seem to keep getting stuck. Makes you look a little crazy.

      Delete
    4. "Breaking the surface and swimming underwater are surely 2 different things? Forgive me but I thought sonar detected underwater creatures."

      That is not what I am saying. Surface breaking will be proportional to what goes on under the surface. The more activity in the pelagic zone, the more surfacings and vice versa. Three sightings in 365 days suggests a paucity of pelagic activity.

      Delete
    5. Three surface-break sightings in 365 days suggests no unusual animals, rather than a colony of giant creatures intelligent, clever, and oh so lucky enough to avoid most methods of detection and many watchful eyes. Hard logic.

      Delete
    6. I'm not quite following Glasgow Boy's logic here. I might understand his position if surfacings were nearly always reported as occurring at the very edges of Loch Ness, but from what I've seen of the reports this is far from the case. Indeed, as far as I can see, the surface reports Glasgow Boy champions on these very pages seem to mostly occur out in open water. The "whale splash", the Dinsdale film, the (frankly ludicrous) Jonathan Bright photo.

      If, as he says, the surfacings relate to what goes on under water, then we have every reason to assume these animals, if they exist, spend as much time in the open water as the edges. And therefore they should be regularly detected by sonar.

      APC

      Delete
    7. Not at all.

      The edges of the water are much harder to observe from the roads than the open waters. So, for example, if the monster was ten times more likely to surface in the 10% of total surface by the shore, that gives us 3 surfacings in that area versus 3 surfacings in the open water.

      I suggest that those 3 littoral sightings will be largely missed.

      And to repeat, three observed surfacings per year is far from indicative of meaningful actiivity in the open pelagic waters.

      Delete
  31. Oh you have actually info on this at last GS ??? Thought u already knew seeing as u brought it up ! Again i say ' not in one go ' did they cover the loch. If it took them 2 years would u still say ' but they covered the whole loch ' ?????? Lol . Cant see why u cant understand this GS !!!!!! Now if they covered it in one sweep like deepscan then yes i would have grounds for concern.....but yhe simple fact is they didnt!!! How long do u want?? 2 days.....3.....6....9....12 months lol. Just another publicity stunt by the poor disgraced BBC.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And you say i never heard of bbs sonar sweep??? Wrong lol i argued this case 6 months ago. I read the same as what u just put up here but that is all u can find on it hence why i asked u cus u brought it up so thought u might know something we didnt. obviously not!!!!!!!!!!!! I had this discussion with Dick a long time ago cus i asked if anyone knew any more about it. All it says on web is ' we went shore to shore on this one and covered the whole loch ' hmmmmmm im sure i cud get a boat with sonar and cover the whole loch shore to shore lol might take me a few months though........but id still say id done it !!!!! Lol

    ReplyDelete
  33. There is no info on the bbc website about this sweep just what u have put up GS . We all knew this years ago but i asked u to ' tell me more' cus i thought u had more info on it . How long it took....hoe many boats... how the beams worked....etc!! But none of this has ever bin explained on their web just a statement they covered the whole loch. Now initially when i saw the statement yes i was dissapointed so thats why i raised the question a while back . When i found out it was done over 4 days it was a relief yes. Now i cant add any more but ill try again GS.........100% x 4 = 25.........25% a day.. now i cant try and get thru anymore so end of the bbc for me cheers.....now what was the rines one??? And before u say i dont know well i prob do im just asking u to tell me summit i dont know about rines sonar seeing as u asked me the direct question on was i dissapointed in the results( or something to those words). Ive answered ur question on was i dissapointed with bbc and gave u my reasons so cant do anymore.....next one please????,,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 100% × 4 = 25 does it? I wouldn't let you order the bricks.

      The BBC may well have spent 4 days at the loch. It would be interesting to know how the time was divided up. It's one huge assumption to say they did 25% per day. I suspect sonar searches don't work quite that steadily. It would be interesting to find out from people who actually know (those involved at the time), rather than some ranting internet monster fanatic.

      Either way, it sure doesn't look good for the believers. No hits. Oops!

      APC

      Delete
    2. I dont do the ordering lol just build em !!!! Lol

      Delete
  34. I think perhaps I'll take a break from here for a while. It's very tough debating against faith-based positions. Science seems virtually irrelevant here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Faith based? Nonsense! These sonar results are acknowledged as are OTHERS which are more anomalous. The extreme rarity of surface sightings is a sign that we should not be demanding regular sonar hits.

      We'll be waiting for you when you come back.

      Delete
  35. Going back to the subject of Adrian Shine im sorry i dont share the admiration for him. With a costly operation in deepscan and the world media looking on they could not even get the sonar to reach the right depth. Then to top it all they stopped the floatilla of boats just short of lochend. This means a couple of miles of water not done with sonar plus Loch Douchfour which runs into Loch ness. Who was behind this decision. Couldnt organize a Sup up in a brewery springs to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes GS if u cant do basic maths then maybe take a break lol we look forward to ur return :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. !!!!!!! ????????? !!! ????????? Lol

    ReplyDelete
  38. If there are 20 animals in the loch then a 25% sweep should be expected to get around 5 hits. Yet there were none over 4 days.

    Jake, do the maths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That assumes an equal distribution of creatures across the whole loch volume. What do you base that conclusion upon?

      Delete
    2. Based upon logic. Group sighting reports are very rare, suggesting these imaginary animals are solitary rather than pack animals. This implies some kind of spreading out. It's statistically highly unlikely such a search would return zero hits if these animals actually existed. There should have been hits but there weren't. End of.

      Delete
    3. Based upon selective logic more like. What species of animal are you using to model your argument?

      It may imply spreading out, but to where? In no way, does your logic demand that this means a uniform distribution of creatures. No more than solitary tigers are evenly spread out over their landscape.

      Delete
    4. I agree. Over the 4 days therefore there should have been one or two days with only one or two hits, but there also conversely should have been a day of more than 5 hits.

      It's called STATISTICAL PROBABILITY.

      Delete
    5. Really? Pray tell us what creature model you used in this assessment? What physiological and behavioural chracteristics did you assume in this study?

      You will of course acknowledge that the hypothetical creature selected influences the outcome - i.e. what you want.

      And they accuse us of fitting the creature to the absence of data!

      Delete
  39. Haha anon now !!!!!!!!!! Hmmm. Lol

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi. I watched a programme a while back on giant japan salamanders, and you have a point glasgow boy because they spend most of their time in the side walls or under rocks during the day time. Some salamanders do this and come out more at night. So i dont agree with the above that this is a get out clause for the sonar experiments.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi guys. How do we get round the fact that the largest salamanders only grow to six feet in length?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I know this Anon -- he/she must have forgotten which blog they were at! Sorry about that GB. Well it's a total non sequitar here, but how large Andrias davidianus grows in China isn't anything we need to "get round" when talking sonar in Loch Ness. Although brining up the littoral habits of A. japonicus in the preceding comment is somewhat astute. Whether fish-like amphibian or amphibian-like fish, posing for sonar in open water is not a likely behavior.

      Delete
  42. Hi all, a brief reappearance from me, prompted Chasing Leviathan's excellent 3 part post to me on another page. CL, you have a top tier analytical mind, and I will reply in due course, even though I don't really disagree with anything you wrote.

    Other thing is the criticism on these pages of Adrian Shine from the believers - be honest, if his methodology remained exactly the same but he simply said "I believe a colony of animals of an unknown species inhabits the loch", you guys would be singing his praises. No question about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The recognition of Adrian's work is to do with his general studies of the Loch Ness area. However, I don't think much of that work translates readly into solid deductions about the LNM.

      Delete