Tuesday 3 November 2015

Upcoming Book Event




Gareth Williams, author of the upcoming "A Monstrous Commotion", emailed to inform me that the book will be launched at Waterstones bookshop in Inverness next week on Thursday 12th November at 6:30pm. You can find out more at the Waterstones website. Unfortunately, I am just back from the area and so can't make it, but I am some of our local readers may want to come along.










21 comments:

  1. Ive just added a book to my collection thanks to a blogger here ' the search at loch ness' by dennis meredith. I might be tempted to buy this one too. A quick review on it says it seems skeptical but allows the reader to make up his own mind. Thats a fair sceptic in my book ( lol) . And just my opinion but the more books you read and more research made its quite obvious that there were plenty of sightings before the 1930's so the invention of nessie in a pub in 1930 is a big no no for me !! ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bodge from suffolk6 November 2015 at 10:55

      Hi jake what do ya think of 'the search at loch ness' ? good read ?

      Delete
  2. ekm: “Define 'plenty' ? ”

    Jake: “Quite a lot ”

    ekm: “Could you elaborate ?”

    Jake: “A whole lot ”

    Hilarious. Jake is a master at deflecting skeptics. My hero. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh dear !!!!! Haha :))))

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the insult Erik!!!. I thought you were bigger than that old lad. As a seasoned sceptic i thought u might argue the case against pre 1930's sightings!!!!! Not resort to cheap insults over a blog lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must have missed you fact-based response to my original question and misinterpreted it as petty sarcasm.

      My mistake.

      Delete
  5. The point has been made elsewhere that "waterhorses" and "kelpies" were reported across the Highlands pre-1930, but it was only in the early 30's that the mythical story was transformed into a real animal story at Loch Ness the media. In my opinion this points to a decision to deceive, to dream up a wonderful story that would bring a fortune to the area. From the wealthy London visitor in 1933 and 1934, through to the Welsh bricklayer in 2015, this story has emptied money from the pockets of millions rich and poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why thank u for giving me a mention xx :))

      Delete
    2. (That was directed at Miur rather than John Alvarado, for those who might have been confused.)

      Delete
    3. Exactly.

      People WANT to believe in lake monsters, hairy bipeds, and UFOs. People want religion.

      There's nothing wrong with it, until it gets out of hand.

      Delete
    4. Hmmm... ekm. Unfortunately the use of the word mindset applies to everyone, in my humble opinion.

      Delete
  6. This should probably go in the previous article, but I figured the two are connected and I am responding to both Jake and ekm, so what the heck. Yes, well, just to add to Jake's comment and getting back to serious on topic comments. Just because there might not be any pre-modern Nessie era (1933 onwards) newspaper reports of something strange inhabiting Loch Ness, does not negate the fact that eyewitness accounts go back to to the Middle Ages.

    The most recent pre-1933 sightings date from the late 1800's to early 1900's This goes for both water and land sightings There are plenty of data bases published in book form as well as online that will show this. Of course, if one wishes to believe them in lieu of definitive photographic evidence, that is left up to the beholder. So again, this tale of the Nessie story being invented by someone in a pub for the sake of drumming up publicity and business for the Loch Ness economy is nonsense. Just my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Alvarado, see my comment above. Pre-1933 Loch Ness wasn't any different in terms of monster tradition than many Highland lochs.

      Delete
  7. Lol i didnt realise u need a degree to have an interest in the loch ness mystery !!!!!! Haha. Got to admit im having a right chuckle at certain people on here! U cudnt make it up :))))

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bobby "Hoots" McAfee7 November 2015 at 12:46

    Definitely one for my Christmas wish list. Thanks for posting this.

    Here's hoping that the mystery will be solved by the end of 2015!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hope this message is taken in the good faith I post it, and it appears on the page.

    I've been a regular reader and observer of this blog for several years now. Due to personal circumstances I rarely get to leave my home, so I find the internet to be a very valuable window onto the world. This blog has been a daily port of call since I first discovered it.

    What has been wonderful over the time I've been following the blog, is the thrilling interaction between the "pro's" and the "anti's". The very best times were when Dick Raynor, ekm, Geordie Sceptic, TrevortheCat and others crossed swords intellectually with the likes of Roland and Henry Bauer. Sadly it seems those days are now behind us. The pages appear to be dominated by the well-meaning John Alvarado and the incoherent Jake with his numerous posts under different names. The sceptics have largely disappeared. I was excited to see the return of ekm and now he has been banned.

    Do not get me wrong, the tensions have at times run high, but the in depth debates concerning physical evidence, psychology and social factors were the main draw for me each morning when I start up my laptop. Please don't throw it all away. You have a great thing here Roland Watson. To dilute it to the point where all you allow are a small number of friends to congratulate you on your articles would be a terrible waste. I implore you to reverse the decline of this once great blog!

    Yours,


    J Boardsley

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, no one is banned.

      I will probably do what he suggested and go to registered users as an experiment to see who self excludes themselves. But would you have posted your comment if you had to be a registered Google+ user?


      Delete
  10. Mr. J Boardsley's observations and points are well taken and noted. I too spend most of my time at home on the Internet, as an alternative to most of the “crap” on TV and an outlet to the world. I really enjoy this blog and the comments section with both pro and con points of view, that is essential and fair. The only issue I take, is with his assertion that is is dominated my myself (Jake can speak for himself) Not entirely true. The only times I have dominated the blog with posts are the times I have had to do battle with the likes Erick Myers and Geordie Sceptic.

    In the totality of the existence of the blog that is minuscule. Those times have been prompted by said individuals constant goading, sniping and badgering of Roland, their endless, on and on, round and round, constant quarrelsome nature of their arguments. That's not polite debate, I see it as harassment and bickering at minutia. I'm sure Roland can fend for himself, but someone else has to step in at times to level the playing field, even if it is just in defense of Roland and this Blog. Geordie Sceptic is gone, for the moment.

    Recently EKM has returned from another forum, filling the void left by GS, along with the revelation that he has been working behind the scenes (at said forum) conspiring to minimize the message and effectiveness of this blog. Now that Roland has cleared the air (again!) and cleaned house so to speak, maybe the blog will become what Mr Boardsley and others, wish it to be. I know Roland will post this as a fair rebuttal to Mr. Boardsley

    ReplyDelete
  11. You know, in defense of Jake, I don't think he is the incoherent yokel he's been portrayed as. I have seen some posts he's made in the past that are very structured, understandable and intelligent. I think it's just his style of writing that he can turn on and off. It's probably just his shtick.

    ReplyDelete