Friday, 23 August 2019

Professor Gemmell sets the Date

Credit: Graham Sellers @G_S_Sellers


So the date has been set and it is 10am on Thursday 5th September at the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit. The eDNA work and conclusions of Professor Gemmell and his team from Otago University in New Zealand and beyond will be announced to the world. An article from the BBC website sets the scene and quotes Prof Gemmell: 

There have been over a thousand reported sightings of something in Loch Ness which have driven this notion of a monster being in the water. From those sightings there are around four main explanations about what has been seen. Our research essentially discounts most of those theories, however, one theory remains plausible.

This hearkens back to a statement he made back in May when some perhaps exuberant headlines were written:

Just to clarify, at this point, we can't rule out one of the common theories used to explain the monster myth ... For the record, we are still investigating the data. Most popular hypotheses seem unsupported; one cannot yet be excluded.

This was in response to some articles which quoted him thusly:

Is there anything deeply mysterious? Hmm. It depends what you believe. Is there anything startling? There are a few things that are a bit surprising.

Of course, "surprising" may refer to something unrelated to large monsters directly, but perhaps indirectly (e.g. food chain). But my own thoughts were on this quartet of monster theories he mentions but never divulges. Was it a generic quartet of fish, amphibian, reptile and mammal? Or perhaps a cryptozoological quartet of plesiosaur, giant eel, long necked pinniped or ... well I am not sure what would be number four.

Or is is a more mixed bag of sturgeon, catfish, giant eel, plesiosaur? I suspect the last list but when he says the "fourth" one cannot be excluded and remains plausible, I presume that means there is identified DNA fragments in Loch Ness consistent with such a theory. Well, I look forward to the event, but as said before, fans of paranormal and itinerant Nessies will be less moved by such events. Adrian Shine, whose Loch Ness Centre will host the event said:

We are delighted to welcome Prof. Gemmell back to the Loch Ness Centre on 5th September where he will announce the results at a press conference. Undoubtedly, many will be waiting to see if any of these results shed light upon the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster. Prof. Gemmell, in a press invitation yesterday, claims to have dismissed a number of monster theories but has promised that ‘one remains feasible’. Naturally, we look forward to much discussion and debate!

As an aside, I was in email communication with a media company who were asking me for Loch Ness Monster information for a documentary which they said would likely air on September 15th on the Travel Channel. He was a bit coy about their access to the eDNA results. So perhaps that will be worth watching in regard to this latest scientific venture into Loch Ness. I also asked Otago University's PR team about live streaming the press event, to which they said wait and see.

In conclusion and as said before, various past ventures have seemed to promise much and delivered little, such as the LNIB surface watches of the 1960s and the sonar-led Operation Deepscan of the 1980s. The shortcomings of the former were laid out by Ted Holiday in his books while the latter did have its contacts but it became clear that interpretation could turn the raw data into anything.



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

54 comments:

  1. I would add that I continue to be almost equally interested in how the sampling went at Loch Morar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't it be REALLY surprising and ironic if they found "something" there!

      Delete
    2. Well, after all these years of nothing conclusive at Loch Ness, and if nothing unusual to report there, for the investigating team to report something unusual at Loch Morar, that would be surprising and ironic. And I'm not implying that there can't be some type of unknown creature there also.

      Delete
  2. I love the graphic.
    Also, my guess is that the one that remains feasible will be the eunuch eel, because they will have found eel DNA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, well no doubt they found eel DNA. How do you tell a giant eel from a normal one?

      Delete
    2. I think that because the eunuch eel starts life as a normal member of the population there would be no way of telling just be looking at the DNA. I could be wrong - there could be a mutation involved - but I think it couldn't be ruled out.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I'm also thinking eel DNA, the suggestion is all but there. Now the question is: Is it run of the mill ordinary eel DNA or some type of eel related/evolved/mutant in the eel family DNA and can they tell by some variation in the DNA strand. Meh, what do I know, I'm not a biologist, just my best guess.

      If it's eel DNA they are focusing on, those are some pretty big eels and have been there for centuries or coming and going from the sea. There's your itinerant LNM. But that doesn't explain the long neck or land sightings. As for four popular possibilities: Plesiosaur, nope definitely not. Sturgeon, nope. Catfish, nope. The eel theory is the most likely possibility in my opinion, or some type of sea serpent.

      The best, or worst they can say, depending on how you look at it, is that they found an anomalous unknown. I hope they don't tow the line of hard core skeptics and offer the skeptical viewpoint that it's all misindentification, mass hallucination, the power of suggestion etc. or something equally as ridiculous, ergo no monster. That would insult a believer's intelligence. Anyway that's my hunch. Could be wrong, but hey, we've got to get to the bottom of this mystery one way or another. I am giddy with anticipation awaiting the results. Don't expect dinosaur DNA. ;)

      Delete
    4. Saying they found eel DNA doesn't mean much at all. Saying that finding eel DNA doesn't rule out the giant eel theory is as meaningless as saying finding slug DNA doesn't rule out a giant slug theory! It would have to be eel DNA which differs in some respect from the anguilla anguilla variety.

      Delete
    5. I really don't expect Prof. Gemmel and his team's solution to be a giant eel either, it's just the closest to anything thus proposed, but, I see your point. In your “Is Nessie a Giant Eel?” analysis you seem to be non-committal but would tick the credibility box as more probable than all other theories. Here we are guesstimating about giant eel this or that. Next Thursday, the 5th could turn out to be anticlimactic to a Nessie enthusiast and be something totally different.

      Delete
  3. Or a long necked seal from a short necked one?

    ReplyDelete
  4. At last lol..i hope unlike the awful BBC sonar test I hope they explain what they did in good detail...im just a humble mystery hunter but I'd like to see some questions answered then see what plausible theory's are left.. Even if nothing unusual is found there is still a few plausibles left.. I can think of 4 at least...and what about wildfowl and otters? Did they find Edna off these? I doubt 250 water samples in a Loch 24 miles long and up to 750 ft deeep would pick up everything in the loch . Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. At the end of the day the proposed candidates do not fit the majority of reports and sightings of a large,humped creatute which has sometimes shown a long neck like appendage . Neither catfish nor eels explain these sightings.
      It beggars belief that random DNA samples from a massive water mass can show anything definitive apart from fish stock.

      Delete
    2. Hmmm... Yeah, not gonna happen. There's a well known and documented catalog of the flora and fauna of Loch Ness. Fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, (snake and lizard! don't get exited) Loch Ness is a rich ecological environment Unless they found something really extraordinary nothing else matters.

      Delete
    3. They need to have captured the DNA of all known species to claim a thorough inevstigation. Anything that slipped the "net" means other may have too.

      Delete
  5. The legend will continue no matter what the results.

    Finally, I've been waiting on this even though I'm not expecting a shocking eDNA discovery. NO dinosaurs. Maybe something unexpected. However the Loch has too many variables. What if Nessie has been out at sea the last several years ? What if she and her kind returned a day after the last eDNA water samples were taken?
    One thing will occur after all the dust settles, eyewitness's will report seeing a huge animal surfacing in Loch Ness year after year. Hopefully someone will finally master their camera at the right moment

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dna will be reptilian plesiasaur/elasmosaurus ( censored)
    Giant salamander ( censored maby)
    Giant eel ( published)

    ReplyDelete
  7. An eel doesn't explain the humps, long neck out of water,head moving side to side, flippers,upturned boat,large land sightings etc.

    I'm really interested to find out what they propose though`1

    ReplyDelete
  8. Talking of catfish,it will be interesting to see how many samples were taken in the bottom area of the loch as they are bottom dwellers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think an eel can arch its back to look like a hump plus a giant one with big fins could be mistaken for flippers from a distance.Can i just ask you Roland, does an eel come under your amphibious fish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not quite, I was thinking the "neck" for such a theory was a non-skeletal appendage. The flexiture reported by some looks too extreme.

      Delete
  10. Yeah all a bit over my head this dna test lol..250 samples in 3 different depths??? Does that mean about 80 across the Loch from one end to the other? We need to question how far this dna can be picked up at because if a large creature was one one side of the Loch and the samples wer taken on the other side there is a huge distance between them...fish are in their thousands all over the Loch so bound to pick their dna up.. Not so sure bout a small group of creatures.. I look forward to Mr gemmills answers!...cheers

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have this feeling they are going to say a sturgeon, or a Wels catfish or some other sort of fish (I hope not)...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder if Adrian Shine knows the results or if he's in the dark like the rest of us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's been dumping catfish dna in the loch

      Delete
    2. Haha John. Adrian is obsessed with sturgeon so he might of dumped some sturgeon edna in the loch when no one was looking .

      Delete
  13. Maybe the DNA will indicate an underwater creature related to chickens!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aha, ha! ha! ehem,,, sorry can't let this go.

      Delete
    2. By that, I mean domesticated fowl are all considered to be dinosaurs. So it might be found that something related. Or not.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, OK, dinosaurs became birds. I don't think there's a Big Chicken theory. Hey! does anybody know? LOL

      Delete
  14. I wonder what Professor Gemmell would say about some salamanders edna not lasting very long in the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would salamader DNA last less than the DNA of other animals?

      Delete
    2. I dont know Roland, but if you read up on it it is right.In one experiment for edna they removed the salamanders from a tank and within hours edna could not be detected in the water.The same experiment was taken in a stream after salamanders got put in, first tests detected them but hours after they were removed from the stream no edna got detected. Your good friend Steve Plambeck can enlighten you more on this.I wonder what other animals could lose their edna so quickly.

      Delete
  15. Obvs they not found anything unusual..if they say only one plausible theory it must be a giant eel cus we can't rule out eels can grow big in Loch Ness..its possible a eunech eel stays in Loch and grows big! Lots of the sighting describe an eel like object and Mr Gordon Holmes now feels his video is a big eel in 2007! If a huge eel from a distance arched it's back then the front bit could be mistaken for a head and neck and I'm sure a huge eel cud pass for a monster in some eyes.. After all who has seen a giant eel before.??? There is a short video on youtube under'big eel in new zealand' by Tony donna.. Shows a large eel moving over a shallow river then back into the water.. If this eel was twice or three times the size it wud defo pass for a Loch Ness monster from a distance.. Take a look and see what u think... Was hoping for unknown or unusual dna to be found but not looking likely.. Though it doesn't rule out summit still bin there cus of the massive volume of water and them samples wudnt pick everything out.. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Clearly nothing to indicate an unknown species of 'monster' has been found. If I was to take a punt I'd guess they may have found some seal dna. Some of the land sightings sound potentially like seals. In response to some of the comments above,having visited the Loch for the first time recently I was struck by the patterns as waves, there were Loch Ness Monsters everywhere as rolling wave formations gave the impressions of lines of black humps racing across the surface. The guide on one of the tourist boats stated that it is not unknown for deer to swim in the Loch. It is not difficult to see where the classic upraised head and humps depiction of the monster may have come from. I've no doubt that very large eels may account for some sightings and, with some exaggeration, large pike lying on the surface may account for some of the 'upturned boat' sightings. I doubt if there will be any trace of sturgeon, Greenland sharks or catfish (point of note - they would live at the bottom of the shallows, I doubt if anything much could live at the bottom of the Loch itself). That said, I still believe the MacNab and Gray photo's show living creatures and the occasional large midwater objects picked up on sonar are intriguing just don't hold your breath for 5th September believers.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't think there will be any merit to this, and Professor Gemmell seems to be playing the role of part showman, part scientist, in the old familiar way. I have a science degree, work in a science based job, but fail to see how his data can exclude certain theories. If he didn't find certain types of DNA that he appears to have been looking for, it's not a certainty that they don't exist. This is an enormous loch, do we even know how sensitive this test is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree Martin! He loving the attention... Its OK finding fish dna when there is thousands of fish in there but wud it be so easy to pick out a species with only a small number of them . I doubt it.. When u think there is more water in Loch Ness than all the lakes in England and Wales u realise the size of the task!! 250 water samples for this volume??? Hmmm... Cheeers

      Delete
  18. It's intrestin that Gary Campbell now says he thinks nessie cud be a giant eel....i spoke to Gary years ago,(when enquiring bout his Loch Ness fan club) and he a nice bloke who I'm convinced had a genuine sighting.. He told me it was a hump.. not massive but biggish.. bout 10 or 12 ft long! I'm wondering now if he thinks that the hump he saw could ov bin the back of a huge eel!... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  19. Roy i have just watched the youtube clip you mentioned of the Eel in New Zealand and i agree if it was any bigger and seen from a distance or in bad light it would indeed look monsterous.Great video.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another gud one on YouTube is 'eels-national aquarium of new zealand' ...shows they can actually give off a hump plus dip there heads giving off a slight curved look.. In my humble they tick off most boxes for the monster sightings.. They look different in the water than they do on land plus they have an ancient look about them..they also have different colours and some are darker than others plus we know they can travel on land which cud explain sum land sightings. I'm sure sum big eels are responsible for sum monster sightings.. question is can they grow that big in Loch Ness... Maybe sum of the Loch Ness experts can help us put on this one ????..... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is not much chance there Roy, if the experts are Raynor and Harmsworth then we dont hold much hope do we?

      Delete
  21. My concern overall is that there will be this press conference, nothing definitive will come out of it, and things will continue to be muddled. There might be some allusion to an animal of unknown provenance, but the likelihood remains low for that. Even if some brand of eel gets emphasized, this doesn't explain a helluva lot of the sightings with long, telephone-pole like necks, protuberances on the head, eyewitness sightings of flippers, and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If I may, I will expand on my previous comments. Recently, I have been reading (1988 edition) of "Lake Monster Traditions" by Michel Meurger. Very interesting book. Irrespective of how the topic is connected to folk beliefs and cultural explanations of nature and the unknown, I think that there is a helluva lot of lakes that have creatures unknown to science in them. (As well as tributaries, etc.)

    My opinion is that there are four excellent regional candidates (not quite captive in audience, but the majority of germane sightings are localized enough that if the correct scientific and technical/technological sensing approaches are correctly brought to bear that these would bear fruit): Lake Iliana (Alaska); Loch Ness; San Francisco Bay (as seen by the Clark Brothers over a good number of years, as well as many other witnesses, including SF bridge transportation authorities); and Lake Champlain (Canada). These would have to be long-term (minimum of one year) endeavors, and involve probably at least budgets in the low millions USD.

    I think that Roland has his part right: Airborne drones need to be in the mix; but I would add that underwater drones with a variety of sensors probably need to be added to the mix as well. Right now, the development of such drones is in the ascendancy in the USA, spurred on by both NOAA, Oceanographic Institutes, and the US Navy. Think the 1960s in the US, but with a more expansive list of participants and budgets currently.

    But I think that these four will bring the best chance of recording animals unknown to science to a greater general audience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add to your list Okanagan Lake in BC where numerous recent and well documented sightings could very well be of large eel-like creatures...

      Delete
  23. I wonder what Steve Feltham's views are on giant eels? I do agree they fit the nessie description bettter than catfish and if no catfish edna is found in the loch where does that leave us on that chapter?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I was watching that eel video and when they have their mouths open they kind of resemble the head in the Gray photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, if you can get your mind to see a head in all that blur. I think it does show some type of creature though.

      Delete
    2. Well, there is a more "focused" close-up of what is taken to be it's head that I've seen. There is a difference between their mouths though. The eel in the video looks like it has a longer and possibly narrower mouth.

      Delete
  25. Yes they do indeed David. So what is everyone'opinion on this eunuch eel? Is there such a thing?and could they grow to 20 feet in length?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe but the behaviors and physical appearances of eels never seem to fully match what is known about Nessie. If Nessie is some kind of incredible lifeform then I'm almost inclined to believe there are different species of her.

      Delete
  26. Article updated to include start time of 10am for press conference. I suspect all the journalists will be down at Westminster covering Brexit!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would like to add this thought. In the oceans, the creatures there live a long time, much longer than humans. Whales and sharks have been recorded to live at least 200 or more years. It may be any creatures in Loch Ness may also be equivalently aged.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete