Monday, 25 January 2016

What's Coming up this Year on the Blog

So 2016 has started and the usual plans are afoot for trips to Loch Ness and exposing the fallacies of sceptical pseudoscience and half baked arguments. These are the articles I plan to at least put out this year. Of course, others will follow as this article now brings the blog total to 452 articles!


At least two more articles on this controversial photographs are to follow. If the sceptics jump up and down enough, a fourth may follow. If they scream, maybe a fifth!



Between 1933 and 1960 we had what is known as the classic Nessie photos. Those black and white pictures from Hugh Gray to Peter O'Connor were the staple of many a Nessie book. I think Hugh Cockrell's is the last one I need to cover (and that is after five years of blogging). So it is well overdue an article that does it justice.


The sceptics have been dissing this famous 1934 case for years now. It's time to see if they can take it as well as dish it out.


A follow up article is planned for this famous picture gathering up my thoughts and further finds since I last wrote on it. In fact, I even plan to play the part of a sceptic in this one!



When I first pointed out the fish like head in this picture, the best a leading sceptic could come out with was that he could see Elvis in the picture too. Real sharp thinking there. It didn't get much better after that. It's time for a revisit and new insights into this important photograph.


A famous film, but only Maurice Burton saw it as he selfishly kept it to himself. Now we only have scraps, but I hope to add to the stock of knowledge this year. If I find it between now and then, I will be as excited as anyone.

That's it, but there will be more than this as we look forward into the 83rd year of the Loch Ness Mystery!


  1. GB-
    Very much looking forward to another year of your blog and insights. As ever, thanks for your stimulating analysis and reflection. Here's hoping the skeptics do enough jumping up and down to inspire additional articles.

  2. I say, Dr. Watson! without a photo of the Arthur Grant land sighting, an explanation should prove quite interesting. A first, I don't think you've covered that one!

    1. Indeed, only one land sighting report has a photo and it is not Grant.

  3. Please continue the intriguing work!!! Your efforts are appreciated!

  4. I'd sure like to see a photo of the creature on land...