Saturday, 16 November 2019

Rain, Mud and Adrian Shine

By way of a belated trip report, I was at the loch the week before the eDNA results were announced. That was just the way things had fallen, though given the wet weather, perhaps it was better to have gone the following week. The River Foyers beside my campsite was in full spate as the waters flowed down from the hills to rise almost up to the bridge that connects that part of Foyers with the main road higher up.


The rain prevailed for most of that weekend and that rather curtailed activities. To add to that low mood, somebody had nicked the one trap camera I had left at the loch over the summer! Clearly, the thief had found no Nessie pictures to profit from as nothing has appeared in the media. Fortunately, trap cameras are not that expensive, so it will be replaced in due course for the next surveillance.

Nevertheless, things did get done. I had brought a pair of waders with me and used them to wade over to Dinsdale Island with resides at the bifurcation of the River Foyers as it enters the loch. This islet is not labelled as the second island of Loch Ness as it forms part of the river complex and not the loch. In his "Project Water Horse" book, Tim Dinsdale said he conducted watches from the island over the months straddling 1966 and 1967. Below is a photo from that book with Tim on the left.




Now from memory, I had the impression that before Tim left the island for good, he buried a pair of old brogues on the island, awaiting someone to find them years or decades later. Could I find these iconic items? When I re-read the account from "Project Water Horse", Dinsdale states he left the boots on the island in late 1966 and returned in 1967 to find them gone. So he didn't actually say he buried them and he assumed the winter storms had buried them.

I thought it more likely the storms had swept the boots out into the loch and so I had little confidence of finding these fifty three year old items. But I did look around and found some old fragments of various items. Whether these belonged to the great monster hunter himself, I may never know, but it was an interesting exercise in Nessie archaeology. Looking around the shores near Foyers, I also found this interesting alignment of stones. What photo does that remind you of? 




I also participated in the making of a trailer for a potential Nessie documentary. The film maker and I met up and ran through some shots and interviews at Borlum Bay. This involved some demo shots involving the setup of a trap camera. His focus will be on the personalities behind the story and hunt for the monster rather than whatever one may think the creature to be. He was next off to see Adrian Shine and let's hope he gets somewhere with his promo trailer as such as documentary has yet to be made.

Speaking of Adrian, I met up with the Edinburgh Fortean Society who were up there for the weekend and I went along to have dinner with them at the Clansman Hotel. As it turned out, Adrian had been invited along with Charles Paxton to the meal and therein lay a conversation. As we got into chatting about this whole Loch Ness thing, Adrian suggested my blog was a philosophical exercise more than anything else. I don't think he was being complimentary when he said that, but neither was he being derogatory, more an observation on his part.

What did he mean by that? I should have asked but I would say he implied my articles which addressed the question of whether a large, unknown creature exists or existed in Loch Ness skirt round the issue by reframing or questioning questions. To wit, as Adrian said, "Science has found no big animals". Whatever you may say about the various organised endeavours, no definitive proof has been found. Ultimately, a living or dead specimen, part or whole, is normally required by zoologists.


But beyond that, other "proof" is often in the eye of the beholder. When I asked Adrian about the anomalous sonar hits from Operation Deepscan in 1987, he suggested they were side echoes. if one wants to be philosophical about the vagaries of empirical knowledge, he seems to have gravitated between, echoes, seals and unknown. Here is the philosophical point, Adrian and others can go around and say what they want about various proofs, but they can't call their opinions ... facts. Perhaps that is more epistemological than philosophical.





Wishing to solidify this line of argumentation, all the photographs and films have been dismissed in like manner, which leaves us with the large number of eyewitness testimonies. At this point I introduced the matter of the John McLean sighting of 1938 (above). I raised that because I regard it as a top class sighting. The witness claimed he saw the creature from sixty feet and was a local angler, suggesting he was used to what Loch Ness can throw at observers.

He also says he observed it for a full six minutes. What's not to like? Surely, the only way out of this is to call John Mclean a liar (as others have been forced to suggest)? But, no, Adrian confidently asserted that Mclean had seen nothing more than an otter feeding on fish! This is despite McLean relating to Ted Holiday in the 1960s the following words:

I.: Did you feel afraid of it?

J. M.: Well, to tell you the plain truth, I didn't know what I was. I thought it's neither a seal nor an otter. It never dawned on me at first about it being a monster or I'd have run up to the Half-way House and got a camera and took a snap.

Yes, John McLean categorically stated it was no otter, but Adrian, eighty years on says he is wrong. When I pointed out that McLean had estimated the size of the creature to be 18 to 20 feet long, this seemed to matter not to Adrian. His reply was that size and distance estimates go out of the window when the eyewitness' view is level with the loch. Even if you give minimal credence to this theory, can an experienced loch observer get it wrong by a factor of 6 to 7? Methinks the burden of proof lies with the otter theorist, not me or John Mclean.

At this point, I told him I had been to the spot and looked around and there were enough frames of reference to judge size and distance. Since John Mclean was at the mouth of a river, the opposite bank provided distance cues. I show the photo I took myself as evidence of this point. All it required was for the creature to turn up in that general zone. Adrian did not reply to that point.




Furthermore, when I asked about the strangely inflating hump drawn above, just before the creature dived, Adrian told me this was nothing more than the otter's back arching into the water. You may forgive me for thinking this bears little resemblance to the drawings of John Mclean. Well, no matter, just say John McLean didn't draw it properly and all is good again.

Is it again philosophical to suggest sceptics are playing fast and loose with eyewitness testimony by always insisting the perception was bad enough to mis-see monsters but good enough for sceptics to deduce the "real" object? I didn't say it at the time (I wish I had), but I remembered another Loch Ness expert, Tony Harmsworth, had solemnly declared that McLean had seen nothing more than some cormorants. This is in conflict with Adrian's otter. I looked at Tony's reply (below) in a previous article:

The long neck fits in with cormorants. It is well known that people overestimate sizes over water. The body drawings are typical of boat wakes or groups of birds apart from the last drawing which is a bit of a mystery.

So, we have two leading sceptics both confidently asserting their positions. Of course, the fact that they contradict each other implies one or both cannot be so confident. Is it being too philosophical to suggest this is all just a shell game? Perhaps one will eventually get in line with the other to present a united face (as Tony was once obliged to do regarding his at variance account of how the Lachlan Stuart photo was allegedly taken).

The other issue that Adrian thought important was the tail that was visible to John McLean (see sketches above). He suggested this was out of kilter with Loch Ness Monster accounts and was too unusual to be considered. Quite why Adrian was concerned about the integrity of the eyewitness database was a bit ironic as he has no regard for it at all as evidence. Of course, he was directing that question to me as one who does regard it.

But there is no problem and I counted about 5% of all eyewitness accounts including descriptions of a tail. There may be more which are just perceived as a shallow outlying hump. Tim Dinsdale's examination of the best accounts puts it slightly higher at 7% (I think, no book to double check here). So what exactly is the problem here? Yes, they only come in at one in twenty accounts, but they happen!

There was one thing I agreed on with Adrian and that was Ronald Binns' recent claim that he effectively mentored Adrian and others into a final sceptical position. It was no surprise to me that Adrian flatly denied this. I would generally take what Adrian says over Ronald any day. So let us end on that point of harmony, but remind readers once again not to accept everything they hear from the sceptical class.



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com






66 comments:

  1. Mister Shines silent response to one point suggests a die hard sceptic who ,rather than advance the issue of unknown creatures,has damaged proper research and frightened off potential witnesses and researchers. By maintaining a "know it all" air of gravitas he commands a certain amount of respect - where none is warranted.
    Personally I'll ignore arch sceptics. They don't put me off.
    Annoying yes,admittedly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The sketches of Second View, Third View, and Final View, are fairly otter looking; small head, short neck, long body and tail. First View is a pose an otter could not assume. Therein lies the problem - the neck in First View does not match the other Views...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McLean said it wasn't an otter. He was there, Adrian, you and I weren't there. Some sceptics act as if they were standing beside the witness! In fact, Tony Harmsworth did take that pompous attitude to McLean.

      Delete
    2. 20 foot otter??
      Dober-chu?

      Delete
    3. Dobhar-chu a giant otter like animal.( Irish lakes)

      Delete
  3. I just got back from Loch Ness and walked across the bridge mentioned...via Google Earth Street View that is. If I use my imagination, I was there! Next I'll try an out of body journey. LOL I didn't know there was an island named after Dinsdale! Speaking of OBE, on a related theme, I wonder if any Remote Viewers have ever tried discerning what a Nessie is? I don't put to much stock on that psychic ability, else they would be getting rich mind imaging the winning lottery numbers, rather than hawking their dubious ability, and selling guest appearances, training seminars, books and DVDs, in my opinion. Cynical me. Well, there have been some fails by some “viewers”!

    GB, maybe you should try climbing a tall tree and placing a camera canted down to the area of interest out of sight of these dastardly thiefs. If I recall correctly, you also had one ripped off at Loch Morar a few years back. I don't know much about trap cameras, but technology being what it is, maybe there are models that can use telemetry (Wi-Fi or Bluetooth?) to send images to a well hidden close by receiver every time each shot is taken as backup? I know, I know, more expensive. Just a thought.

    Adrian would never out of spite and meanness be derogatory, I would think. Too much of a gentleman. Yes, odd choice of opinion. Just what did he mean by philosophical? Philosophy being a belief system, then I guess believers are philosophical about their belief in the LNM and by way of somethings being equal, so are skeptics in their denial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What could a psychic do? Unless they predicted when and where a monster was to pop up ... not a lot.

      Higher trap cameras are a good idea, but tall trees sway more as you go up.

      Delete
    2. Well, some pychics are charatans. I remember the case of some miners who were traped underground a few years back. This well known pychic "pedicted" that they were dead and would be found as such. Turns out they were rescued and found very much alive. Needless to say that her career and credibility went downhill after that big miss.

      Delete
  4. Shine always at least seems pretty thoughtful. Can't really argue with his credentials - he's put his time in on the loch. I guess the issue is that purely using the scientific method the creature doesn't exist so someone like Adrian cannot allow for any other possibility. And to be fair that stance comes after many years of being a believer.

    Not been to the loch for a couple years. Need to go soon I miss it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kyle, I think it would be more accurate to say that using the scientific method has produced no hard evidence (bones; a carcass; dna) that the LNM exists. There is soft instrumental evidence, or put more accurately data (photos; film/video; sonar) , but much of it is ambiguous, which renders it open to interpretation, which in turn is subjective and contentious. And eyewitness testimony is by its very nature subjective. But it's interesting how Shine has gone from big fish (namely sturgeon) to seal to side echoes for the Deepscan contacts.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I know man. Some of the soft evidence is pretty damn intriguing and defo a few of the eye witness accounts are frankly astonishing. I just know they need a carcass or a live specimen to seal the deal officially. Everything else is subjective nomatter how compelling.

      Delete
  5. Does Shine rate any LMN eyewitness evidence one wonders ?

    He's as slippery as a very slippery thing, neither being a wide-eyed believer or a weary, jaded sceptic , which is why he has kept his job for so many years I suppose, saying a lot but not saying very much.

    A loss to he world of politics methinks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're about as cynical as I am, Mr. Rutherford. Nice to have some company. LOL

      Delete
    2. Props for the phrase "slippery as a slippery thing". Very Blackadder.

      Delete
  6. Shine might talk the clever man but he has not got much common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Whilst sat in the upstairs restaurant of the clansman Roland did you have an opportunity to gaze out of the window and maybe come up with any theory as to the anonymous American photograph that you were so excited about a few years ago? I know you have said you don't like my explanation and so therefore the case is closed but after your recent visit do you have an explanation to offer?
    After all this photo remains 'unexplained' here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must admit it did not even cross my mind. As per my analysis of your own investigation (https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-photographic-problem.html)

      I took some comparison shots with my samsung mobile phone camera and my SLR at another spot. When I compared them, though they showed the same scene, they could not be perfectly overlaid - despite being the exact same spot and seconds apart. That told me that without the original camera, doing accurate overlays to determine such precise locations was a dead end.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Roland, I thought you understood the requirements of how to line up where a photograph was taken from.
      it doesnt have to be replicateable by your mobile phone or your SLR. it is an optical fact between you and the original image, It can only of been taken from one location, and that location from the original image alone is identifiable... Easily.
      if you have only the original image you can narrow the possible location from which that picture was taken to within a few feet,
      I presume you did maybe try to line things up, did you find the location where like a majic eye picture it all clicks into place? If you didn't then your simply not doing it right.
      Having done the required lining up I can tell you that the report as you posted it is false, the guy was nowhere near the A82, he was up the hillside at the holiday cottage, with a blob of mud on the window.
      All this stuff about the lens on your phone being different is irrelevant.
      I'm mystified as to why you are refusing to investigate this particular photograph any more?
      What do you think the picture shows?
      When you tried to line the original up, where Roland did you find yourself standing?

      Delete
    3. This is information that I know you know, but just to be really clear,
      If you have 3 trees at random locations in a big field, and you take a landscape photograph of that field, then anyone in the future, armed only with your photograph, presuming the trees haven't been cut down, can line up all the trees and work out exactly where you were standing when you took your picture.
      That is a universal fact with any landscape photograph.
      All your talk of overlaying images and it needing to be the same camera is irrelevant.
      Anyone is able to do this with only the anonymous Americans photo and the willingness to walk up a hill, I wish someone would,otherwise its going to remain me trying to expose a hoax and thus remove it from the cannon of evidence and you standing with your back turned and your fingers in your ears.
      I wish that a third party would just confirm the location for you so that we can all move on.
      ... Or propose another explanation if mine doesn't suit you.

      Delete
    4. Steve, to claim you can pinpoint the room and house from which a photo was taken based on alignment of landmarks over a mile away is a flawed process. At best you can confirm it was taken in the general vicinity. If you wish to persist with insisting on the accuracy of this process, that's your call, not mine.

      Delete
    5. Not just the landmarks on the far shore Roland, the relative position of the two trees in the for ground help greatly to identify the location to within a few feet, anyone can, and hopefully will do the experiment.
      If I am wrong, then what is your current explanation regarding this anonymous American photographer, that you brought to our attention? Where do you stand on it?

      Delete
  8. ... Also for statistical analysis as to the occurrence of tail discriptions in sighting reports there is no better expert that I know of than Charles Paxton, did he offer any figures?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sorry, I have to comment.

    Shine's opinion about the McLean event that it is an otter is completely invalid. Period. As equally as invalid as his view that LNM was a sturgeon fish.

    Otters never stick their tails out of the water like that, not ever. Not part of their swimming behavior. Just go on Youtube and watch the videos (there are multiple videos, by the way). Two, the number of humps in the McLean sighting you never get with any kind of otter. Period. Just doesn't happen.

    Thirdly, when otters prepare to dive, as like seals, they basically sink, with some small part of their backs getting exposed as they go down. Nothing like was seen in the McLean sighting.

    Shine has to stop throwing mud at the wall, and holding out hope that something sticks. Nothing is going to stick with his otter hypothesis for the McLean sighting.

    LNM exists. What it is, I don't know. But I do know that it ain't a freakin' otter. Or a sturgeon. Or a giant eel. Or an oarfish.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry to be off topic but a pal in London asked me tonight over a bevy how I felt about the LNM. I replied: "It's almost scientifically impossible that it is, or ever was, a plesiosaur... But that's still what I want it to be." He laughed quite a bit at me then got more drinks in. Something blue - dunno what it was - but it tasted pretty gross. Does this count as a philosophical exercise?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice one!...the comment, not the drink...obviously.

      Delete
    2. Very similar to a bloke I was having a jar with,"when I asked him what the lochness monster was,he said" well it's either a pleasiosaur and /or an elasmosaurus ,mind you!" And with that he downed the jar and no more was said on the subject.
      Goes to show that opinions vary on Nessie.

      Delete
    3. Wow! Brilliant minds think alike! So, how many jars did your friend have before he made that statement? Just kidding john, don't flame me! I'm not baiting you. Okay,okay, the LNM could be anything at this point. I'm frustrated at no "hard" proof!

      Delete
    4. Yes,it is frustrating,yet we still have opinions from credible witnesses such as PhD biologist professor tucker- who stated he thought Nessie was an Elasmosaurus.( No jars when he saw the animal,lol)..
      Curiously enough,the plesiasaur shape is being seen in other places,off of Florida,some American lakrs,and Hawksbury river Australia..which is seen so often,the Aboriginals have carved pleasiosaur shapes in rocks and call it the mooliwong ( or something),they also use the English name " long necks) and say they get up to 80 feet in length,and snstch people off of boats..,( one was a policeman grabbed from the rest of a boat during s party)..it's detailed in
      www.mysteriousaustralia.com rex gilroys site..
      So have a jar and see what you think if the plesiasaur/ elasmosaurus theory has any validity.

      Delete
    5. And,I theorize that the lock Ness elasmosaurus is a skin breather and lung breather,amphibious

      Delete
  11. Steve,

    Tell us what you think LNM is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous, tell me whom I'm talking to first.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Adrian Shine deserves more respect than he gets on this blog. I don’t see GB going down in a submersible and spending endless hours on the Loch performing experiments that help us understand the Loch and the possible reasons for the sightings that used to get reported before everyone had cameras on them all the time. It seems that relentlessly droning on about sceptics instead of getting out there to prove your beliefs is the order of the day here these days. As for John Maclean I believe that he had a second sighting through binoculars again from the Halfway House? Straight off that sets alarm bells off in my head! How fortunate 1 man has 2 sightings from the same spot surely that would make the Halfway House area one of the best for Nessie spotters? What did John have to do with the Halfway house ? Was it his favourite spot for a cup of tea or did he have some interest in the business? Maybe he owned it ? His pics are very otter like maybe he had never seen an otter before the one he saw that day ? Or maybe he didn’t see anything and just wanted to drum up some punters for the Tea room?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He still lacks common sense though.

      Delete
    2. With all due respect Mr. Carper, GB has done his able best with his regular stakeouts, and trap cameras at the loch . And, more importantly, this blog, in disseminating information to get to the bottom of this mystery. If you are a regular follower of this blog, you would know that. So perhaps he doesn't deserve short shrift either. You speak on behalf of Mr. Shine, I do the same for Mr. Watson. As for Mr Shine, he has my unabated respect.

      Delete
    3. I think I have acknowledged Adrian's work on the ecology and biology of the loch elsewhere. But that doesn't mean I have to accept his theories on what people are claiming to see. His submersible work was at Loch Morar when he was a believer not a sceptic.

      Your theory that people are not allowed to see the monster more than once and people with commercial links to the loch are liars are at one and the same time both naive and insulting.

      Delete
    4. Hello John yes I am a regular I’ve read every single blog post and comment since 2010 enough to know you as the self appointed blog policeman. I’m don’t speak on behalf of Adrian Shine just pointing out the fact that he has done a lot of graft at Loch Ness and didn’t come to the conclusion that he has lightly and without much consideration from what I’ve read.

      Delete
    5. Na├»ve GB? You mean like arguing for the legitimacy of Ricky Philips stick photo as a genuine image of the Loch Ness monster ? If I remember rightly you were offended then by the suggestion that the “Famous Historian ‘ could have been lying and look how that turned out ! Of course we can never know about John Maclean if he had ulterior motives but I bet with your amazing detective skills you cold find out if John had a financial interest in the old Halfway House ! Also don’t get me wrong it’s the best sighting that I’ve ever read about and if it’s legit them amazing I would love to have been there but so many years on and with scant new sightings or images I’m afraid my faith is very weak.

      Delete
    6. Hello Daniel. Well, I don't think I deserve that lofty mantle, but yes, I am very opinionated when it comes to hostile and accusatory comments from skeptics like you on this Nessie friendly blog. And at this point I am assuming you are a skeptic. I'm sure other readers feel the same way about this blog. If you perceive me as being Roland's Pit Bull, or this blogs enforcer, or whatever, that is fine, I don't give a rat's ass about what other people think about me. And with that, I'll say adieu and we'll leave it at that.

      Delete
    7. Well, here's my two cents Daniel, like it, or not and I speak for myself. I have to admit that I was taken in by that no good scoundrel and deceiver Tricky Ricky. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and it blew up in my face. Other readers were not as accommodating and they were believers!. They were far more discerning than I was and saw right though him. Kudos to them for that! Nothing new, comes with the territory of being open minded and trusting of sly, sleazy individuals such as our “friend” Ricky until they are exposed for what they are. He sure talked a good game tough. He now holds a special place in the Hall of Shame of Hoaxers here. Call me naive if you want.

      Delete
    8. Mr. Carper. Yes, I was mistaken about the Phillips photo, though I did not claim it was a photo of Nessie, rather something Mr. Phillips could not explain. That was the wrong part. Now tell me about the mistakes you have made in your sceptical analysis of past Nessie cases ... or are you perfect?

      Delete
  14. I'll tell you what the LNM is, Nessie is the ghost of a plesiosaur. She does not appear on film or photograph but many people have seen her. Her ghost can create waves and huge ripples like a poltergeist moving matter but she is rarely visible. This is rare to the extreme but perhaps the only prehistoric ghost ever.
    She might as well be a phantom dinosaur for all we really know of her. She's been watched and seen by people but does not appear clearly on ANY film or photograph - look at the Hugh Gray photo, more ghostly than physical. Visible to the naked eye if you are in the right place at the right moment but she will not be captured clear on film.

    For all the searching this could be a possibility. Someone prove me wrong one day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve, it's not material in actuality as to whom exactly is asking the question....what is germane is that the question that I have asked of you to answer is on the table. You're posting on Roland's blog fairly often, which is about the LNM. Let everyone who is reading this thread get an inkling of what you think LNM is. I think most of the readership, including Roland, would really like to know what your viewpoint, your hypothesis is of what the LNM may be.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'anonymous" you have given yourself a golden opportunity to read back through some of the posts on this site, because not so long ago if I remember rightly, a real person asked me the same question, which I answered back then.
    Unfortunately, when someone called 'anonymous' no matter how familiar their style of writing appears to me, says "jump", I tend not to bother.
    But for the record I will say that I don't believe that we are currently looking for ghost dinosaurs... Currently.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Okay gentlemen the plesiosaur ghost theory may be a stretch so I will tell you what the LNM truly is. Nessie is an occasional visitor from the sea, though the river Ness is shallow it floods enough to allow a visitor from the ocean into the Loch which remains for periods of months to years.
    This is a species not yet documented, the reason Nessie descriptions have varied over the decades is due to stages of this animals growth. Capable of dwelling on land for brief periods but definitely aquatic.
    The eyewitness accounts from the likes of Rines, Cameron, Boyd, and Brusey ( just a fraction ) are something I can't dismiss. People capable of differentiating logs, waves, and otters from something extraordinary.
    There are puzzle pieces missing to this animal. Something has been there and still may remain. The conviction of the eyewitnesses is real, not all of them are fooled by birds, deer, waves, or logs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you put the case quite well, though I have flirted with the ghost idea in the past!

      Delete
    2. About 1970 I was staying on a campsite beside the river Ness and the water looked to be about 2-3 foot deep and very clear. This has always given me doubts about the itinerant Nessie theory. Does the water become deep enough to hide a large creature or would they have to be juveniles?

      Delete
    3. No monster sized animal would go unnoticed swimming in the Ness river during its regular flow, 2-3 feet deep is no cover indeed. The Ness river is prone to flooding though, I don't have official records as per which years but in recent times the river has swollen significantly. It would be possible for larger animals to pass through at night undetected, of course that is only a hypothesis. YouTube videos show what looks like a mean current flowing out to the sea from the Loch.

      Juvenile species would have a much better chance not being spotted, maybe they enter and remain in Loch Ness a short time before flooding recedes. Once in the Loch they may be trapped and make the Loch their dwelling. I have no idea if the river Ness was flooded shortly before 1933. The connection to the sea is a definite point of interest.

      Delete
  18. All of those who spend years of their lives and major time investigating Loch Ness through interviewing witnesses, photograph evidence, physical presence on the Loch, blog sites, gathering reports and analyzing details, writing books and articles, etc., deserve our utmost respect and admiration for their devotion. Without all of you, we the public would not have all of your information to review. Thank You to All!

    ReplyDelete
  19. GB, you really need to come down hard on any mention of ghost nessies, it's beyond the pale, pandering to simpletons and the deluded.
    Dinsdale and Whyte will be birling in their resting places.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dinsdale and Whyte would detect the slight sarcasm in my ghost dinosaur " theory " I have contributed to this blog valid possibilities and suggestions going back at least five years now. Nobody knows what really dwells in Loch Ness but these animals are as elusive as ghosts. They also photograph similar, grainy and blurry.

      Delete
    2. How dare you! Ted Holiday is rolling over in his grave! LOL

      Delete
  20. John Rutherford who are you to tell GB what he should be doing? It's a big stretch but for the visual proof Nessie may as well be a ghost. My second explanation ( temporary visitor from the sea )is far more plausible as I mentioned. Contribute something to the conversation more than your two cents on other readers input. How about your own LNM theory then?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Very interesting theory, and it would answer a lot of questions! I have also wondered the same thing myself - and there definitely must be something in those waters, too many sightings and photographs over a span of too many years to simply dismiss! (Off topic - but 22 years ago I saw a flying vehicle hovering above myself and 3 other people, which was not of this world - and because of course there is no physical evidence of the vehicle, it is simply ignored or a subject of scorn.) So I personally do know that many mysteries exist on this planet!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not being a believer of ghosts, spirits, wraiths and phantoms and there being no empirical evidence of such entities I must distance myself from such madness.

    Guys, take your sides and choose your weapons, we have a schism on [in?] the blogosphere. { and it's all Ted Holiday's fault ].

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John is there any chance you will share your thoughts on what Nessie could be ? Your personal opinion may elevate conversation here and your vast vocabulary is dazzling.

      I have offered two suggestions, one admittedly weak and another that is easily questionable. Please enlighten me with your keen intellect, anything you say would be better than my ghost Nessie!

      Are you more comfortable as a critic or do you have a personal opinion on the mystery?

      Delete
  23. Steve's catfish theory makes sense, if they wer introduced years ago and now dwindling down due to old age.. But my problem is catfish don't fit the eye witness accounts... Never a mention of a dorsal fin or a huge mouth that catfish come up with first! Is it possible summit else got into Loch Ness in the same theory... Maybe couple hundred years ago..maybe couple thousand years ago and bred!! And as for Ted holiday he was great.. OK I don't agree with nessie ghosts or paranormal but Ted was closer to the truth first time round with his unknown creature based on his tullimunstrem. . Cheers.. Roy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As it goes Roy the wels catfish doesn't really show much of a dorsel fin at all, more of an upturned boat type back if and when it breaks the surface.
      On a completely different subject, weren't monks, particularly benedictine ones especially fond of breeding carp/catfish in ponds so that they had a ready supply of fish for the Friday?
      ... And didn't there used to be some monks on the loch side?
      I'll just leave that thought here for now.
      Meanwhile, whats your latest thoughts Roland about that anonymous American roadside photograph? Any explanation yet?

      Delete
    2. So if the monks wanted a regular supply of catfish then why would they release them into the loch?

      Delete
    3. The monks were hoping to stock lochness with catfish to harvest,but the pleasiosaurs kept eating them.

      Delete
  24. Jordan, [ lovely, flowery name by the way, how did you come by it, Exchange and Mart ?]

    I set my stall alongside the eminent Prof. Ann Elk. Her LMN theory is that the creature is thin at one end, much much thicker in the middle, then thin again at the other end. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. That's Prof Anne Elk and I'm not from the U.K. so Exchange and Mart I'm not familiar with but thank you for the kind words :)

    John you have no input here? Nothing to share on the subject? No observations regarding the mystery of Loch Ness or educated guesses?

    What do you think of Nessie being an occasional visitor from the sea ?

    Other readers also would appreciate your thoughts here so take a leap and share some knowledge John.

    ReplyDelete
  26. When it comes to Adrian Shine and his skepticism I find it slightly damaging to the cause. The man is smart and has scoured the Loch over the years. He has studied all aspects of the Lochs biology, geology, history and so on.

    Yet he can not be that intelligent if all the eyewitness testimony is something he will dismiss. There is too much evidence through peoples observation. Many people are fooled by waves and logs yes but that still leaves a large amount of reliable people reporting something large and living in the Loch.

    For me Rines, Cameron, Boyd, and Brusey are some sightings that stand out. All reliable and intelligent people, Rines being incredibly successful and astute. They all have seen something very unusual and I believe them. The lack of other forms of evidence is unfortunate given the supposed size of the animal they have all seen.

    ReplyDelete