Somebody takes a picture of an otter in a Nessie like position and the media come out saying this is a "common cause of Nessie sightings". Dr. Jonathan Wills recently took the above picture of an otter swimming around the port of the town of Lerwick on the Shetland Islands.
After a recent hoo-haa about pesky logs fooling people into seeing plesiosaurs and even the tired earthquake theory again producing a small rumble, it's the turn of the humble and unassuming otter to deceive those incredulous witnesses.
Now there is nothing new about otters and Nessie. Within months of a strange sea monster being reported in the Highland loch in 1933, otters were one of the first explanations to be trotted out in the defence of normality. It's a situation I thought was best summed up in the picture below.
Ever since then, they have occasionally been dragged out of their holts to explain various sightings. I covered one such case in 2012. It was the Harvey-MacDonald land sighting from 1934 in which it was suggested the witnesses mistook a three foot otter for a ten foot monster.
Now, don't get me wrong. People can mistake branches, otters and earthquakes for thirty foot monsters. As I have said before, if they saw the otter at 500 yards for 2 seconds in a fog, then I can entertain the idea that they got it wrong.
At the same time, such a sighting is hardly likely to make it into the Nessie Hall of Fame. In fact, it would be lucky to be recorded for future researchers. Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point. Each case is assessed on its own merits, but the principle still stands, the better the sighting the less talk of otters, please.
If we are going to approach this problem of eyewitness reports with a degree of quantifiability, I remind readers of my formula below and you can read more about it here. Sceptics tend to set W to 0.
I now await some journalist to exclusively reveal how "most Nessie sightings" can be accounted for by boat wakes.
I know I've said it before on here, but my opinion is otters do definitely account for a proportion of sightings.
ReplyDeleteHaving seen the pair at Ness Islands moving, it's impossible not to draw parallels with some LNM reports: humps, head occasionally high out the water or otherwise low in the water, prominent tail movement, displays the footprint in water of a larger animal - more so when the 2 of them are together.
Of course, that doesn't fit all the LNM sightings.
Perhaps, 0.1% of all sightings. :)
DeleteOtters tend to stay along the shoreline. This means they are in reasonable proximity to potential observers and hence size/distance judgements are not so prone to error.
I note YOU weren't fooled into thinking they were Nessie on an excursion!
Nope because I know they're there in that stretch of the river, and I've seen them enter the water and leave it, so knew what I was looking at. Plus there was a not very happy fisherman shouting 'f***ing otters!!'
DeleteThe problem, no doubt has to do with the difficulty in judging size and distances on water when there are no nearby objects of known size for comparison.
ReplyDeleteSeems they have the same problem in British Columbia with Ogopogo and misidentifications. Reminds me of footage of Ogopogo purportedly showing the creature, with believers insisting it is Ogopogo and skeptics asserting it is a beaver.
To me it looks like a beaver slapping it's tail on the water. To paraphrase: “If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck, then it must be a duck.” I'm not saying all sightings are beavers either. You can make up your own mind by watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R25trcfNmRU
I would only say that SOME sightings are otters mistaken for monsters. Some are boat wakes. Some are deer. Some are standing waves. Some are logs. Some are seals. Some are deer. Some are cormorants. Some are geese or ducks. Some are motor boats. Some are hoaxes. No monster photos have ever emerged, so none are monsters.
ReplyDelete... in your opinion ...
DeleteI think in pretty much everyone's opinion from both sides of the fence, there hasn't been a monster photo taken. Been some pretty humorous fakes, I'll grant you that. :-)
DeleteNonsense, but we won't go down that well worn track again.
DeleteI don't think GS is offering an opinion, I think its a general consensus. GB, I don't ever remember you declaring your belief that any specific picture actually showed a monster?
DeleteI do actually believe a number of photos and films are of the Loch Ness Monster.
DeleteI won't ask which ones, as that will start a debate that's already been done to death before!
DeleteIt gets better.
ReplyDeleteThis headline says "all sightings of the Loch Ness Monster have been otters".
Laughable.
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/wildlife-expert-claims-sightings-loch-5695413
That's Glasgow newspapers for you!
ReplyDeleteNewspapers like sensationalist headlines. When someone claims that all the sightings are otters or earthquakes it makes a nice quickly understood headline. Its not such a nice headline if you listed all the phenomenon that cause sightings, quite boring for the casual reader. Its probably better, as you suggest, to ignore the newspapers.
DeleteI had a look at your formula GB, I hadn't noticed it before. I wouldn't disagree with the maths but feel its impractical. For it to go anyway to prove the existence of Nessie the R would need to be near 100%. Defining the W would be very difficult and involve a huge amount of work for each witness and would still be debatable unless there was an agreed way of reaching a number.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the sceptics would set W=0.
DeleteYour formula lacks one extremely vital ingredient - the Loch Ness factor. Even if an eyewitness is very experienced with large lakes and totally honest, the fact that they are seeing something confusing at Loch Ness in particular colours their judgment. This factor simply cannot be denied.
DeleteIf they rated it zero their opinion on other matters would also be rated zero by many. The important point would be how a scientist would rate it.
DeleteIt doesn't lack this "extremely vital ingredient". It comes in under the make up of "W". Since this is a minor psychological phenomenon pertaining to witnesses, it can be subsumed as a small part of the variable.
DeleteI don't appreciate your reply, Geordie Sceptic. It's the denigrating and condescending way you say things sometimes. Too bad.
DeleteJust adding that my friends in fort augustus said there seems to be more otters in the area the last few years than they used to be!! They cud account for a few sightings and i always thought this is what was in the john rowe photo !!
ReplyDeleteYou'd expect a seasoned fish farm worker at the loch to recognise an otter at that kind of range though, shirley?
DeleteMaybe ! But if they popped up quick maybe not. And we dont know for certain if it was a hoax or not. Im not saying it was of course but ya never know. Resmbles a couple of otters heads to mem
ReplyDeleteThe report i read said he took the photo of a rainbow and didnt realise the humps were there. So if thats the case then yes i think a couple of otters could have stuck their heads up.
ReplyDeleteHe did see the objects at the time as well as a large dark shape just under the surface.
Deleteyes i read he took the photo of the rainbow then humps caught his eye. Could be anything i suppose but it looks like two heads to me ...but thats only my humble opinion. :))
DeleteAnyone who mistakes one of those for the loch ness monster really otter know better.
ReplyDeletejon, liny