Paul Cropper, a Fortean researcher from Australia, regularly sends me pieces of Loch Ness information he comes across during his investigations. So, I was happy to receive another Tim Dinsdale newsletter from him which I have now added to the archive.
It is titled "Commentary No.5" and appears to date from about 1980. You can access it at this link while the general link for the Tim Dinsdale newsletters is here and for the Rip Hepple newsletters is here.
One snippet that caught that my attention concerns an alleged land sighting.
Now, this is a third hand account from an ex-resident of Fort Augustus Abbey. Tim attempted to contact the witness' daughter, Sandra Smith, in Vienna, but with no success. It's some story, but there is little that one can do with it except state that no one else to my knowledge has ever reported a Loch Ness Monster in such an aggressive mood. Apart, of course, from Adamnan and his account of St. Columba's life!
Tim goes through some first hand accounts of monster sightings as well as everyday life at the loch - down to how he gets on with some bumblebees!
He ends his letter seemingly taking the decisive step of selling his "Water Horse" boat and determining to go back to land based watches. He expresses frustration with not getting the evidence he wished from years on the water. He had a couple of long neck sightings, but that was not good enough. He wanted the close up film which would finally vindicate him and the other monster hunters he knew.
Off the top of my head, it is not clear how he spent the final years of his life at Loch Ness. Did he stay on land or go back to his boat? Perhaps if somebody has some later newsletters, we can all find out.
Keep your comments on-topic, please.
ReplyDeleteInteresting tale if true. Not being a skeptic I won't analyze it, or try to poke holes in it, but take it at face value. It's the first instance since the days of St. Columba that I've heard of, where a Nessie has acted in an aggressive manner. Makes me wonder if there have ever been any missing persons reported around the Loch in modern times or distant past, never found, possibly taken to the deep ala Kelpie myth style
ReplyDeletePeople do disappear, but for all manner of reasons. I remember tracking the story of a woman who had disappeared in 1933/34 whlie in Dores. An aggressive Nessie? Not quite, her body sadly was found on some nearby moors later.
DeleteOf course, if Nessie in theory did grab people, it would be pretty difficult to prove an aquatic predator was repsonsible unless tell tale clues were left on the shore.
G.B.read Rex Gilroys hawksbury river monster page.very interesting
DeleteI would of course add that the legendary Loch Ness Kelpie was renowned for its aggresive nature, but unlike Columba, specific examples of victims are rare.
ReplyDeleteWell I have a more questioning approach than John's, so please forgive me, but I am going to raise some observations I have made about this report.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me first, is how totally at ease such an animal would be both in water and on land. We're talking about an animal large enough to chase after and scare a fully grown man. So this animal has limbs primarily for swimming - catching fish underwater. It is scarcely on land (extremely rare reports, no lochside prints ever found), and yet it has sufficiently strong and stable limbs to support a large body and hurtle through the trees! Those limbs being underwater in almost zero gravity conditions for many years at a time. Does this ring true? Are there any equivalents in the animal kingdom? Seals spend a lot of time on land, which enables them to be acclimatised and strong enough to move about, albeit in a lurching manner on relatively flat ground. They are not comparible to what is described here, and certainly could not chase a man through trees. A larger animal which does not come on land regularly would have no chance. Forgive me for not simply accepting this account without thought.
What are people's views? Personally I consider this account one of the least believable I've ever read.
I am not sure anyone is accepting it as a true account, so I would not read much into it. It's put up here as part of the LNM Tapestry.
DeleteI have some thoughts on LNM locomotion I will keep for a future article, but, in general, I take the view that it is not flippers but webbed feet. Since I also take the view that the LNM tends to move around the sides and bottom of the loch, such webbed feet would be gainfully employed in locomotion more often than supposed.
Check link below for more details.
http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/nessie-on-land-morphology-and-behaviour.html
"Those limbs being underwater in almost zero gravity conditions for many years at a time"
DeleteThose limbs would get a good daily workout swimming in water over the years, repellent force = muscle building, muscles = strength.
Blatantly the completely wrong king of workout. Massive difference between using limbs to swim (virtual weightlessness) and the load-bearing required to walk, or in this case run on land.. Totally different muscle groups required and I'm pretty sure you knew it.
DeletePlease point me to even one large animal which spends years only in the water but can then suddenly run on land? Is there any kind of precedent in the animal kingdom? Be honest now....
You accusing Anonymous of dishonesty?
DeleteDefine "run". How many mph?
DeleteAre you addressing the webbed feet or flipper scenario?
Oh lordy... apologies, not dishonesty! Let's hope these new rules work both ways.
DeleteAs for limb types - it would not matter whether flipper or webbed foot - the load-bearing strength of the limb is the issue. I repeat, no large heavy animal could stay underwater for years then suddenly run on land. It's a biological impossibility with no precedent.
"Blatantly the completely wrong king of workout. Massive difference between using limbs to swim (virtual weightlessness) and the load-bearing required to walk, or in this case run on land"
DeleteI'm not talking Nessie, but weight to ratio of limb strength, may I suggest a Mudskipper would be one answer to your question.
Turtle??????
DeleteAs an aside to pro-Nessie people, when asked a question by a sceptic (such as GS above), the natural reaction may be to answer. But I say, first of all, question!
DeleteDo not assume that what has been asked or stated is correct or you may find you are wasting time and energy.
In that light, GS, the verb "run" is inappropriate. LNMs do not run, no witness has described one as running. Waddle or lurching would be more appropriate terms and these certainly do not suggest speed as much as the word "run" would.
Your second assertion that seals spend a lot of time on land developing their locomotion skills is not as relevant to this thread as it appears.
How much of a seal's time on land is actually spent lurching about? Not much I would imagine. A lot of pics/vids I see show them coming onto land, flopping out and lazing about. That is no surprise since energy is a precious commodity not to be wasted on practising your lurch.
Sure, there will be moving about during mating or territorial disputes, etc. But in the main, I do not think seals come on land to expend even more energy after constant swimming.
Therefore, I suggest however much time the LNM spends on underwater ledges or on land is not as small as you imply.
Mudskippers and turtles - both smaller than your monster and both often seen out of water. Not the examples needed to answer my question.
DeleteLedges underwater are still underwater and therefore the animal would be supported weight-wise.
Ok "crashing" through the trees. Same applies for that verb.
Are you sure you need to tell the believers how to respond to sceptics, Roland? Is that not a little bit patronising?
The question remains - can anyone think of an animal over 20ft long which spends years underwater but can suddenly emerge and "crash" after live prey on land? Does this sound remotely plausible to anyone reading this?
GB, the only reason I have repeated the question is because mudskippers and turtles don't answer my question.
Never seen a 25 foot mudskipper or turtle myself. You can't just scale up a small animal and think it would work!
DeleteThe question was asked to name a large heavy animal that spends all its life in water then suddenly goes on land.....i repeat ..a turtle.....leatherbacks growing to 9 feet and weighing 1500 pounds!!
DeleteNo reply on what I said about seals?
DeleteHow much the creature is supported by the water on the ledges depends on how much it adjusts its bouyancy. But, granted, it will be less effort than on land. My point was that it has a degree of experience in a form of locomotion that involves moving across a solid surface. You seem to imply it can't make the step up from underwater walking to surface walking.
No, I do not think it is patronising, you're off on the personal stuff again on this comment section.
Also, you need to stop using this account as a basis for LNM analysis, "crashing" is from a third hand account. The first hand witness may have used a completely different word. The LNM does not "crash" after prey. No witness has ever stated this. My own take on prey was outlined in my predator article.
As for animal candidates, my own opinion is that this is an unidentified new species, so not sure if pointing you to known ones helps.
Following up the bouyancy thing, it is also possible the LNM swallows stones as ballast to decrease bouyancy. That would make ledge locomotion more of a "heavy" experience.
DeleteCheck ur quesrion again geordi and u will find the leatherback turtle is an answer to what u asked. Think they actually can grow to 10ft and 2000lbs in weight. A large heavy animal in my book!!
DeleteSeals are often on land, and have to shift in and out of the water often several times a day. Seals are in fact a good illustration of how bulky animals which predate on fish require slender, paddle-like limbs to be able to move their bulky bodies with speed through the water. Large, muscular trunk-like legs - even with webbed feet - simply wouldn't cut it. Just the wrong kind of limb for a large marine animal to move swiftly with. This is why I believe land sightings are the big achilles heel for the believers. If I were a believer in Nessie, I would stick with the water-based reports. The land sightings are surely incompatible.
DeleteRoland, Loch Ness has only been a lake for 12000 years. If there was something unusual in there it would simply have to bear a reasonable resemblance to a known animal. Evolution demands it. Additionally, the only driver for animals to evolve is natural selection. It seems clear that Nessies, if they existed, have no purpose being on land. They don't hunt or breed on land. Therefore any evolution would take them down the direction of fast swimming limbs - the advantage of catching fish, rather than "crashing through the trees".
It's odd that you are removing the word "crash" from this report in your comment above. If we can dismiss that part to suit our purposes, can't we just dismiss the entire report too?
When we think of animal candidates, even if we believe we are talking about an unknown species, it will be related to known animals. It will also be subject to laws of physics and biology. We cannot simply do what we all did in primary school - i.e. invent a fantastical mix and match creature which we shoehorn into the reports we believe from Loch Ness. It might be fun to do that, but it's not scientific.
I trust this post is polite and relevant.
Jake, you seen how badly they move on land? Think one could crash through trees after a man? They couldn't climb up slopes and cross roads either. They don't fit tje bill. And they don't spend years underwater with a land appearance only once in several years, do they? Please try again.
DeleteOk i checked leatherback turtle facts. Firstly the adults grow to around 6ft, with the odd really big one at 7ft.
DeleteThey lay eggs out of water. They have been filmed out of water on numerous occasions and definitely do not fit into the category of being a water breather which remains submerged for years.
They are painfully slow and awkward on land, even the 5ft ones. Go to youtube and search for "Leatherback turtle on land". All in all you will see that the leatherback turtle does nothing whatsoever to back the account here.
Yes, but no one is claiming it should back this third hand account.
DeleteI think you should "try again", Geordie Sceptic. I have already said no one is expecting the LNM to now "crash through trees" based on a single 3rd hand account. So I'll delete any comments that persist in that straw man argument.
DeleteYour other comment about LNMs spending "years underwater" with the odd once in several years appearance is also a bit misleading and suggests you do not always read what I post (or ignore it). I have stated that these may be nocturnal creatures based on witness data. Land sightings may be more frequent than you think.
Also, eels move on land but spend a vastly greater amount of time in water. So it seems your land-water time ratio is not sacrosanct.
GS, you argument about seals and flippers grows weaker with each reply. Here is a video of seals moving without flippers.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-v13xtEZc
Next!
Ive answered the question u asked. Check again geordie lol and anon the biggest turtle found was actually just under 10 ft and weighed 2000lbs. Have a google. Now in my eyes thats a powerful heavy animal . If its not in urs them thats fair enuf !!@
DeleteThe fact is we have a heavy big animal that spends its whole life in water and occasionally comes on land ( leatherback turtle) ....like u asked geordie. Now going back to the story sense tells anyone its not completly true. We will never know if it is or is partially true and the chasing bit has bin exagarated!!! But a 2000lbs animal can live its life in water and suddenly come on land. Fact!! And you say geordie its a sudden thing that they dont do often ( coming out of water) how do u know???? If these creatures are nocturnal they could be doing it regular at night. Now im not saying they are of course lol but u dont know so u cant say :)
DeleteIf they are then it must be South shore between Foyers and Borlum Bay or below Boleskine. Any other bit of the loch and they'd be registering more frequently. Even the Dores - Inverfarigaig - Foyers road has a reasonable flow of nighttime traffic these days.
DeleteVery interesting form of locomotion used by seals when they want to. I would imagine a Nessie, with a large, bulky body spending most of the time in the deep, using webbed appendages employed mostly for swimming and underwater ledge “crawling” assisted by some form of innate “negative” buoyancy would use just that very form maneuvering on land. Some land sighting witnesses, in particular the Spicers, reported not so much walking or crawling, but an undulating, caterpillar type or jerky, lurching motion. Mother Nature allows her creatures to adapt to any situation when they have to.
DeleteI've just watched the seal movement in the video you provided the link for GB and it's interesting to note that although the seals are actually travelling slowly, their actual body movement is quite rapid in comparison. It gives the impression that the seal is travelling faster than it actually is and if something similar happened with the LNM, possibly crashing through bushes and trees, it might explain the apparent swifter movement that may have been reported.
DeleteSo now nessie comes out of the loch at night more than we realise? If she's like Jake's turtles but bigger then she'll need a good few hours to make it up and over the road. And I think I agrer with the geordie point. Nessies are underwater almost permanently, very different to turtles which are on land quite often.
DeleteI believe there is something in loch ness by the way. I am not a sceptic but i think the land sightings are all mistaken.
Pete. That skeptic Gs keeps explaining the differences but you all keep ignoring. Seals have regular times on land. Daily in fact. Nessies are on land perhaps once in ten years if being generous. The rest of the time they experience the weightlessness of being underwater. Seals are also much smaller. Big difference between the two.
DeleteI didnt say that lol im just using the example that nobody knows whats in loch ness and how they behave ( if they are in there of course). We cant talk about something we dont know about. If there are are large creatures in the ness they could ne anything. Fish reptiles amphibians??? So we cant commet on what they do at night. I said maybe they COULD no do !!!!
DeleteJohn, that is a very fanciful description. Try dumping a shark or whale on land and see how it adapts.
DeleteMother Nature allows animals to adapt to where they live, agreed.Quite clearly we can all invent some Swiss Army knife of an animal in our minds which can do whatever we want it to, but if we look at what actually exists in nature, we see there are in fact limits to what is possible.
Crocodiles are competent swimmers and also pretty fast on land for short periods.
DeleteYet again the point has been missed. Crocodiles don't spend years purely underwater chasing fish for food. They are often on land, hence they can move ok on land.
DeleteGeordie Sceptic, you seem to have suddenly gone silent on the seal argument since I posted that youtube clip.
DeleteWell Geordie, I should have put in a qualifier. I was speaking in the context of amphibian creatures, which the LNM is reputed to be. I wouldn't expect a shark or a whale to traipse on land. Although, Orcas have been known to go onto the beach to ambush, or in hot pursuit of prey for short periods. Like I said “when they have to”. Maybe in a million years when evolution sees fit and kicks in, sharks may sprout legs and come on land, and if we're ( the human race) still around, that will be a problem!
DeleteJake - we know enough to know they do not come ashore with any kind of regularity, if at all. I've lived here for a long time and driven these roads at all times of day and night, in all seasons. So have all my friends. If large animals were coming ashore on even a semi-regular basis, they would be registering. The loch isn't that remote.
DeleteThere may be a lot of things we don't know about the phenomenon, but there are enough people who know enough about the environment to make some educated calls.
So, Geordie Sceptic persists in this tight relationship between surface time and locomotion abilties.
DeleteI already gave the example of the eel. He had sufficient time to reply to that but did not.
I showed that seals don't need flippers to move on land, but he did not reply to that either.
I am beginning to get the impression he just moves onto the next argument as if we have said nothing of any worth. But this is nothing new. When I pose questions to sceptics which they cannot answer, they don't say "I do not know" for that is conceding ground, they just DO NOT REPLY!
Dear Roland,
DeleteI am an occasional contributor on your blog. I always read your articles and the reader comments. I am what you might call a fence sitter in the magnificent debates which unfold here. Today I choose to post incognito. This is because I do not wish to be seen siding with the sceptics. Additionally I am now somewhat confused by your censoring rules, What I see here is a very clear bias against scepticism when applying your new rules. You have sadly allowed the mountain hiker to very openly break your rules then you have banned geordie sceptic for feeling aggrieved by that. Even worse, you have accused geordie of not replying after you have banned him from replying. Roland, this is the first time I have seen you let yourself down in all the years I've enjoyed your blog.
Now, to address the points I feel have been raised and answered by geordie (if I am reading him correctly here), I think he is not at all suggesting seals cannot move quite quickly at times. I think his point is that they can do so because they are often on land. Whereas our monsters in the loch are always underwater and surface more rarely than a pike or trout. I think the point being that our monsters have no adaptation to land at all.
I think geordie was probably not discussing eels because they are neither large nor bulky humped animals.
That is how I see this conversation from the fence anyhow.
Roland, I do not wish to stop enjoying the pages here. I would calmly and respectfully suggest there has been a loss of vision displayed on this page, and not by any sceptic on this occasion. They have tried my patience a =LOT= in the past but on here there has been nothing but interesting commentary from gs.
If you decide that this comment is suitable for uploading you will have restored some of my belief in the importance of this website in the big loch ness monster debate.
Kind Regards.
Geordie skeptic, the saltwater crocodile shows that things are not so simple:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_crocodile
It seems to me that such an animal might vary its behaviour depending on the available food supply.
Thank You.
DeleteClearly I have my biases, just like everyone else. This is a pro-Nessie blog after all and so I would rather not see it hijacked to other people's agendas. If people are expecting 100% perfect moderaton, that's not going to happen.
Given his previous rapid response times, I think he had enough time to reply to what I said about eels and seals.
If there is any truth in it maybe something came out of the water and the person assumed it was chasing him: sheer panic maybe at seeing the legendry monster:
ReplyDeleteThe water horse had a maneater reputation, what made it change?
DeleteThe water horse is a mix of myth and fact. Myth = cultural overlays and fact = large creature. The bit about riding people to their deaths is myth.
DeleteDo we have any proof of the fact bit? It looks like all myth and no fact where im sitting.
DeleteHmm, myth without doubt. Fact though?
DeleteI always regarded the water horse as a celtic myth rooted in parents trying to scare kids away from lochs and rivers.
Read my book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness".
DeleteHaha, you know just after i clicked to submit the post i knew that was going to be your answer Roland! ;-)
DeleteThe hump came directly towards him,he either saw or heard it come on land CRASHING through bushes.seems clear To me,I'd run too.
DeleteAnother aspect to consider with Nessie on land would be the ability of eyes to adapt to allow to see clearly in air despite density differences between air and water.
ReplyDeleteI think that I might be inclined to go with the sceptics on this report. But did anyone ever follow up Holiday's claim that there was a phenomenon of bent and broken bushes on the lochside caused by "the creature"?
ReplyDelete*AnonStg^
I seem to recall Dick Raynor came up with an explanation ... wait for it ... it's quite novel .... groundbreaking ... it was .... deer!
Delete:)
Dick's explanation of a deer seems just as novel and groundbreaking as attributing(or at least speculating it's the explanation) every odd occurrence, sighting, photograph, or video to an unknown animal or extinct creature, only Dick's explanation is the more likely answer :)
DeleteAnyhoo, I was thinking crocodilians as far as an animal that spends large amounts of time in water but could "crash" through brush on land, as it were, although they aren't strictly water creatures. It's keeping it in the reptilian/amphibious area, however.
Yes, well, deer seem to pop all over the place.
DeleteAdmittedly, Holiday's account of flattened bush is not high up on my list, it's on the list, but not high up.
A good few years ago, possibly mid-1990s, I remember reading a three part article about the search for Nessie in the Orbis publication 'The Unexplained'. Of course this article that I read was written by Adrian Shine, who criticised the Robert Rines 'Flipper' Photograph, comparing the object in the underwater photograph to the limb-like appendages of the lungfish. He claimed that 'it wasn't an effective design for underwater swimming.'
ReplyDeleteGeordie swimming is the king of all exercises for strengthening a body..I can hike the mountains much,much better when I prep beforehand by doing swimming laps w sprints.please get out of your barker lounger armchair in your smoking room and try some basic physical fitness.you will agree I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question at the end GB, as I understand it Tim Dinsdale returned to land watches after being diagnosed with high blood pressure. He operated out of a caravan (that he dubbed 'Perambulator One') during his final visits to Loch Ness. If I recall aright he was back aboard Water Horse once, but that was purely for filming purposes for 'Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World.' Apparently Tim had too much respect for the changeable nature of the loch to risk being afloat if he wasn't one hundred percent fit.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I do recall "Perambulator One" now. I guess the high blood pressure was a precursor to his eventual demise.
DeleteBTW, some comments have been deleted as not being on-topic and beginning to drift into multiple threads.
As well as some being a bit abusive of some sceptics ....
DeleteI'm surprised a personally abusive post suggesting I smoke and never exercise has passed your new rules, GB. For what it's worth, I exercise 4 times every week and have never smoked.
DeleteIt's a shame people can't quite work out what I'm saying about swimming and walking on land. Following the logic shown here i would guess a blue whale could hike up Everest in a few hours.
I don't think it is abusive. It doesn't surprise me you and other have taken it upon yourselves to be the comment moderation policy police.
DeleteOk then I will start commenting similarly. Anonymous above should spend less time hiking up mountains and more time exercising his grey matter.
DeleteYou like to push the boundaries, don't you? And I don't mean intellectually. Don't push it, I am getting impatient with your mind games.
DeleteNot as impatient as I now am with you. Seriously.
DeleteBan me if you choose. For me that would be the ultimate sign you don't have good enough answers.
Typical. Try and create a no-win situation for me, by playing the "cowardice" card.
DeleteYou're banned from further comments on this thread only.
To clarify, banned from furher comments on this article.
DeleteGood move GB. Geordie was violating one of your policy rules, to wit:starting to hog and clutter this article comments. Always has to have the last word.
DeleteGB, in Geordie's defense “Geordie swimming is the king of all exercises for strengthening a body.” by Anonymous was a cheap shot and irrelevant, maybe you should not have allowed that comment to be posted. Just saying. Fair is fair.
DeletePerhaps, no one's perfect. I gave him his right of reply.
DeleteMake ur minds up lads. One of you says Gs always has the last word the other one ( GB) says he doesnt reply enough !!
DeleteBeginning to go off topic ..... !
DeleteI see EKM has gone off and posted elsewhere his gripes about my new comments policy. He states he is shut out from posting on this blog which is nonsense. I'll leave him (and others sceptics) to get on with their mutual back scratching in that regard.
ReplyDeleteIf someone posts a comment which doesn't break the rules, it will get posted. If I ban someone, they'll know about it on this blog. But I repeat, I will not go back to the chaos we had previously.
Although Geordie has been removed from the discussion I'd still like to suggest a potential zoological example to his challenge and a retort to his comment time stamped 11/22/2014 01:01.
ReplyDeleteGeordie wrote, "Try dumping a shark or whale on land and see how it adapts." There are numerous written accounts, photos and video of killer whales swimming close to shorelines to hunt prey and executing surgical strikes on seal herds isolating juveniles specifically. These attacks are swift and the animal uses its own wake to assist in propelling its bulk on land and then manoeuvres via lunges and use of its fins. This is an animal that can range from 6 to 10 metres and weigh over 6 tonnes.
And it's not a seal.
Of course, the sentence long description lacks any useful detail of the creatures supposed movements and is subjective. I doubt whatever it was "attacked" in the fashion of an orca and in no way do I suggest that the Loch Ness creature is a killer whale.
Orcas do emerge from the sea to catch prey but only within the confines of where they will still have enough water to quickly get back into the sea. They do not continue pursuing prey by crashing through trees, no siree!
DeleteCorrect, Anonymous, that method of hunting is potentially life-threatening to the orca. Says something about their intelligence that they can come up with an ROI and risk/benefit analysis and decide to roll the dice anyway.
DeleteYou also make my point that this debate is based on extrapolation. When I read the text of the excerpt from "Commentary No.5" it doesn't describe pursuing prey through trees. It could just as well be a lunge on the surface toward a person on or near the same place onshore before retreating back to the loch, yes?
I think Geordie's point was correct in the fact that marine/water animals that spend the vast majority of their time underwater aren't generally known for the ability to pursue prey on land, which seems to be the gist of the brief report above. Sure, killer whales absolutely do attack seals in the manner you describe, but it's a lunge from the water while in the motion of swimming. That's quite different from an actual pursuit out of the water on flippers, if that's what the story was actually meant to relay. In fairness, I'd say Geordie's point is well taken in response to the exercise/mountain climbing silliness - take 99.9% of water creatures out of their natural habitat and plop them on land, they'll have quite a difficult time traversing dry land, let alone crash through the bush in a chase, which seems to be what the snippet implies. Open to interpretation, of course.
ReplyDeleteI had already covered this point in a previous article. Neither do I expect LNMs to go off in pursuit of land animals, nothing new (to me) is being said here.
DeleteThat is why I speculated on a tactic used by other slow animals - wait in darkness, wait till the prey come to you, followed by a lunge from that long neck to grab it, kill it and back into the loch. That one reason I thnk LNMs are nocturnal predators.
I would also suggest we need to think less 1-dimensionally on this mattter of land sightings. It has been said here that locomotion skills equals more time on land.
However, the time factor has mot been taken into account here and this tends to leave us with a straw man argument - a simplistic LNM which is more easily shot down by sceptics.
To wit, increased trafiic and fencing has skewed our perception of land sighitng frequency. These things, in my opinion, have led to a decrease in LNMs sighted out of water.
But if we go back centuries, perhaps land sighitngs were more frequent. So, if the reason to come ashore is thwarted by fences and fast, noisy cars, the reason to take to land diminishes.
Your last paragraph, what evidence is that theory based on? Are there many recorded accounts of a non folkloric nature which describe long necked creatures on land around loch ness in past centuries?
DeleteRead my series "Nessie on Land".
DeleteThe reason I can't take land sightings all that seriously is this;
DeleteI can accept the hypothesis that increased traffic on the north shore might force a beastie to shy away from the shore. However, the issue for me is the rest of the shoreline. It's not busy enough that i'd see it forcing a critter into behavioural change if it had been minded to come ashore before, but it is well used enough that these animals would be registering far more than they have been. Walkers, cyclists, campers, kayakers, and a regular enough (though by no means busy) flow of vehicles.
For similar reasons I don't accept the hypothesis that increased boat traffic has impacted surface activity. It's not *that* busy a waterway, and the boats using it are likely quieter than their predecessors were.
You need to take fencing and others obstacles into account.
DeleteHmmm, perhaps. There isn't that much fencing that l can think of though. Or obstacles that wouldn't have been there before too.
DeleteThere are not that many places an LNM could get up to the road. Too much vegetation, too high a slope, etc. Even just getting onto the immediate shoreline can be an obstacle course of lone trees and larger rocks.
DeleteI think there are only a few favoured spots where LNMs would take to the shore. They don't do this kind of energy sapping thing for nothing, so the reason must be food for me and that means the spots where deer come for water (for example).
You could also look at it from the perspective of good spots for the monster to come ashore also being good spots for deer and other animals to drink from lending favorably to Dick's theory of deer being mistaken for the LNM. It makes logical sense.
DeleteI am aware of Dick's arguments in this regard. The more pertinent question is what particular land reports are being referred to?
DeleteMoreover, the context of my argument was nocturnal.
The issue i have with this theory is i don't think there's regular enough deer activity lochside day or night to see an LNM developing that kind of behaviour in the quest for food.
DeleteThere's ample water sources on the hills around the loch for deer.
Out of interest Roland, how many deer have your lochside night-vision cameras captured? And over how long a period?
If an LNM was relying on ambushing drinking deer as a food source, i think there'd be some hungry and emaciated LNMs doing the rounds.
I have seem quite a few deer around during the summer, where they exactly go and what they exactly do at the loch is not quantitatively clear to me, so I don't have teh figures to make a solid deduction it is speculation on my part.
DeleteWhen I did my very first 2am car run some months back, I saw a deer near the shore. So that indicates to me they are not that rare around the loch.
I never said the LNM was relying on deer as a food source.
My night cameras are trained on the loch, so one wouuld have to swim by!
Land sightings seem to be rare, GB, so I would say it's reasonable to refer to most shoreline/emerging/entering sightings as potential instances of mistaken identity, as I can't recall each individual one off the top of my head. Nocturnal occurrences would lend themselves to a higher rate of misidentified animals given the visibility issues, anxiety or fright at being spooked in the dark, etc. It just seems more likely that spots frequented by deer would likely mean it's a deer.
DeleteI always think back on two instances of mistaken identity I experienced. One was wstchonga skunk cross the street only to realize it was a plastic shopping bag, and the other was seeing a raccoon sitting in my driveway that turned out to be a 5-gallon bucket. I know what both animals look like but bad lighting and what I expected to see in my mind completely fooled me. It happens.
Good point Lance. So here we have a few answers to the question asked. But i do think the story wasnt worth the arguments had , i dont think a creature would chase sumone lol but maybe story has bin exaggarated over time but like the saint one 1500 years ago! I think everyone can get a bit serious too be honest after all its only a diffrence of opinion. I get ribbed in work all the time and have good debates but never leads to insults or belittleing!!! I think names only not Anons would reduce the insults but that is just my opinion!!!!!
ReplyDeleteJake,
DeleteLance left this comment, but I had to omit his last sentence as I am sure the sceptic comment police would be on my case!
"Agreed, Jake. The St. Columba account aside, there has been extensive debate here centered on the phrase, "crashes after him through the bushes". Somehow this gets extrapolated into a large (how large? Who knows?) animal exiting the water and chasing an individual for reasons unknown through bushes, over shrubbery, felling trees while bounding uphill. To your point, your workplace debates have the benefit of face-to-face interaction between peers. I suspect you're correct that anonymity can encourage some of the mudslinging that plagues discussions via the internet."
I seem to recall various land sightings reported taking place, some small distances from the loch proper in different literature and data bases. Can't site specific books, but do remember one list of land sightings in Roy Mackal's book and a list in GBs Nessie on Land Overview. Some go back to the late 1800s. The one in particular that sticks in my mind is the sighting by a group of children in 1879, of a strange creature waddling down a hill at Aldourie cemetery. Another report has a Nessie emerging from a wooded area in the Urquhart Bay area, both in daytime. So, I think it's too simplistic to conclude that the LNM is only confined to ambush attacks on the shoreline or nocturnal behavior. This creature seems to do whatever it does, when it well pleases it. Although, I do agree, that for the most part it is a nocturnal animal.
ReplyDeleteSeems odd that it has not ever left any prints or markings though. I feel sure such a large animal could come on land undetected by science for all these years. Just my 2 cents.
DeleteThis was covered in a previous article:
Deletehttp://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2012_05_27_archive.html
Please direct comments to that article.
I'm going to say something because I'm a little perturbed by the use of the word 'weightlessness' in terms of being an explanation. An object with buoyancy in equilibrium, or a bit positive or negative, is merely giving the appearance or sensation of weightlessness on earth for all intents and purposes.
ReplyDeleteThe object still has all its mass and still obeys the laws of physics in that the more massive the object the more energy it'll take to move and stop it.
So if there is a large animal, (which I'm about 90/10 in favor of its non existence. It used to be 100% in favor of existence) its not going to have any muscle atrophy. The thing it may not have, is the proper skeletal and muscle groupings that a proper land animal would have. However, that does not mean it can't propel itself on land, just not very elegantly.
Jon ... long Island NY
I agree it won't be an elegant affair, but it would be doable.
DeleteHi All. My first time leaving a message here, tho I've been watching things pan out for a few weeks. This thread is close to my heart. I'm a marine biologist who studied at California State University. I specialize in the effects of mammal beaching: to wit, the damage caused to whales when they run aground and remain there until human intervention takes place.
ReplyDeleteSo what have we discovered? Well, you may not be surprised when I tell you that a serious amount of damage can occur during these beachings. And that damage occurs to the areas where the whales are in contact with the ground. This is usually the underside of the animal. It occurs in all whales we have studied and the damage is often fatal, even after an apparently successful release. This even occurs with Orcas when they remain beached for any length of time.
So why does it occur? Simple answer: Gravity. The difference in realized weight of a whale underwater and a whale on land is extreme. A whale in water is in fact weightless. It's underside remains rounded out. Its limbs can move up and down without any downward pressure from the whale's body. In short, the whale's body underwater behaves somewhat like the astronaut's in space in terms of downward pressure. Undeniably there are muscular exertions used to propel the body through the water but these are wholly different from the downward gravitational pressures experienced by the beached animal. A force so strong it invariably leads to significant skin and subcutaneous tissue damage. Needless to say, the animal's flippers are utterly useless when the animal attempts to move itself.
I have watched this particular debate with an increased sense of needing to speak up. I can tell you guys for sure that a heavy, rotund 20ft animal with limbs adapted to chasing down fish prey would have no chance of walking or waddling on land. It couldn't happen.
As for my views on the monster question, well I'm afraid I'm a 99% No on this one. I do have a kinship with you guys though, my paternal grandmother was born in Inverness in 1901. I welcome any questions on this marine animal on land subject. I'll give it my best shot to reply.
Anthony M
What we have un
Thanks for your post, Anthony, How would you assess a massive animal such as an elephant seal on land which can reach up to 16ft in length?
DeleteI realize that we've diverged off-topic somewhat, focusing on whales and specifically Orca behavior, but as long as we're on this tread and you allow it GB (It's your blog) here's my 2 cents worth. I'm not trying to be argumentative and being a layman, who am I to argue with a marine biologist, and he does make good sense.
DeleteBut from what I've seen in YouTube videos and documentaries the Orcas do not totally beach themselves, are partially buoyed by water and they thrash against the water, so they do have some assistance getting back into deeper water quickly, smash and grab is their modus operandi.
Furthermore, I think they are instinctively too smart to “fling” themselves completely unto the beach, knowing full well that to do so means certain death! As for elephant seals, they are marine animals,with the bulls weighing in as much as 6, 500 pounds with no apparent damage to their soft under bellies. Just my thoughts, and I yield to Anthony, giving him the last word. Meanwhile, getting back on-topic, the LNM on the other hand, being an unknown creature to science and not fully documented as to it's identity and behavior, how can we be so certain of it's inability to thread on land?
Good point I suppose GS. I mean there's most likely obvious physiological differences between marine animals as to whether or not their internal organs will be crushed without the buoyancy of water for support.
ReplyDeleteSo would ANY large marine creature (not that there are that many known ones really) always be crushed under its own weight?
Elephant seal has been known to hit 20 ft. Would a beached Beluga, Narwhal, Orca or Minke crush itself if beached, or is it only the very large 30 - 90+ ones that have this problem?
Jon
This business about Orcas has no bearing on the Nessie question. Orcas shore prey are seals, which, being primarily aquatic, aren't the most agile critters when on the shore. Shore stalking Nessies would presumably prey on terrestrial animals such as sheep and deer. Deer are extremely agile, so a Nessie would have to be extremely stealthy to stalk them along the shore. GB, I'm aware of your theory that Nessies are nocturnal and use a quick lunge of their long necks to snag shore prey, but with all due respect, I don't buy it. Aquatic animals eat other aquatic animals. The Orcas are aquatic mammals who have learned to snag other aquatic mammals (seals) on shore by following them to the shore. It just seems highly unlikely to me that a fully aquatic animal such as Nessie would evolve to hunt terrestrial animals, and only at night. The more we come up with these unlikely traits, the more chimeric Nessie becomes.
ReplyDeletePaddy
Not at all, don't underestimate what nature can do. Predators are opportunists and we have precedents in crocodlies grabbing animals from the shore, even catfish grabbing pigeons!
DeleteI'm not familiar with catfish grabbing pigeons, but crocodiles are semi-terrestrial. They can move quite fast on land for short bursts. Given that, it's not surprising that land animals are on their menu. If LNMs engaged in such predatory behavior the mystery would've been solved long ago, or at least some decent footage would've been taken by now.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think an LNM could do short bursts as well. I am not asking much if it, after all!
DeleteSpeculating, LNMs need not clamber too much on land to grab deer. Even being just in the water (like our orcas) can be sufficient to get deer approaching for a drink.
I am not sure I agree that this implies land excursions frequent enough for final proof.
Here's our opportunistic catfish having pigeon for tea:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlcHLTenioA