Well done to Gordon Holmes, who took that intriguing 2007 video of a strange object in Loch Ness. He pressed on and now the Scotsman and Press and Journal have run the story on his further analysis of the video and his theory concerning the possibility that it is a giant eel.
Gordon is one of the good guys, sacrificing time, money and energy to go up to the loch multiple times in pursuit of the famous Loch Ness Monster. He continues in the tradition of an array of men and women who took up the challenge to try to capture that conclusive footage and confound the sceptics once and for all. He may yet be the one who gets that evidence; but, like me, I am sure he will be only too glad that anyone gets that final footage.
In relation to this video and the modus operandi article below, why are there, for example, countless videos and photos of known aquatic animals such as hippos and whales shown in stunning detail, but all of the cryptozoological evidence always seems to lack this credible detail for some reason?
ReplyDeleteYou use the example of two mammals. If the LNM was a mammal, I agree there would be plenty of videos and photos.
DeleteMy own opinion is that it is a water breather and tends to prefer to live in the darkness of the peat stained waters. Any surfacings in general are purely accidental.
It would actually be an interesting exercise to put a large freshwater fish into Loch Ness and see how easy it is to record!
I don'the see too many eels sticking their heads up and having a look around. In fact, I've only ever seen fish jump a few times in my life. I remember reading evidence from 1970 (I think) that suggested 2 large aquatic animals rose to a point, then fell again together. Which seems to be indicative of a water breather. I can't imagine why, when that evidence was available, did hugely costly comprehensive scans of the Loch set out to find air in lungs, as a large plesiosaur would have. An eel sounds like the very thing. Just don't know what the neck sightings were about, unless it's a new and improved eel.
ReplyDeleteI added a link on the giant eel hypothesis. If the LNM was a giant eel, it would seem to have some added bouyancy ability which would allow the upper body (now mistaken for a neck) to be elevated. Though the neck typically described seems rather thin.
DeleteIt's a freaky jigsaw puzzle alright. We'recommend using all the points of reference we have here. I'm just wondering if it might be off the map altogether. It wouldn't be the first time it happened, hence the platypus.
DeleteI have no idea why my new phone is writing gibberish, apologies.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if this has been posted here before, but this contains some interesting historical accounts of giant eels in Scotland...
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.forteana.org/node/114
Thanks, good article.
ReplyDeleteWell some of the so called expert sceptics claim this is wind hitting the loch. It just shows how much they really know because it is quite obvious an animal of some form.
ReplyDeleteBesides the giant eel as the explanation for the serpentine type of lake monster or sea serpent, I believe some sort of large long-necked turtle may explain the plesiosaur-type sightings, and there is very likely something like this in Lake Champlain...
ReplyDeletehttp://bizarrezoology.blogspot.ca/2014/03/an-interview-with-chuck-pogan.html#more
I'm not so sure about the Holmes film but I very much doubt LNM is any kind of eel no matter how adapted it would need to be given what we have come to know from sightings over the years. The same I would say for any kind of evolved fish as I feel the locomotion witnessed in various forms (with documented land sightings) would be almost impossible - with the sliver defining almost still not enough for any fish....
ReplyDeleteI'm much in your camp Roland, as to the nocturnal aspects for potential investigation with all that's been discussed and hope a camera someday points us towards an answer or two....
Gary