Thursday 18 July 2019

Loch Ness Mystery Blog Nine Years Old Today.




Happy Birthday to me.

It was on the 18th July 2010 that the first rather innocuous post was logged onto lochnessmystery.blogspot.com. Nine years later the blog is still running, still posting and still here. The tally of articles is now six hundred and ninety six (including this one) with the number of page views now in the millions since defending the famous Loch Ness Monster began.

The range of articles has varied in content and depth, some just simple announcements ranging to articles series such as the five articles on the Peter O'Connor photo and the four devoted to the Lachlan Stuart picture. The article with the biggest number of hits is "The Hugh Gray Photograph Revisited" at 88,500 page views and not far behind is the article on the 2012 Marcus Atkinson sonar image with 83,118 views. How many unique users that equates to is impossible to calculate.

Meantime, the site continues to at least appear on the second page of various search engines, but has gone as high as third ranking on Google (below). It rather depends how many articles I churn out it seems. In terms of global coverage, 45% of the views come from the USA, 22% from the UK going down to the likes of 0.5% from Spain.




A perusal of the various articles should make it clear where this blog stands and the strap line at the top is as true today as it was in 2010 - Reclaiming the Loch Ness Monster from the current tide of debunking and scepticism. Since the late 1990s and the rise of the Internet, the noise of scepticism and its errant child, pseudo-scepticism has grown with every browser refresh. Though there were cryptid websites around, there was an imbalance in the debate which needed some more counter-weight. Therefore, the remit of the blog can be broken into four areas:

  1. Counter sceptical arguments against the phenomenon.
  2. Promote arguments and theories in favour of a cryptid view.
  3. Cover current and folkloric aspects of Nessie culture.
  4. Write on the history of the monster hunt and its personalities.

One may ask if this implies total gullibility as every sighting, photo, film and sonar is swallowed as evidence. That is not the case if one reads through the blog, but certainly the logical and scientific facade displayed on the other side is rather the opposite of gullibility to me - namely cynicism and negativity towards cryptid theories and their adherents. This is exemplified in the attitude that not one witness out of the thousands has ever accurately described what they saw and not one case is ever problematic.

So be it, but this blog does "Messy Nessie" insomuch that it is bolder to accept various cases while others sit on the fence or run away at the first sceptical debunking. That means we get it wrong sometimes, but I don't really care much for that as it is not the intention of this site to protect a reputation or ego. We shall leave that to others.

Likewise, the odds of being proven right on any case as opposed to wrong is small as that means the monster has been proven to be a large, exotic animal. One thing you can be sure of, the sceptic and pseudo-sceptic are safe in their comfort zone while that situation persists. Denounce everything in the safe knowledge that it is unlikely they will be caught with their pants down when a carcass is pulled up the next day!

So here is to hopefully another nine years of blogging Nessie. Where you and I will be in 2028 is unknown, but I am pretty sure one or more monsters will continue to be seen.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




56 comments:

  1. I hope your tenth is a big extravaganza. With Nessie delivered to you in a box. LOL Congrats! :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Many Happy Returns Roland & Blog.I'm a regular reader,though I don't comment very often.Hopefully Nessie will be proven within the next nine years!I wonder what the sceptics will say then?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congrats Roland! For what it's worth it's my favourite blog in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You´ve created a very valuable repository for new ways of looking at the classic sightings. And along the way have discovered material that was lost or over-looked, like the 2nd Cockrell picture and other O'Conner pic. Also pinpointing the sites for the Munro and MacGruer-Cameron land sighting. Hats off to you!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Congratulations! I am very glad to have discovered it, an intelligent person's discussion on a controversial subject...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks John, but there is no 2nd O'Connor picture. However the second Cockrell picture is here:

    http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-hugh-cockrell-photograph.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Many happy returns Roland. How time flies, eh?

    You've certainly added a lot to the history of the mystery and I hope there are more exciting finds to come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope so, but with anything, the low hanging fruit gets picked first ...

      Delete
  8. Bravo old chap and lets keep this show on the road. I'm sure that in time you'll reach the No 1 spot on Google, and best of luck to you in trying to achieve it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Congrats, Roland...this blog is my 'go to' first thing in the morning and thereafter throughout the day.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Roland, you covered Maurice Burton's claims that there were 3 O'Conner photos, in the files of a newspaper:

    http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Peter+O%27Connor+Photograph+%28Part+V%29

    Per the quote, there were 3 photos in a strip, housed in the files of The Daily Mail - the known one 1st and then two more.

    I've seen the 2nd one - don't know which online site, but I did a screen capture of it and made an image showing the famous one above and the 2nd below. I'm happy to send it to you privately, Roland

    It has a more sunken look to the body as if air had been let out of a tire slightly, and the neck seems a little more in focus. It makes me think the whole series was staged and the newspaper was "in on it", choosing to only trumpet the 1st - better - picture. Wish it (the photo, not the LNM) was real, but . . .

    ReplyDelete
  11. I still want to see a hardcopy book of ALL the files with comments..
    Call it Watson's Lochness Reference files ( or something.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that would be a BIG book.

      Delete
    2. I just did an xml to pdf conversion of the blog content for the last 12 months. It is 364 pages long suggesting the whole blog would be a 3000+ page pdf.

      Delete
    3. Please,please do it!!
      A 3,000 page PDF
      Sell it
      I'll buy it!
      ( I prefer hardcopy)
      Maby 10 books?

      Delete
    4. 10 full hardcopy books @29$( USA) a book
      Discount if all 10 are bought same time.
      DontD forget to include the comments!

      Delete
    5. Ah you mean 10 volumes required to cover 3000 pages?

      Delete
    6. Hmmm, I checked some blog to book web services and this is not cheap. One site quotes three/four volumes at $158 each and another six volumes at $132 each. It depends on how many pages they fit per volume. And that was without adding comment sections!

      Delete
    7. Then it would have to be "print on demand"( after money is paid per volume!)
      Comment are important and entertaining!

      Delete
    8. Put it all on CDs. Hmm... I'll have to go through the entire blog going back to 2011 to delete some of my stupid comments. Rats! Oh what the hell, whats done is done. I agree with john the comments are essential and very entertaining to get an idea of what others think about this mystery. And to think that at one time you had considered doing away with comments. Well then, it wouldn't be a blog then, would it!

      Delete
    9. Put all 3000 pages on a USB stick for 100-200$.

      Delete
  12. Yes email your pic to lochnesskelpie@gmail.com but I suspect it is the one Mr. Lovcanksi staged a while back which then did the rounds on the Internet. As I said, just because someone can execute a near reproduction of a painting does not mean the original painting is also a fake.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Will do. I certainly don't want to propagate bogus material. But it's EXTREMELY similar to the 1st photo, though the water looks glassier. Don't know if that rocks showing through the water on the known picture, creating a pebbly water surface, but the one I'll send is much smoother. Thanks Roland

    ReplyDelete
  14. Quality pal keep up the good work much luv best blog out there

    ReplyDelete
  15. Happy tenth, and here's to another ten years!

    ReplyDelete
  16. 9 years and still going strong ...many happy returns, this is the first web page i open everyday .. keep up the good work keep us posted on Morar as well though

    ReplyDelete
  17. Congratulations Roland on a great 9 years!! Cheers man! Thank you for investigating the mystery and leading the charge.

    Often over the past several years I have lost interest in Nessie and began to wonder if it was all a case of mistaken identity and hoax. This blog and your hard work with your enthusiasm for Nessie keeps hope alive.

    I hope your hard work pays off and you find proof one day soon.

    Once again thanks for keeping the mystery alive.

    ReplyDelete
  18. New article from Time on the history of the LNM...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's the link for the Time article...
    https://time.com/5631953/storm-loch-ness-history/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I had a read. They have Steve Feltham down as "But he does believe she’s just a Wels catfish, a native fish that can grow up to 13 feet long".

      A monster of a sort but not the type of monster I believe in. I presume he doesn't believe there is a second large species in the loch?



      Delete
    2. Yeah, yeah, your Big Exotic Amphibious Fish theory, or something else quite as bizarre with a proboscis as the head and neck and able to come on land . Would you believe a Sturgeon? I'm sticking with the Plesiosaur archetype, convergent evolution type scheme

      Delete
    3. LOL Yeah what are they gonna do swim to the depths in mass and locate Nessie. Good luck!

      Delete
    4. Imo,feltham does NOT believe it's a catfish( lol) but that it's a plesiasaur type animal.

      Delete
  20. That was useful. I was planning to visit the Loch some time in September. I now know to avoid the 21st.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You all know that it all started with Storm Area 51. Now this copycat. The Area 51 “storm” was a viral post by some guy on FaceBook as a prank . Now this silliness. The Scottish Authorities aren't to happy about it either.

      https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/air-force-responds-to-storm-area-51-plan/

      https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/storm-loch-ness-plan-prompts-warning-from-scottish-authorities

      Delete
  21. https://www.facebook.com/100007267215691/videos/vb.100007267215691/1882731941979028/?type=2&video_source=user_video_tab&refid=18&ref=content_filter&_ft_=qid.6718220520795796568%3Amf_story_key.1481061148700555%3Agroup_id.263434463796569%3Atop_level_post_id.1481061148700555%3Atl_objid.1481061148700555%3Acontent_owner_id_new.100007267215691%3Aoriginal_content_id.1882734671978755%3Aoriginal_content_owner_id.100007267215691%3Asrc.22%3Aphoto_id.1882731941979028%3Astory_location.6%3Aattached_story_attachment_style.video_autoplay&__tn__=%2As-R

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hope that link i sent works. If not, look at the inverness when you were a kid, facebook page. Its the provest of inverness 1955 to 61,on the american gameshow, whats my line, talking about his nessie sighting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whew! that's a long link. It worked. "Mr. Mayor are you sure you're not over here representing the famous Scotch brewing industry" LOL Hmm...Seems like a sensible man.

      Delete
  23. In the interests of accuracy here, I can tell you that when I was seven & first visited the loch I was, like everyone else,a firm believer that one day plesiasaurs would be proved to be swimming about in here.
    When I left Dorset and pitched up full time at the loch in 1991 I was still convinced of that.
    I think it was the whole fallout regarding the surgeons photo that started to crack that belief.
    Having spoken over the years to hundreds of fellow believers who visit here at dores I have come to realise that we are all looking for a huge range of explanations, from rips in the time matrix to sturgeon, from space ships on the bottom of the loch to giant eels.
    Some have ranked higher than others in my opinion in the likelihood of being the final answer.
    Dick Raynor first put me onto the possibilities regarding Wels catfish.
    A freelance journalist, Mike Merritt once asked me what I thought the most likely explanation is, I told him that to me wels catfish tick more boxes than anything else, not that that's the final answer, just my current best guess at the time.
    He wrote the erroneous article that got reproduced around the world saying that 'after 25 years hunting I had finally solved the mystery, no dinosaurs, only wels catfish and that I was now returning to Dorset where I came from', this was journalistic nonsense, he made a lot of money out of the resell of that article, and no matter how many times I have explained that it is not the final answer but merely a possible explanation, I keep encountering the results of his article,even here.
    Best guess at the time ,that is all.
    Recently, with new information I find that my best guess is starting to change again.
    All that i feel confident in saying is that no matter how hard you or i wish for a plesiasaur to be in here, it's not going to make one appear.
    Unfortunately nessie is not going to turn out to be a plesiasaur.
    People over many years have been seeing something impressive and unidentified.

    whatever turns out to be the explanation will be what nessie turns out to be, as opposed to whatever we wish nessie to be will turn out to be the explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Back in 1972, when I first saw the Rines “Flipper” pic, I was convinced it was a plesiosaur. Now after all this time, I agree with you, that concept is untenable. Evolved plesiosaur? Who knows? Better a humongous catfish.

      Delete
    2. Better a humongous catfish?
      John..really.

      Delete
    3. Really...Better a humongous catfish than a plesiosaur as a possibility. Sure. I'd like for Nessie to be a plesiosaur, but that's not going to happen.

      Delete
    4. I disagree..I feel that eventually it will be photographed up close and will proved to be an elasmosaurus AND a giant salamander.
      Didn't you used to have a cryptozoology blog John?
      What happened?

      Delete
    5. How can it be proved to be an elasmosaurus and a giant salamander? Your comments are getting nuttier, john.

      Delete
    6. An elasmomander? Great. Iv'e tried to humor you john, but you're really getting silly now.

      Delete
    7. Not a combination but 2 species ,giant salamander and a elasmosaurus,that are being seen.
      I also believe there are giant eels in the loch.
      These are all being seen.

      Delete
  24. Bacause there is no compelling proof?

    ReplyDelete
  25. When was Dinsdale ever unscrupulous?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Replies
    1. Always respect your tenacity and approach Steve. Have you seen "John"above who says you believe it's a plesiosaraus and you do not believe its a catfish.
      This "John" has a habit of posting inane, inflammatory comments which are typical of a troll. If it was my blog he'd be banned immediately. I couldn't give a rat's what people think about "censorship."

      Delete
    2. The commenter "john" has had posts rejected. Like you, I am not particularly worried when people get on their high water-horses about being silenced. With "john" it is currently a via media rather than an outright ban or outright freedom.

      Delete
  27. I think Steve's theory of a few catfish bin introduced into the Loch then growing big over the years then dying out hence the lack of recent sightings is a good one! It will be interesting to see if the dna has picked any up though it wud be hard to pick up if there was only one or two left in such a huge volume of water! My problem with catfish is they don't really resemble the witness description plus no mention ever of a dorsal fin plus there is no evidence of them bin introduced so far up in the Highlands... Im Lookin forward to the soon to be announced dna results... Cheers Roy

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ok, "john" submitted more comments, at the risk of more flame wars, this is what I will quote from him:

    "Ever heard of a 26 mile. Deep loch only having 1 species of large animal?
    Remember the grey photo?
    Planbecks did an excellent breakdown of it bring 2 giant salamanders.
    Did not the loch residents,long ago call the monster "the salamander"?
    What's the Scottish "water bull?"
    And
    Rines photos show a plesiosaur.
    The Eminent Biologist ,professor Tucker SAW the lochness monster and called it "an ELASMOSAUROUS.
    He was destroyed with psychological and financial warfare.why? A living elasmosaurus would upset the evolution cart.
    As it stands,I recognize,snowdens internet warfare templates being used on this wonderful blog ,so much that it's more than 50% of the comments.with the real phonies/bots patting each other on the back while discussing "wells catfish's and 25 foot great white sharks in 1 mile Irish lochs.
    When one lies and lies for pay for propaganda purposes,one tends to lose ones perspective, and decends into lunacy. And,anyone who goes to lochness for years and years ,diving in a scary loch,does NOT believe in 12 foot catfish or undulating hay bales as being the lochness monster,but believes in a plesiasaur shaped animal,AS reported by witnesses and the disfigured diver,who saw it up close."

    So, john, this is basically all about evolution? As you say "A living elasmosaurus would upset the evolution cart."

    So explain how finding the presumed extinct coelacanth did not upset the evolutionary cart back in the 1930s?

    How do you tell a "normal" sceptic from a paid government one?

    Prof Tucker had a single hump sighting, I suggest he did not have enough information in that event to call it catfish, salamander, plesiosaur or elasmosaur.

    I agree the Rines photo shows our monster, but it could just as well be a long necked seal instead of a plesiosaur or a giant salamander upside down?

    So you think there are plesiosaurs and giant salamanders in Loch Ness? Don't you think you are doing the job of your "disinformation agents" by proposing such scenarios?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, yeah GB. It's amusing. The problem is john is not consistent in his idea of an unknown animal. He's all over the place with a veritable slew of Jurrasic Park creatures and wild conspiracy theories. Pick one or the other! Paid skeptics? There may be a truism there. Well known and renowned skeptics are paid for their interviews and documentary spots! Although in his defense, we're really not sure what's in the loch. Tuckers elasmosauras? Not sure if he said that, but even so, even he may have had some wild guesses. Johns got some imagination, but I won't attack a fellow believer for his beliefs. Meh harmless musings. Disfigured diver? But I'll leave it up to you as to what you allow him to post. Same as with everybody else. Hmm...maybe john in a disinformation agent! LOL

      Delete