Thursday 4 December 2014

Loch Ness Monster E-Books

The Loch Ness Monster Bibliography continues to grow with books old and new. As far as the new is concerned, I would anticipate at least three books coming out in the next twelve months, but for now we look back to ones previously published but in digital format.

Up until recent years, all books I have added to the bibliography were in paper form. However, some of them have since become available in downloadable formats. Indeed, some have been updated and revised, but only in e-book format. As it stands, the majority remain as hardback/paperback and out of print. In fact, it would be a good idea to digitise these old books and give them a new lease of life since they are much more searchable in this format.

But some do not appear in paper at all (or in very limited print runs) and so one has no choice but to download them. Of course, there is nothing to stop you printing them out and binding them yourselves, but the trend is towards paper and pixels with some self-published titles never appearing in paper. Let us look at some of these now.

The first is titled "Four-Teans Go To Ness" by Colin Stott which, as the Blytonesque title suggests,  documents an adventure trip to Loch Ness by four intrepid monster hunters. I have to apologise to Colin for sitting on this for two years. I did read it and found it very entertaining, but it will now take its place in the Nessie bibliography. Readers of a nervous disposition are warned that some of the language used is stronger than some evidence for the Loch Ness Monster.




In fact, cryptozoologist Nick Redfern, had already reviewed this book back in 2009, so I will defer to him and link to that article for your edification. Colin sent me a paper copy, but these are no longer available. However, fear not, as you can now purchase the e-book version at Amazon.

The second e-book is entitled "A Tale From Loch Ness" by Graeme Caisteal. He describes his book thusly:

A fifty page satirical view of all thats wrong with Nessie Hunting in Scotland. Written by Graeme Caisteal a Scot with thirty years experience in reading "between the lines".




Graeme was a friend of famous monster hunter, Frank Searle, and mounts a defense against some of the allegations thrown in Frank's direction. I first noticed his Internet presence when Fortean researcher, Mike Dash, uploaded Frank's unpublished book. In fact, you could regard Frank's "Loch Ness Investigation: What Really Happened" as an e-book in its own right. You can find it here, courtesy of Mike Dash.

Graeme replied to Mike's article and defended Frank against charges of attempted petrol bombing. The two parties agreed to disagree but I followed up to chat with Graeme and get a copy of his e-book. Graeme also adds this excerpt from his now defunct website:

The sun rose slowly as I lay there in my small canvas tent, soft filtering light caressing my face as the morning erupted around me in a blaze of colour. I sat there gathering my thoughts, engulfed in this beauty. I could hear the rush of the water lapping against the rugged shore, the birds were singing and the forest seemed to heave a huge sigh of relief as another day broke. It was a beautiful June morning and I was only a stone throw away from Scotland's biggest mystery.

As I emerged into the light of day, eyes half closed, I could just pick out the ruin of Urqhuart Castle on the far shore, standing like a monument to some ancient memories of bygone days. The heat of the day started to thaw out my bones and once again I was ready to scan the dark foreboding waters of Loch Ness. Almost one thousand feet deep would it ever give up its secret. This is the home of my water dragon. To the world, it is known as the LOCH NESS MONSTER. For some sixty years Loch Ness has been subjected to multitudes of prying eyes and the fixed gaze of the telephoto lens, videos constantly at the ready.

Armed like snipers they sit watching with baited breath, waiting for the battle to commence. All they need is it between their sights, for the camera to snap into focus on that repugnant head. They can see the beast turn as it whips the calm waters into a cascading torrent large enough to capsize any local boat and in seconds it has gone. The video camera lies abandoned at their feet. They stand stunned and in silence, did it really happen?

If only I had pressed the button. Have I missed my chance forever? I hope in writing this book others can visit Loch Ness and investigate for themselves. Build up your own knowledge, do your own research and most of all read between the lines, open your eyes. When I first headed to Loch Ness armed with only what I read. I thought I knew it all. Like most people I trusted expert opinion until one day I realised, how can you have an expert in a subject that at present no one seems able to identify?

In fact the experts cannot even agree to whether it is an animal or a fish. They even argue amongst themselves to whether it exists at all. A new approach had to be taken. The Loch Ness bug had bitten deep and it was not going to let go. Out went all the old books and ideas and in came the Graeme Caisteal dossier of Loch Ness. A huge weight had been lifted from my shoulders just to be free from the tangle of other peoples opinion. It opened up far more than I expected.........

Originally, you could have obtained this e-book from his website, but that is now gone and Graeme has so far not responded to my email. I would happily put the copy I have on Google Drive, but need Graeme's permission. I will update this article when I know what is happening.

A third e-book that has been available for some time on the Internet is "Nessie Sighting" by Norman Lee from Clacton on Sea in Essex. This is a short e-booklet which documents one man's sighting of the Loch Ness Monster back in 1970. Before his death, Mr. Lee gave his evidence into the care of Lois Wickstrom who ran the "Nessie's Grotto" website. If you send an email to lois@lochness-monster.com, she will send you a free copy.




Norman takes us through his story of seeing a head and neck and the photograph he took. To my disappointment, the e-book does not publish this picture and Lois tells me that they were never given it. One can only guess where it is now, but from reading the text, his photo would appear to show the object in the act of submerging with the neck already underwater. Norman speaks of his "excitement" taking him longer to prepare the camera. It looks like a bit of "shock and awe" deprived us of a better picture.

Since he mentions the photo being seen by the LNIB and being sent back without the world hearing any more about it, I will assume it was not a game changer. The e-book also gives an insight into his personal dealings with the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and Tim Dinsdale (misspelt "Dimsdale"). I note that Tim interviewed Norman with his tape recorder and an LNIB report form was filled out. So, there is extra information out there to check this ebook testimony against.

It is not clear whether Tim's cassette tape recording was for his own private research or done in an LNIB capacity. For now, I will assume the former and the tape now lies in his family's archives.

So, there you have it. Three e-books for your interest. I assume there are more of these non-paper items out there. If you know of any,  leave a comment below.










108 comments:

  1. Repetition! I refer readers to previous articles on the "shock and awe" excuse for no useful images.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ever get the impression some people only read my articles to find fault?

      Delete
  2. I am not shocked or awed by cormorants, but I have a large collection of photos showing their disappearing rear ends (or just ripples). In my case it results from forgetting to switch camera on, forgetting to remove lens cap, camera in sleep mode...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, but Mr. Lee did not attribute his tardiness to forgetfulness.

      Delete
  3. I have first hand experience of shock and awe on loch ness.. as i mentioned before!! Chanel 5 's 16ft remote controlled monster that came up yards away from me! Me and my mate had two phones two cameras and a video camera but between us got nothing on film or a photo ! Some people didnt believe us so good job it came on tv few months later whith urs truly on it lol just as evidence haha cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake, did you try and take a picture or just stand there gawping at this unexpected sight?

      Delete
  4. Both lol. Gawped at first then fumbled for the camera which was on the seat but too late. We prob gawped at it fir bout a minuite in shock lol

    ReplyDelete
  5. But intresting enuf GB wen i got home and told people what happend and described it...size colour distance what it did etc is that wen it came on tv a few months later it was exactly how id remembered it and told the story and size and colour was exactly wat i said so for me prooving wat was said on that programme bout people describing their experiences totally diffrent to wat they were...is not always true. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this Channel 5 spoof actually had some important consequences for assessing witness reliability. Need to watch it again ...

      Delete
  6. A curious tale from Jake. I'm surprised it has never been mentioned before during all of our "shock and awe" debates over the last year. But there you go, we have the tale now.

    Firstly we can decide whether we actually believe the tale and all the details. For the purpose of this response I'm going to respond as though I believe Jake's tale. I am sure the response will be that Jake does not care whether we believe anyway.

    So, this brings us back to the old "shock and awe" debate. I am now prepared to concede that for some people, this effect will be real. Notably Jake describes the object as being several hundred yards away in a previous thread. This makes Jake's story even more curious, because GB has said many times that the shock and awe effect applies to very close observations of "the monster".

    So why can (if we are to believe any of the photos) people like Hugh Gray, Lachlan Stuart, MacNab and Dinsdale manage to capture images when people like Jake and his friend remain paralysed for over a minute, and unable to capture an image, despite being equipped with a large number of image-capturing devices? Well I would have to concede that some people simply cannot act calmly and logically when stressed or surprised. In the field of combat this is well understood. Under enemy fire some soldiers can respond immediately; others become rooted to the spot, paralysed by fear. Only when in the high stress situation do people find out what they are made of. The men I list above are clearly made of strong stuff. Jake and friend were unable to respond effectively, and I can accept this - some people are simply more faint-hearted than others. I feel fairly sure I would film something in Jake's situation, but I can't be 100% certain.

    So in some cases I accept the theory. For every Hugh Gray, there is probably a more nervous Jake type of eyewitness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Jake is referring to the Channel 5 animatronic Nessie he saw. But at the time, he thought it was real.

      Delete
    2. I am applying no hard and fast rules to "shock and awe". People will react to different degrees. What I am convinced of is that it happens.

      Delete
    3. I agree it probably happens, but I think we have evidence that it doesn't always happen. That's why I don't find the theory strong enough to explain the fact that no one has ever managed to get a really clear video. Just my opinion.

      Delete
    4. Before you all get too carried away... norman lee did actually get a photo remember. ...not a real case of shock & awe.

      Delete
    5. Something that I have always thought about is if there are any photos or video footage that have been made but the person or people responsible have kept them to themselves and never told anybody at all. This is virtually impossible to answer but it wouldn't surprise me too much if some "new" images or videos were to surface that were actually made years ago. As we have heard before, many actual sightings weren't reported until years later, for whatever reason, so perhaps there is a possibility that the same could happen with a photo or video.

      Delete
    6. That's okay, the point is hesitation leads to poorer evidence.

      Delete
  7. Well lol geordie u can believe wat u like :) i have witnesses to the above. The fact is i saw wat i saw and my ugly mug even got on tv ( proof) yet i never got a photo !! Now i wudnt say it was cus i was nervous because im not a nervous person ..far from it.... in fact complete opposite. ;) . I cant explain why i didnt get a photo. And nothing curious in my tale old bean watch the programme and see for urself :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Geordie says he will respond as though he believes jake !!! Ha ha so in other words he doubts me :))) . Well i dont tell lies geordie and its easy for u to say it via a blog!!! All i can say is watch the documentry and see for urself lol ull see my ugly mug on it. And no i havnt got any photos because of what i said above ! Simple as. Nothing to do with nerves geordie but i do rember just wanting to keep a naked eye on it and not look away to get camera in case it dissapeared. Maybe thats the believer in me and maybe a skeptic wud react diffrent i dont know!! So no lies ...just facts... no photos...but i saw it ..and chanel 6 will back it up. Im on at the end :))

    ReplyDelete
  9. Under fire soldiers ???? Really geordie haha wat nonsense lol. How can u compare lol. There is nobody more madder and care free than me lol lets see ur examples... hugh gray said he didnt know what he filmed....mcnab.... in case u havnt noticed an obvious boat wake.... dinsdale ...well he was there hunting the monster ready and waiting....me? I was on holiday chilling and supping tennents lol so yes a shock when a hump came up. Nowt to do with nerves lol. And as u said geordie u cant say 100% u wudnt act the same.... so wat u going on bout lol

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dinsdale did have his own shock & awe episode with his 1971 head-neck sighting.
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geordie Sceptic were you drunk when you wrote this comment : ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi tIM. No, I was 100% sober, but thanks for your enquiry. And also thanks to GB for allowing a pure insult through his new filter.

    The point I was making is that I accept the shock and awe theory when it comes to some eyewitnesses. People like Jake and his friend who cannot cope under pressure enough to take a photo or video. I am agreeing that there are a few weaker individuals out there who respond like rabbits in headlights.

    I am conceding a point to believers like GB. If I had been there with Jake I would have tried to help him, perhaps by sitting him down, wrapping a blanket around him and giving him a hot cup of tea, and a cuddle if needed.

    This is a small point to GB - I am conceding that "shock and awe" sometimes prevents people from obtaining images.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure Jake is not a weaker individual. Would you have deleted this comment using the moderation guidelines?

      Delete
    2. GB, I sometimes do charity work. I do not mock those in society who are not at the top of the pile. It is not my way. By identifying the fact that some people are psychologically much stronger than others, we can ensure people are not left helpless.

      So I do not think my comment should have been deleted, no. I was expressing sympathy for Jake and his friend.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic i was not insulting i was being serious. I thought you must have bin drunk as your comment was a mixture of nonsense and contradictions.

      Delete
    4. Explain please Tim. I think geordie's making the most sense here.

      Delete
  13. I'm with Geordie on the 'shock and awe' thing. The reason it was first mentioned on this blog was as an explanation for why there aren't more Nessie images.

    My point then, and my point now, is that there should be anecdotal evidence to support that. Where are the tales of good sightings where the observer hasn't had the presence of mind to get a shot off?

    We've got Jake and his model nessie. We've got 3rd hand references to Tim D. What others? Even the guy in this article did get a shot in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I refer you to the Alistair Boyd sighting.

      The Norman Lee one counts as well. It doesn't really matter whether he got a shot of something after the fact. The LNIB looked at it and discarded it, it could have been anything to an outside observer.

      If somebody photographs some troubled water after the big chance has gone, I don't think we'll ever hear from the vast majority of them, they won't make the newspapers, the books will only print the classic ones and they'll just end up in a drawer.

      Delete
    2. To be fair Roland, your 3rd paragraph there is all supposition, and it's the crux of the shock-and-awe hypothesis. It's an idea based on a scant amount of data.

      That's not to say it's a daft idea. Far from it, I can see where you're coming from. My point is though it's really just a hunch, and for me there's not enough meat on the bones of it for it to reasonably explain a lack of decent imagery.

      Delete
  14. Well im at loch ness regular geordie. Mayb we cud meet up and see my character :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Jake I would be very happy to meet with you anytime. We can share some beers. Next time I plan a trip I will see if you are going to be there too. I promise not to come dressed as a plesiosaur :-)

      Delete
  15. How can u talk bout shock and awe when u havnt experienced it lol ridiculous!!! Same old..... im quite sure everyone wud be shocked if they on a cruise on loch ness and a 15ft monster surfaced lol and any one who says they wudnt well......humbug haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the subject was brought up on this blog by GB, Jake, who I don't think has experienced it in a LNM context either. I assume he's ok to talk about it though?

      I'm sure I would be shocked by a close up sighting. That's not my point. My point is it's being used as an explanation for the lack of images. I'm asking where the anecdotal evidence is to support that. There's some, but I don't see much at all.

      Delete
    2. I saw Lucy....not nessie lol. fact :)

      Delete
  16. Trevor my reference to Dinsdale wasn't 'third hand.' Dinsdale wrote about the episode in his book, and vividly describes the shock & awe he experienced. The Finlay sighting also had a strong shock & awe effect on the witnesses (although there was no camera involved). The kid was so rattled by what they saw that he gave up fishing. And when Dinsdale spoke with Greta Finlay 8 or 9 years after the sighting event he described her as still being effected by what she saw. He said she conveyed a feeling of revulsion towards the animal she saw.
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right about Dinsdale. To be fair to Greta Finlay, I recall she did make a move for the camera, but after a delay of staring at this incredible creature.

      Delete
    2. Dinsdale "experienced" a lot of things, including flying saucers and ghosts at Loch Ness. I'd suggest we concentrate on the evidence we can measure - such as his infamous film.

      Delete
    3. I don't think so. Carry on, lads. You're allowed to discuss eyewitness reports.

      Delete
  17. Geordie, you can't have it both ways. You can't question the viability of the shock & awe effect, then when GB or Jake or myself offer up examples, turn around and say, "Nope, we can't count those experiences. Only measurable data counts." Particularly when the subject under discussion is the shock & awe effect. That amounts to changing the subject. It's my experience that sceptics have a tendency to do this not only with the Nessie mystery but also with other controversial subjects. Moving the goalposts is another tactic.
    And just for the record, I've pretty much become a LNM agnostic, so you can't accuse me of being a mind-is-made-up believer.
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a good point, Paddy,. I definitely can't discount all reports of "shock and awe" based on a lack of evidence - of course there wouldn't be any! It is a fair point. My point was that if you believe what Tim D said, then you also have to believe in flying saucers and ghosts, which I hope most of you don't. But yes, you makea good point anyway. But Tim's apparent head and neck sighting was incredibly quickly finished. I think it was over before anyone could have got it on film (or indeed been sure what they had seen).

      I also concur with Trevor - this shock and awe syndrome is so rarely reported anyway. Maybe Boyd's is the only actual proper case we have heard of.

      Delete
    2. Why do I have to believe in UFOs and ghosts if I accept what Tim Dinsdale said?

      Even if we did, it should not affect anything. You're implying a sceptic is a better potential witness than someone who believes in UFOs and ghosts (whatever that means).

      I would not say Boyd is the only case, I just don't think witnesses report that aspect much (or it makes it past the reporter). Monster stories focus on what happened, not what might have happened.

      Delete
    3. I think that a man who apparently saw UFOs, ghosts and plesiosaurs during his times at one lake had an extremely fertile imagination. A huge fan of the paranormal for sure. I don't consider that to be a very reliable type of witness.

      As for whether there were more shock and awe cases but we don't know about them - well that is pure speculation, isn't it?

      Delete
    4. Well, I think you are exaggerating to convince others. That is why I tire sometimes of correcting your misrepresentations.

      Tim claimed to have seen some lights rising from the ground and sounds near Fort Augustus Abbey like someone being flogged. I see no reference in what he said to UFOs (aliens) or ghosts (departed spirits). Please research your sources more thoroughly before writing.

      Furthermore, your statement about seeing plesiosaurs implies that if you believe the Loch Ness phenomenon is an exotic animal immediately makes you an unreliable witness. Again, you make unwarranted exaggerations to win points. Please be more specific in your argumentation.

      By your own reasoning, sceptics are unreliable witnesses as well as they will try to explain away the object seen as something other than an exotic creature. The animatronic Nessie proved that.

      Rather than this one size fits all approach, it is more reasonable to argue that as an object becomes more indistinct, people's personal bias and prejudices can overlay what is seen.

      This applies to everyone, irrespective of zoological opinions, or being pro or anti Nessie. This, however has no bearing on the true nature of the object in view, if perceptual input is lacking.

      Delete
    5. http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/tim-dinsdale-nessie-and-paranormal.html

      Roland hello. Your article above does seem to back up what geordie sceptic says here.

      Best regards.

      J

      Delete
    6. Chasing Leviathan6 December 2014 at 14:10

      Hi, GS. Very respectfully, I think you're playing the 'guilt by association' game here a little.

      As far as I can tell, there's no evidence that Tim believed in flying saucers/UFOs/whatever you want to call them. If I recall aright he makes one mention in "Project Water Horse" of seeing a strange light in the sky once while afloat on Loch Ness, mutters "One mystery at a time, please," to himself and then retires below decks. That's it. I would suggest that all that indicates is that Tim had an open, inquiring mind which, given his career, should surprise no-one. (If you have information to the contrary, please feel free to correct me - I'm always fascinated to find out more about this man and the things that motivated him).

      But a strange light in the sky's precisely that - a strange light. It's a BIG jump from there to start shouting 'aliens' and I can find no evidence that Tim did.

      He MAY have believed in flying saucers, I don't know. He certainly seems to have had a keen interest in alleged 'Supernatural' phenomena - apparently inspired by an experience his wife Wendy had while they were living in Canada post-war, (of which Tim was initially sceptical). Hence his membership of the Ghost Club.

      And respectfully, I DON'T have to believe in flying saucers or ghosts to accept Tim's account of what he saw on Loch Ness. I simply accept that he saw SOMETHING. What that something was I don't as yet know. I'm just enjoying trying to find out. :)

      An INTEREST in a subject does not automatically indicate a BELIEF in it, wouldn't you agree? I would cite the presence of your good self on this site as a perfect example. :)

      Delete
    7. I did consult that, no mention of aliens or departed spirits.

      Delete
  18. Geordie, whether or not TD believed in the paranormal is besides the point. When it came to the LNM he thought it was biological in nature. To suggest that those who believe in or have an interest in the paranormal are unreliable witnesses is to poison the well. This was done to Gordon Holmes over at Cryptomundo and it was unfair to the man. It's tantamount to character assassination. The assessment of his film should be based strictly on the film itself, not the man's beliefs. Yet the head honcho of that site, Mr.Coleman, "The World's Most Famous Cryptozoologist," continues to state that Loch Ness is only a mile from the sea.

    Now Geordie, if you don't personally believe in the paranormal that's fine. But don't dismiss the integrity of somebody else just because they do. In order to do that you would have to know with 100% certainty that the paranormal doesn't exist, and frankly none of us can know that for sure!

    And how far do you take that sort of skepticism? Do you dismiss the Catholic Monk Father Brusey's head-neck sighting because he was a Christian believer? Well for the record I'm a Christian believer but I think there's an alternative explanation for that particular sighting which you would probably agree with. The point being that neither Father Brusey's nor my religious beliefs should have any bearing on his sighting experience or my interpretation of it.

    Lastly Geordie, I agree with you that TD's head-neck sighting was quick. He described it in a documentary as just "seconds." Given that, there could be an alternative explanation (cormorant). But the point of the discussion wasn't on what TD saw, but on the effect it had on him!
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
  19. I do enjoy posts from Chasing Leviathan a lot and I wish he posted more often. Always very well reasoned and insightful. Paddy too. It's a breath of fresh air to receive responses like these, rather than one line insults and semi-veiled threats. Thank you both.

    The Gordon Holmes character assassination stuff on another site sounds truly awful, and sadly typical of our current online world. I've not seen it, because (despite what some people have suggested on GB's pages) I do not frequent any other cryptozoology sites. GB is lucky enough to have my exclusive presence!

    Being open to the paranormal is probably to be expected for a large % of Nessie believers. After all, any "Unexplained Mysteries" type of book usually covers all areas inc lake monsters, and usually sells well, though perhaps not so well these days. However, we surely have to accept the existence of a certain personality type - the "suggestible person" who not only wants to believe, but does believe anything and everything paranormal. I've known several people like this over the years and they interpret every single oddity and coincidence as evidence of something beyond the scientific realm. These people don't think rationally enough for me to be good eyewitnesses of fleeting glimpses of something on Loch Ness. Was TD one of these people? I think he was quite close to being one. Does it weaken his testimony? That's up to you and me to decide for ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic people in glass houses shoud not throw stones. You are always poking fun on here and causing arguments so dont cry when you get it back: and i have not seen any threats towards you: stop being a drama queen: and i have noticed when you lose an argument you resort 2 making things up ie Tim Dinsdale and Ufo's. Why cant you come up with something constructive 4 once ? You are getting very boring.

      Delete
    2. tIM, people are on here discussing nessie, but all you seem to be able to write about is me! I find it flattering, but I'd suggest that you focus more on the subject under discussion here - Loch Ness.

      If you really want to just keep talking to me, send me an email at geordiescep@gmail.com. Personally I will no longer respond on here to personal attacks from you. I prefer to discuss what I came here for. I hope GB accepts this post which is simply making the point that I will no longer indulge insulting comments which add nothing to the Loch Ness conversation.

      Delete
    3. People stay on topic please. Comments can be made as to shortcomings of arguments, but generally keep these more on the argument than the person.

      But at the same time, I woud not set comments policy to the level of the most easily offended person (no one in particular in mind).

      Delete
  20. Geordie Sceptic you used Lachlan Stuart in your shock and awe argument. It was a hoax so how can you have shock and awe when you know its a hoax . What nonsense .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Boy thinks that photo was genuine.

      Delete
    2. That has nothing 2 do with fact Geordie Sceptic used it in his argument against shock and awe: it was a hoax so there is no shock in this one: sorry but its nonsense talk: why cant we keep 2 serious debating instead of all this nonsense:

      Delete
  21. Dear Webmaster,

    A few months ago i tried to post a message on here regarding a project. I offered a scan of a painting made near the end of the eighteenth century. My post never appeared and this upset me a lot. My dad told me to stay away from the website if my messages were to be ignored.
    This morning I was told by a friend that the owner might have tried to contact me after all. I am leaving this one message to see if that is true or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Priya,

      I did indeed post a message asking you to contact me. In fact, I was going to create a new post just with Loch Ness paintings to get your attention! I would also be upset to miss the opportunity to see this painting.

      So, can you email me at shimei123@yahoo.co.uk and send me:

      1.the front and back scans of the painting you made
      2. The name and location of the museum.
      3. Any other information on the artist.

      Thank you very much.

      Roland

      Delete
  22. http://vegalleries.com/hbopc/0159dast09.jpg

    Hehe i now can't stop thinking of jake and pal being like ZILLY from Dick Dastardly Flying Machines !!!! I think nessie might be real but a plastic model wuldnt terrify me for 60 SECONDS lol !!!!

    Keep up the good site glasgow boy. Love this place.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tim thats why i said i only take notice of one sceptuc here DR. Otherewise ur just reading rubbish lol

    ReplyDelete
  24. Two points.

    1. I "saw" Nessie in 2008. I also filmed Nessie. My camera battery had just died and I was racing about the cottage, trying to find a new one. So consider that TWO "stresses" -- and yet I still captured the sighting on high definition video.

    (And no, I'm NOT sharing it, as previously stated, as it would be irresponsible to offer up footage that I'm positive would be embraced by believers despite being a nothing more than an incredibly fascinating weather disturbance.)

    2. Who cares what Dinsdale believes in? Seriously, what difference does it make? Do his beliefs one way or another validate this photo or that report any more than anyone else's? And let's not forget: Dinsdale was a fierce defender of Shiels and his photo that was so phony that a first grader would see through it (literally!), and the a Smith film, which he never seemed to question despite the presence of high school students manipulating weighted lines!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, EKM is back. I thought you were going around telling everyone you had been banned from this forum?

      I have no opinion on your first point without seeing the film. Secondly, you're right. What Dinsdale believed has no bearing on his film or his other sightings.

      Delete
    2. I think the point ekm was making is that Dinsdale wasn't some High Court judge presiding over Loch Ness, and that his beliefs were therefore no more important than anyone else's.

      ekm will correct me if I'm misinterpreting his post.

      GB, you do seem to be very biased in what you allow on here. And I'm talking about the personal insults, rather than the pro/anti nessie stuff.

      Delete
    3. I suggest you drop the comment moderation criticism. I am not perfect and I don't intend to form a committee to handle them, so just drop it.

      Delete
    4. Your interpretation of my argument is correct, Geordie.

      Delete
    5. Chasing Leviathan9 December 2014 at 14:46

      Hi, ekm.

      If I might address the points you make in reverse order:

      2) You are absolutely right to say that Tim's personal beliefs are of no greater importance when it comes to validating his or other's films/pictures/testimony than anyone else's. But, as the point had been raised to call his opinions on the evidence into question I simply felt the need to try and clarify what those beliefs might have been.

      You cite Tim's support for the Shiels photographs and the Smith film. I myself am somewhat sceptical of the latter and EXTREMELY sceptical of the former. I don't want to drift too far off thread, so if I may make a request, GB? At your convenience it might be interesting to have a thread where we can discuss the motivations of the various monster hunters down the years and the reasons for their various interpretations of the evidence. To quote Ted Holiday in THE GREAT ORM OF LOCH NESS: "The motivations and beliefs of the people concerned with the Great Orm mystery are quite as interesting as the animal itself. ‘Every man has two reasons for doing a thing,’ said Henry Ford – ‘A good reason and the real reason."

      I don't agree with him on a lot, but I think Ted's dead right on this: I think there may be a lot of potentially very interesting information to be found if we switch our sights from the Hunted to the Hunters for a little while. Just my suggestion. Feel free to ignore it. It's your blog. :)

      1) Regarding your film, ekm: I have nothing useful to add to the 'shock and awe' debate; I'm with GB on this one, but I respect the opinions of those who disagree. And if you want to keep your footage private I respect that too. I'd simply say I'm sorry you feel the need to do so, purely because, reading your description of what you say you caught on camera, my immediate reaction was; "Wow - that sounds an awful lot like what Aldie Mackay claimed to see all those years ago."

      In which case, you may have the evidence to explain away the sighting that started the Big Flap back in 1933.

      Just a thought. :)

      And thanks for the kind words, GS! :) I tend to post (cautiously) only if I think I may have something useful to add to the discussion. I am very interested to read your posts too, even if I don't always agree with you. I say again, the sceptical viewpoint is crucial here. Please keep posting. :)

      Delete
  25. I spoke the truth. I'm pleased to find it had a portion of the desired intent. *doffs hat*

    My point was, as is too often the case, missed. I wasn't asking you to assess my footage; I was arguing against that incredibly flimsy "shock and awe" theory.

    My point was this: I was, no kidding, dead serious, stunned by the sight of an object the size of a whale churning itself north toward Abriachan on an otherwise flat, calm surface. It was huge, and was causing a sizeable commotion. Yes, I was "shocked and awed" -- and yet I still was able to dash into my cottage, grab the camera, switch to a telephoto lens; and upon discovering the battery was dead, ransacked the bedroom in search of the extra battery buried at the bottom of a suitcase -- AND got back outside and caught the incident on video.

    My point is that just because someone sees something incredible doesn't mean they turn into a pillar of salt. That excuse is weak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with your argument is that you are using yourself as a benchmark, a single statistical point. Not everyone is the same, and, I suspect (wthout seeing the video), the event is not as shocking and aweful as made out.

      Delete
    2. GB, all those bits of evidence you believe in - the snaps and films - they are all further examples of no shock and awe, surely?

      Delete
    3. Now this is why comment moderation is in place. Repetitious questions which have been addressed elsewhere and clog up other subjects.

      Delete
    4. At lake okenagen three brothers ,engineers,were fishing underwater at the bridge,when ogopogo popped up a three Foot head a meter out of the water about 60 feet from them.as they were in a small boat,they froze and Didn't grab their camera as they stated;"We didnt know what this animal was capable of," they froze...shock and awe...
      Later they called it "A dinosaur!".
      Theres no shock through a telephoto.

      Delete
  26. Do you all realise that Mr Dinsdale not only got his so-called Nessie film on 23rd April 1960, but he also saw and filmed the monster 2 days earlier, on 21st April 1960? In much the same way as the famous film was captured, he was sure he saw and filmed the monster 2 days earlier. The only difference was that the first film when developed more clearly showed he had made a mistake. So he quietly dropped that first film from the story of his first week long expedition. Makes you think a bit, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone cross check whether Dinsdale realised his mistake at the time of filming or (as alleged above) only after the film was developed?

      Delete
    2. Chasing Leviathan9 December 2014 at 15:04

      As I recall, it was the first time he saw the film after it had been developed. (He watched it with the chemist who did so. Need to check my notes for further info.)

      And, respectfully, that first bit of film wasn't "quietly dropped from the story." He wrote about his mistake openly and plainly in his book LOCH NESS MONSTER (as he also did about his misidentification on immediately arriving at the loch several days earlier) and readily admitted he had been 'fooled completely.'

      Delete
  27. I thought dinsdale had realised the mistake at the time of filming!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Turtleback your right. Ive just checked my book. The one i was thinking about was his first sighting 2 days before the one you mentioned. But yeah indeed he filmed something on the 21st. So thats 3 in a week he considered filming thinking it was the monster. One he nearly filmed and 2 he did!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I just checked Dindale's book. It wasn't until the initial viewing of his film with a Kodak representative present that he realized the disturbance off Foyers point wasn't the LNM.
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
  30. Good morning all. I was at the loch during the heady days of the 70s and 80s, so I am well versed with key characters and events. The incident to which Jake refers occurred on Mr Dinsdale's first day at the loch in 1960. He had only just arrived when he was convinced he was witnessing the monster, but soon realised that he was merely observing a log.

    The incident on 21st April was rather different. Mr Dinsdale used up a great deal of film on the object he saw. This impacted the famous film because he had left himself short of stock. He also advised some third parties that he had captured the monster twice on film during the time between his departure and the development of the films.

    Mr Dinsdale was a very enthusiastic hunter at Loch Ness. However, it is my belief that his first week at the loch was conducted in an excitable state. Indeed, he was wholeheartedly expecting to see the montster every time he looked at the water.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes very trigger happy on his video. I did have my suspicions bout him but Dick Raynor told me he had poor sighting and was very trustable so ill give him benefit of the doubt!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Interesting conversation. Dinsdale's behaviour on that first trip reminds me of my first trip to Loch Ness when I was a young child with my family. We sat eating lunch in some large restaurant or hotel overlooking the water and I would not take my eyes off it, absolutely certain that a head and neck would pop up at any moment. In my defence I was about 7 years old and it was in the 1970s.

    This does put the 23rd April Dinsdale film in new light though. Surely even the most ardent supporter of the film can see that this adds further doubt to the whole story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chasing Leviathan10 December 2014 at 13:04

      Hi, GS!

      Sorry, but if I may ask; 'a new light' in what way? These arguments about Tim being predisposed to see his Monster have been going on from the moment he first made his film public knowledge: Similarly, the point about his lack of remaining film when he got his famous footage on the 23rd. Tim himself makes reference to the latter in LOCH NESS MONSTER in his description of events as he claimed they unfolded. Respectfully, I don't see anything here that's 'new' as such.

      But that in no way detracts from the fact that these are VERY good points and always have been. I personally think that, to perhaps get closer to the truth of what happened that morning, it might be useful to look at who Tim was, where he was in his life at this time and what in life he ultimately hoped to achieve. In my opinion, (and that's all it is I hasten to add) I see a man of proven intelligence and (frankly unusually high) integrity who, on the other hand, had convinced himself somewhat prematurely as to the reality of his target and who was at times possibly rather naïve in his appraisal of other people and THEIR possible aims and motivations.

      And somewhere in the middle of all this - we have the Dinsdale film. And we all make of that what we will. :)

      I could wax lyrical and verbose on this at great length, but I don't want to inflict another essay on you! :)

      Enjoying this discussion very much. Thank you to all contributors. :)

      Delete
    2. CL, it is all new info to me. First I knew of this was Turtlehead's comment above. I read the Dinsdale book you mention, and the Project Waterhorse one, but many years ago. In the 1980s in fact. I have obviously completely forgotten this part of the book. To be honest I always saw the object in the Dinsdale film as a boat and nothing else at all, even when I was a believer as a youngster. So I probably just skim read the chapter about that.

      Great points (as ever) about viewing the film in the context of who TD was at that time. Seems like a lot of people swept eachother along back in the 1960s and 70s. To think that large numbers of people manned telephoto lensed cameras on specially built platforms, and this went on for a long time. I can imagine how unpleasant the feeling must have been as it slowly dawned on the camera operators that hey - people keep "seeing" monsters on this lake but they never appear in front of our cameras, something doesn't add up! Then operations were wound down. Years of cameras trained on the loch and nothing except Dick's film to show for it. Must have been an odd feeling to say the least. And we know from all of that time and effort that Steve Feltham, a genuinely lovely bloke, will one day go to his grave without having captured that elusive piece of video. It's almost like the legend is there to torment us for eternity, never to be proven, and never to go away.

      Delete
    3. Well, I would like to see a more numerical assessment of the LNIB shore watches. Films were taken (albeit inconclusive at best), but how much total hours were actually spent over those ten years? How much quality time was spent actually scanning the loch during the various watches? I just don't think the loch was as intensively watched as we may assume.

      Also, once the real quality hours are added up, do they actually gurantee a close up shot? I am not convinced yet!

      Delete
  33. What hours were watched GB? Surely as a lot of reported sightings are early morning or night time then these hours must of bin covered. If in summer then nothing less than 6am - 10pm surely!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know off the top of my head, some things can be pieced together from books, but it was down to the quantity and quality of the volunteers. If there were log books, who knows where they are now and how accessible they are.

      Delete
  34. Good morning one and all. Again, speaking as someone who knew and still knows some of the loch observers of those times, I can state that the shock and awe effect discussed here did not enter the lexicon. There were discussions regarding a mystical power at work which some felt conspired against the photographers. This was referred to as a hex or hoodoo and simply related to some concept that the monster would appear in position A only once a camera had been switched from focussing on position A to position B. In addition to this there were superstitions surrounding cameras malfunctioning at key moments and critical films turning out to be faulty when developed. There were no discussions of people being unable to operate their cameras while transfixed by the sight of the beast, to my knowledge. Note that I was not at the loch in the 60s however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, I wonder how much of the malfunctioning was down to lack of focus and concentration which is a perfect example of "shock and awe".

      You don't need to be standing transfixed in a trance-like state for it to be "shock and awe", it is the scenario of a sufficiently distracting event that interferes with your normal concentration and routine.

      Delete
    2. I did anticipate such a reply from someone who advocates the shock and awe explanation. Please understand that by camera malfunction people were referring to mechanical failure of the cameras themselves, and not some kind of incompetent fumbling by the operator. Again I state: I had no discussions about this theory back then. I consider it to be purely theoretical and wholly unsubstantiated.

      It should be noted that the hex reference was tied up with the monster from another realm theory, and as such was not taken seriously by many to my knowledge.

      I am going to see if one of my friends who had closer and earlier involvement will post on here. We have discussed the shock and awe theory on the phone and he describes it as 'poppycock'!

      Delete
    3. Your friend may regard it as "poppycock", but others such as Alistair Boyd and Normal Lee say different. BTW, did any of these people manage to take a photograph? :)

      Delete
    4. Norman Lee photographed what he saw. Alistair Boyd is a nervy type.

      Delete
    5. A bit of a sweeping statement? I assume you know next to nothing about Norman Lee and it is not clear how well you knew Alistair Boyd back in 1979 when he had his sighting.

      Delete
  35. So if the shock and awe did not affect these observers when the monster came up where are the photographs turtleback?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know the answer to this, but I will wait for my friend to explain it. He says he will post on here this evening when he gets back from shopping with his wife in Edinburgh (poor soul!).

      Delete
  36. Do you know Alistair Boyd anon ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I think the shock and awe cant be taken out of context in a way ! I dont think its a fear thing or bin paralysed with nerves lol far from it.my experience with the chanel 5 monster was more of a ' wat is it' type of shock.u try to make sense if it !is is nessie? Is ita log? Is it a boat wake ( as i was on a boat). Diffrent sort of shock! In fact i remember laughing with my mate as i fumbled for the camera and dropped my pint of beer off the seat. So there was no paralysed by fear or owt like that!! I cant speak for anyone else on the boat but all i know is nobody got a decent picture or video so on average yes the shock does prevent maybe a photo.but i also think relaxing on a cruise with a beer it is more of a shock than say if ur sat at the loch ( like dinsdale) video in hand waiting for the monster. U dont expect to see anything!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Geordie, Dick Raynor's film is not the only film the LNI achieved in their decade of photo surveillance of the Loch. Footage was obtained nearly every year from '62 thru '69 (If memory serves '66 was a bust). Some of the footage was identified as waterfowl, but some was inconclusive. And some of that inconclusive footage garnered some interesting comments from JARIC. Raynor's film stands out because of the relative clarity, the Scott II vessel coming into frame and providing some scale, and JARIC's comment that the part of the object that seems to break the surface periodically could be as long as seven feet. So while the LNI's photo surveillance failed to capture detailed, incontrovertible motion picture footage of a large animal in Loch Ness, they did not draw a complete blank. And on Dick's site he states that long range photography is inadequate to solve the mystery due to the equipment not being able to resolve objects at great distance (I'm paraphrasing, and his explanation gets a bit technical, but that's the gist of his take on the matter).
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ladies and gentlemen of this most glorious of websites, I am charmed to make your acquaintance!! What a fine and crisp winter's day I experienced when out and about this delightful Friday. Alas, I digress, as is so often my wont....

    My name is Theodore Valentine McDelivery. I was born in 1946 in Fife, the son of a successful shoehorn salesman and a thrifty seamstress. I was an only child, and as a result was lucky enough to have my childhood interest in the wonderful great beast of Loch Ness indulged to a high degree. Excursions to the loch were regular during my early years and I have fond memories of sitting lochside with a mug of steaming broth, some haggis sandwiches and the finest homemade scotch eggs north of Berwick! Happy days indeed.

    My father was an influential man and had built up a great number of friends and allies over the years through his reputation as the provider of the very highest quality shoehorns made from the best materials money could buy. And it is through one of these contacts that he was able to attend, along with myself at the age of 8, a private viewing in 1954 of.... and some will understand the significance of this..... THE DOCTOR MCRAE LOCH NESS MONSTER FILM! I hereby invite the wonderful admirers of this most spectacular of beasts to put any questions to me that they seek answers to regarding this frankly startling film.

    Ask the questions which puzzle you, people. Seek knowledge and you shall be rewarded!

    With my very best wishes,

    THEODORE VALENTINE MCDELIVERY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haggis sandwiches?

      There is no record of any such person being born in Fife between 1945 and 1947.

      It has also been recorded that the MacRae film was probably only referring to a beast filmed in Loch Duich.

      Delete
    2. Not so hasty Glasgow Boy! Let's not write off Theodore just yet. People sometimes change their names. Occasionally births were not registered back then. I am intrigued. Can you tell us more about the film, Theo?

      Delete
    3. I have been informed of various newsworthy items in the last year - you ask them for more, they make excuses or go silent.

      Either way, they fail to deliver on what they said they had.

      Delete
    4. Exactly GB. What ever happened to the university professor who had conducted research at Loch Ness and professed to have conclusive evidence for the existence of the LNM. I forget what article post it was in, you might remember. You asked him to get in touch with you. Did you ever get a response? Probably not.

      Delete
    5. Ah yes, the prof who wouldn't give us the name of the university he supposedly conducted the research for!

      I googled his name and his alleged scientific field. Surprisingly the two didn't marry up.

      Delete
  40. Hi all. I think on this page we see exactly why GB's blog is high on Google search results and is no doubt the first port of call for many interested in this subject. Interesting articles discuseed well from all angles!

    I do have a question regarding GB's offhand dismissal of the content of ekm's video. GB suspects the video shows that the event was lacking, despite never having seen it. Yet conversely, eyewitness reports from those who claim to believe in Nessie are taken at face value, e.g. if the Spicers say they saw a prehistoric animal crossing the road then it must have happened. Likewise if any other visitor or resident reports having seen something vividly not a known animal or object, then we must apparently accept it as strong evidence.

    GB, why do you treat the pro-Nessie eyewitness reports as far more genuine than the event ekm has related to you on this page? It doesn't make any sense to me but I hope you will explain. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I am concerned, EKM's film joins the ranks of MacRae and Currie, to all practical intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.

      Delete
    2. Then I would have to apply the same logic to unsubstantiated eyewitness reports - to all practical intents and purposes they didn't happen. Does that sound ok to you?

      Delete
    3. No, I accept EKM saw something in the water. It's the film and the claims made about it I disregard.

      Delete