Monday, 24 February 2020

1990 Article by Jon Erik Beckjord




I was alerted to this article by Scott Mardis, who runs the Zombie Plesiosaur Society Facebook group. He had uploaded the Fate magazine for May 1990 which has an article by Jon Erik Beckjord, famous for his Bigfoot and Nessie research back in those days, but who died in 2008. I think I would be right in referring to Jon as a paracryptozoologist who did not hold to zoological cryptids, but another category called zooforms or entities which look like animals but are not flesh and blood. 

It is not a view I subscribe to, it may solve a lot of so called issues such as food stocks, lack of sonar and photographic hits, but for me it is a sledgehammer solution to a cryptid nut. Nevertheless, it was a view I held to in my youth and we do like to give a platform to other pro-cryptid views here. So, I scanned the text into this article from the pdf file to spare you the multitude of Fate adverts about fortune telling, magic crystals and how to be the next Merlin. That text follows below.



NESSIE,CHESSIE, TESSIE, MOKELE M'BEMBE, OGOPOGO, CHAMP: ARE THEY THE SAME?

By Jon Erik Beckjord

The names run off the tongue, with similarities between some of them. Could it be that the creatures also are similar? I would suggest that the answer is yes, and for many reasons. I am fortunate to have a huge number of photos, drawings and descriptions of these creatures. Since not everyone knows these names, let me explain that Nessie inhabits Loch Ness and is the best-known lake monster. Chessie hails from the Chesapeake Bay region of Maryland, and Tessie is found in Lake Tahoe, on the California/Nevada line. Mokele M'bembe guards small (three miles long) Lac Telle in the Republic of the Congo, (a place that will eat up an investigator's money), Ogopogo wiggles around Lake Okanagan in British Columbia, and Champ is the queen of Lake Champlain, which crosses NY, Vermont and Canada. All are alleged lake monsters, all have differences, and all have some similarity. For a detailed background of each, see the bibliography in the book by Henry Bauer, The Enigma of Loch Ness. 

DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

What then, are these differences and similarities? Nessie has been sighted and filmed in many shapes, but most often in two basic forms: a plesiosaur shape and a snake shape. Chessie seems to be mostly a serpentine shape, according to Mike Frizzell, of the Enigma Project in Reisterstown, MD. Tessie is rarely seen, and was filmed just once in a roll of film that the local chamber of commerce, who owns the film, will not allow to be viewed, lest it scare away tourists. In the film and descriptions by witnesses, it is also a long object that never shows a head, flipper or fin. Ogopogo has been described mostly as a serpentine shape, recently with a fluked tail by one witness; with no tail flukes by most others.

Occasionally a humped back is reported. Champ is mostly seen as a serpentine object, like a telephone pole that moves, except with undulations. Two visual aids, however, show something else. The Mansi photo shows a humped back with a long neck and a head, and the Hall video shows a hump with a neck as well. Yet, a number of photos taken by Ms. Kelly Williams shows another serpentine telephone pole. Mokele M'bembe is special and will be discussed below. Although some of the descriptions and photos of the same (or different) creatures are similar or identical, some are wildly different. A researcher must ask, "How can we reconcile all these differences?" 

A SOLUTION IN A NEW THEORY

If we stick to the old idea that these creatures are animals, we are caught in a dead end, for no animal, or animals, could account for all these variations that seem at times incompatible. It is simply too much to expect that a basilosaurus (an ancient whale), a plesiosaur, a giant snake and a monster worm could all exist side by side in these different lakes. Michael Meurger has written a book called Monsters of Canadian Lakes, and in it he points out that different lakes have different-looking lake monsters, and other lakes have several different kinds of lake monsters.

It is hard enough to accept one basic monster without having to accept the idea of several different kinds, all co-existing in different lakes. As a solution, I offer a new version of an older idea about Nessie and those of like ilk. Ted Holiday (see his book The Goblin Universe) and others in the past have suggested that Nessie may have come from, and gone back to, some other dimension, and may not be a normal animal at all. This concept is very difficult to prove and is beyond our current scientific ability to test. Most researchers feel that Holiday's ideas are too far out.

However, if we rephrase these ideas into a more testable hypothesis, the results may explain both the similarities of Nessie, Chessie, etc., as well as the differences. At the same time, it may bring about a re-focus on the lake phenomenon problem. The zoological path has proven to be a dead end. Let us look at Nessie, Chessie, etc., as an energy phenomena that can change to solid matter for short periods of time - perhaps even energy phenomena that has either guidance or intelligence, or an ability to react to the expectations and/or knowledge of their observers. An energy form might take the shape of a moving energized streak in the water. If it is able to feed off the expectations of its observers, it could take a more definite form as it moves along.

Perhaps in lakes where there are no viewers the phenomenon might not take any form at all. A good example is Lake Tahoe and Tessie. Few people expect a lake monster to appear in high and remote Lake Tahoe. Few lake monster experts visit there. Thus, the phenomenon asserts itself as a long, narrow body with no head and no tail. Perhaps if researchers were to live there, future sightings might feature a head, hump and tail. Miss Alexandria David-Ned, a French scholar and traveler, has written in her book, Magic and Mystery of Tibet, of the idea of forming "tulpoids" or creatures made from mental constructs, "mind creatures." If it is true that the mind can form physical or semi-physical beings, then maybe the lake monsters are given much of their form from the thoughts, conscious or otherwise, of the observers. 

A RECENT EXAMPLE

I was at Loch Ness in 1983, the 50th anniversary of Loch Ness research, trying to use robot video to catch the image of Nessie. Our results were marginal with this technique. One day while waiting for a TV program to air about our efforts, I observed a series of rings being formed in the water about mile away. Fish do this, but these rings caught my attention because they were being formed in a straight line, one ring after another, some ten feet apart. I watched with ten power binoculars, and saw, I thought, two small, straw-shaped objects, less than two inches long, surfacing to form each ring, then submerging. I waited, tried to film them with a telephoto lens, and watched some more. At one point I thought I saw a pink body, perhaps six feet long, almost surface, and then submerge. It had neither fins, head nor tail that I could see. The body slightly reminded me of a Florida manatee. The film did not turn out, and I resolved to watch for this again the next time the water was calm. Later, on one of the last days spent at the Loch, we had gotten up early from a caravan at Achnahannet, some miles away from the Clansman Hotel where the first ring-sightings had occurred.

At 8 A.M., I noticed the same sort of rings forming, this time going toward Fort Augustus to our right. I pulled out a movie camera and proceeded to shoot the rings as they formed, perhaps at three mph, going down the Loch in the calm water. As I filmed with three people watching, I wondered if it would surface. I had to stop twice to wind the film, and as the film ran out, the rings subsided and petered out. I thought nothing much would come of the film, and paid little attention to it until I returned to the U.S. However, after a number of viewings, it gradually became apparent that more than a series of rings had been filmed. What appeared at first to be a mere water disturbance became a progression of form on the water rather than in it.

The white rings expanded to form a long streak. The streak undulated, like a pair of linked inchworms, and these in turn became a comet-like form, taking on a shape similar to a Concorde jet, on the calm, blue water. To my surprise, enlargements showed a gray rounded face, sometimes with two horns mounted above, looking at the four of us around the camera. To do this, the thing had to crank its head over at a 90 degree angle, looking sideways and up, while still moving forward. Dr. Maccabee agrees that there is a triangular nose, and other views see a set of eyes, and a mouth with some heavy duty teeth - like a set of short walrus tusks - mounted aiming downward. The face image has little contrast, which is typical of energy phenomena of a less controversial type, such as moving mist, or windstorm. Overall, it seems a cross between a cat, an otter and a walrus.

It was found to measure ten feet, so otters are out, cats are out, and there are no ten-foot white walruses in Loch Ness. Los Angeles zoologists agree that it is nothing known to them. Each frame of the film shows a changed form and a changed face. Further in the film the object changes again to a linear water disturbance, a frothy line on the surface. After I had wound the camera, the object changed again and continued to change. The last head to appear is the most bizarre, and the hardest to accept. In six frames, up comes a white blob, unformed, and in under one second the head took on definite features. It looks like a man's head, bald, with two tufts of hair, somewhat rectangular, rounded in shape, with wide open eyes, a nose and mouth. In two more seconds, it has gone down under the water, and at that point the film stops, needing to be wound again. The last sequence shows just an occasional ring in the water, then nothing. The water is calm, as if nothing had happened.

Dr. Maccabee agrees that the object moves, and is probably animate, and that it looked at us. Zoologists at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History agree that the film shows no known animal or fish. Other zoologists discount even a school of small fish. Operation Deepscan, a sonar effort at Loch Ness in October 1987, discovered that schools of bait fish do exist, but at least 50 feet down and not on the surface. Thus, the object seems to be the Loch Ness phenomenon, or Nessie. My point in this analysis is to show that it may be possible that our own thoughts affected the image that the pheomenon radiated to our camera. As it progressed to our right, it may have grown in substance due to input from our collective thoughts about what Nessie should be like. As it got beyond range, it subsided to nothing. It starts as almost nothing, grows to a ten-foot object, becomes a series of appearing and disappearing heads, then subsides to nothing—something like a bell curve in intensity.

Of note might be that the John Cobb Memorial was one mile away, and Cobb, a racer, died in a jet boat in 1952 at that spot. Cobb was bald, and had thin hair on the sides of his face. Perhaps Nessie, Tessie, Chessie and the others have been affected by the preconceptions, or lack of same, of lakeside viewers. The very strongest images with the most detail - heads, humps, tails, tails with spikes and backs with triangular stegosaurus-type projections - are found in Loch Ness, which draws a very literate and educated group of visitors. Nobody expects a Tessie, nor a Chessie, so their images are less complex. Champ has almost as much press as Nessie, and thus its image is often complex. Ogopogo is felt by many people to be so far from Loch Ness that any similarity is remote, so its image, fed from the minds of visitors, is more Chessie-like, i.e., telephone-pole style. 

THE MYSTERY OF MOKELE M'BEMBE

Mokele M'bembe is the dollar drainer of the African continent. Herman Regusters, who saw the creature in 1981, has made a hump-and-neck type drawing that brings to mind Nessie. Zoo director Marcellin Agagna has done the same. Colonel E. Mossedzedi of the Congo army has drawn a very worm-like rendering of M.M., based on his own sighting of the creature. It looks more like a large worm or snake than like any brontosaurus, or even plesiosaur. In the '70s, explorer James Powell asked natives about the creature and showed them photos of animals like hippos and elephants, with other photos of re-creations of prehistoric animals mixed in. Invariably, the natives picked either the brontosaurus or the plesiosaur. These images may have reinforced a tulpoid Mokele M'bembe's shape. Where the earliest pygmies and other local natives got their mental images from, we do not know.

In any case, there are more reports of MM being of the plesiosaur form than the snake form, and thus it tends to be different from the northern hemisphere lake monsters. The mechanics of its mental-energy feeding process, however, appear to be the same, with the same result. Mokele M'bembe seems to be more in the lake monster mold than the dinosaur mold, and it is most often encountered in the water, over its head - not the usual habitat for a brontosaurus. There do exist stories of sea serpents in the southern hemisphere, and while these are not lake monsters, I will throw in a brief account of a sea serpent seen by a hotel manager from Mamatanai, New Ireland, Papua New Guinea, while I was there in 1983, debunking stories of natives eating mermaids. It seems that twice in the '70s this manager, an Englishman, had encountered a 50 foot serpent, lying underwater on the sea bottom in a lagoon near Ramat Bay. He described it as looking like Chessie: a large, snake-like thing, and he avoided disturbing it lest it decide to eat him for lunch. Ramat Bay was where many of the alleged mermaids were seen, which later were proven to be dugongs, a relative of the manatee. 

INTELLIGENT ENERGY?

Perhaps the same energy phenomenon is in all the lakes of the world, and it reflects to viewers what their background, racial memories, education, and expectations send to the phenomenon. The more sophisticated the viewers, the more likely the image received is equally sophisticated. However, this may not be completely true in all instances. The images seen are too varied to be of mere animals, and a better theory, which physics can someday test, is a theory of intelligent energy, reflecting our own thoughts and images to us. I propose that Nessie, Chessie, Tessie, Ogopogo and Champ are all the same phenomenon. So too is Mokele M'bembe, but with some regional and perhaps foreigner-influenced input that results in it seeming to be of the hump and neck type. If the alleged lake monsters are viewed as being unknown energy phenomena, all the apparent contradictions fall away and the path is cleared for physics to make sense of something where zoology could not. 



THE END



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



54 comments:

  1. Wow! This is surely the same theory as proposed by John Keel in Ufo: Operation Trojan Horse, amongst other works, and which I have believed in (on and off!) since he first proposed it in the seventies...great stuff, Roland!.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think so and Ted Holiday in his Goblin Universe.

      Delete
    2. Did Jon Erik not write any books, Roland?...can't seem to find anything.

      Delete
    3. So in effect we can literally conjure up lake monsters to our liking a la tulpa style and different ones at various geographical locations, according to this guy. OK, I want Nessie to be a plesiosaur!

      Meh, not much different than what Holiday had in mind as far as weirdness goes. If these theories were at all possible I would attribute it to Trickster phenomena activity. Changing faces! Nah, that's too weird for me. No, for now I'll stick to the flesh and blood Nessie, thank you.

      Delete
    4. I am not aware of any books he wrote. If he did I would expect them to be more bigfoot oriented. The only book I know of related to him was a biography I highlighted a while back:

      https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2019/09/two-books-of-interest.html

      Delete
  2. Read what Wikipedia has to say about him. The Loch Ness Monster is a space alien pet with the face of a cat? Hmm...would that be a Cheshire cat?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Beckjord#Loch_Ness_Monster

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beckjord's Nessie reminds me of the Carpenter's shape changing Thing.

      Delete
    2. Hmm...haven't seen that movie in years. Will order from my local library for a refresher in shapeshifting. He said there was a movie? I'd like to see that one.

      Delete
    3. Yes he took a cine film, but I have only seen stills from it.

      Delete
    4. The great lakes have the "water panther" serpent.

      Delete
  3. I don't think his intelligent energy hypothesis is, as he puts it, "more testable". The only forms of intelligence we know of depend on a complex structure capable of handling large amounts of data. "Energy" as such can't do it. It would also have to know what the spectators are thinking. How? I can't help thinking that is indistinguishable from the "angels or demons" hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What the spectators are thinking. How?" Precognitive sentient entity?

      Delete
  4. I can tell by the dearth of comments that nobody much cares for Beckjord's theories. That's fine, I think most of us adhere to and are more comfortable with a flesh and blood beast.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When it was time for me to move from Long Island, NY, I went on two trips up to Plattsburg NY which is on Lake Champlain (would have loved to monster hunt), to look for a house. Unfortunately there isn't much to buy most anywhere in upstate ny that isn't old, dreary and decrepit or a doublewide on my budget. Wound up moving to Florida cuz thats where my family is and bought a brand new stick built on site home for the money. That's the good bit. The bad bit is I hate Florida, lol.
    But I digress. As for the topic at hand. For a long time now I've been an adherent to the simulated or manufactured universe/reality hypothesis.
    It can pretty much explain any anomalous phenomena. Anything can be 'programmed' to make an appearance that seemingly defy this reality's standard built in laws and mechanics.
    While this is a blog about a specific cryptid, I'd like to make a point from the 'ufo' side of things.

    Jacque Vallee saw this many decades earlier. There's a vast number of near sightings and encounters that exhibit completely nonsensical aspects, or 'high strangeness'.
    (for example. that extraterrestrials travel thousands or millions of light years, just to appear to some rural farmer and give him a flapjack biscuit, which, irc, an actual case)

    The conclusion being that there is an unknown intelligence, one that's been here all along, behind all this and one aspect of its interaction with humans in the modern era is the use of aliens and assorted 'spacecraft' technology as a front or a facade for that interaction.

    This was my rather long winded way of saying that this 'intelligence', be its foisting ufo's, cryptids, flying humanoids (ie, mothmen), poltergeists, crop circles, hauntings...the entire paranormal laundry list...upon us, is behind the whole shebang.

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you completely as to the possibility of an intelligence associated with the high strangeness and inexplicable occurrences. Simulated, holographic, multiverse, intelligent design or whichever one you chose as your paradigm for our reality. I think there are enough scientists who would adhere to these possibilities. Yes I think there is some "thing/entity behind the curtain as it were, that is orchestrating all of these bizarre, paranormal activities. For what purpose and to what end? Who knows. There has to be a paranormal theory of everything that ties all this together.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree, Jon...this was what I was alluding to in my earlier cackhanded posting! Regards.

      Delete
    3. BTW Well put Jon. I couldn't have explained it any better.

      Delete
    4. Hi John. I believe it was Charles Fort who said, "I Think We're Property." I strongly suspect that there's much, even entire, truth to that.
      Anyone following where physics has been going can pretty much say with a straight face and without the slightest bit embarrassment that what 'reality' was always perceived as, is pretty much being thrown out the window.
      For anyone not following physics, the Feb. 1 2020 issue of New Scientist is featuring 'What Is Reality' and would give an idea what's some current thinking.

      Therefore, I'm of the thought that we're probably sharing our space as it were, right alongside other realms of existence and its inhabitants that are undetectable by our own senses and instrumentation for a wide variety of possible reasons. And one or more of those inhabitants we probably owe our own existence to....and they've been watching, poking and prodding us. IOW, their property, lol.

      Jon

      Delete
    5. Yes Jon, we exist in a Twilight Zone world. Scary and disturbing.

      Delete
    6. From Beyond -a Lovecraft themed movie about this very theme from the director of Reanimator..( you've been warned..)

      Delete
  6. Alvarado swapped boats mid-loch with nary a blush there, in the space of a few posts, a committed flesh and blood believer but now after being groomed by that exotic svengali Beckjord, an acolyte of the extra-dimensional, holographic monster brigade.
    We must be vigilant, and not be dashed on the jagged rocks of doom, lured by the sweet sounding, bare-breasted [ ooo-er missus ] sirens of unproven science and hocus pocus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah John, you're prose and insightful, biting commentary is such a refreshing addition to this blog. But in the case of the LNM, I'm afraid you're wrong in your assessment of my belief system. I have always believed in a physical “local” Nessie. I am just more open minded than you might be and explore all possibilities. I know that in the past you have identified yourself as a fence sitter on this matter. But, I have also noted in some of your comments, a tendency to teeter toward the side the believer. So, please John, with all your accumulated learning and wisdom, and once and for all, enlighten us. What is your best bet or guess on what the hell is going on here! Yay or nay on the monster?

      Delete
    2. Oh, and by the way John, I also like to play the Devil's Advocate sometimes in some of my ionic and sarcasm laced observations. In you I have good company. Maybe we compliment each other. ;)

      Delete
    3. ( Sir ? ) John Rutherford - Theatrical Playwright? Poet? I am just guessing your likely occupation given your use of exotic prose, such a gift to this discussion! It is like having Oscar Wilde with us!

      PLEASE let me have some more of your divine wording!!

      What do you think the Loch Ness monster could be?

      Delete
    4. I don't think John believes in a monster ...

      Delete
    5. Well sometimes he seems sympathetic to the cause. He is our resident in house critic of both sides and poet, playwrite and wordsmith all rolled into one. LOL

      Delete
    6. I guess John will remain enigmatic and a mystery. LOL

      Delete
    7. Although his majestic way with words is impressive and all it would be interesting to get some straight forward conversation with the guy. Does Mr Rutherford always speak so eloquently ?
      Friend - " Hey John the guys are going for a pint would you care to join us ? "
      John Rutherford - " The jagged rocks of doom and the bare chested sirens ……."
      Friend - " Nevermind "

      John what interests you in the Loch Ness mystery? Have you met any key players in person like Steve Feltham, Dick Raynor, or Adrian Shine?

      Delete
    8. John: “To be or not to be, I shall endeavor a quaff and thusly suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and a heart full of melancholy and misanthropy.”

      Delete
  7. There is a provision in science that certain things don't exist until they are observed. It's over my head, but I wonder if Nessie is part of this story.
    It would certainly help explain the changes in form the creature takes through the ages, one of the very reasons that it's existence is doubted so much.
    Maybe it attains a shape we assign to it. Maybe it's our minds best guess based in data it can't interpret. And maybe Beckjord was right when he said Tim Dinsdale knew of it's very odd properties, but couldn't admit it because the world would not be ready.
    I do know that reality is a great concept, but also that it's maybe more fluid than we first imagined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Martin, I get what you're saying. In the world of Quantum mechanics, scientists have conducted experiments on particles or events with “spooky” results. Seems that whatever they were expecting sometimes only occurred when directly observed. Or something like that. A bit over my head too.

      Delete
    2. Great stuff, guys. Roland, you have alluded in the past to a leaning towards the, shall we call it, 'metaphysical ' theory...I wonder, if it's not too personal, why you went back to the physical?

      Delete
    3. Yes, I was into the Grand Unified Theory of the paranormal which just about encompassed anything mysterious. I even wrote a piece on it for Rip Hepple's Nessletter upon which I relied a lot on the work by a chap called Tom Bearden.

      When I came back to the Loch Ness Monster mystery in the late 90s, I reassessed it all and dialed back to zoological phenomenon. Why? Invoking the paranormal may answer questions, but finding a credible and testable theory is beyond me.

      However, Ted Holiday seemed to take the view the creature could be flesh and blood but framed in a paranormal context. I'll leave that to others to expand upon!

      Delete
    4. So, Roland. You once had an article about Hepple's Nessletters with links to your Google Drive. I would be very much interested in reading what you had to say about your Grand Unified Theory of the paranormal. Can you provide me with a direct link to that issue or date of issue if possible please. It would save me a lot of reading and searching. Thank you.

      Delete
  8. Having said what I did, I also side with sea/lake creatures being of the flesh and blood variety. A good reason being that there's nothing about them, outside of being cryptids, that could be considered biologically ridiculous.
    This would be as opposed to something like a mothman for example. If such a thing had in fact made an appearance in this world, everything about screams it being some sort of ultra-terrestrial intruder into our reality.
    As far as our dear Nessie, I'm hanging on by my fingertips as to it being real. Its pretty much Dinsdale's film and assorted credible witness sightings that keep me from tossing in the towel entirely, lol. Also, Roland's excellent blog certainly helps keep my hope alive of course. ;)

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stop the daftness chaps, there is nothing paranormal about nessie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, well it's a lot of fun guessing and theorizing. The what ifs. :p

      Delete
    2. Gezza, go catch one then. Your paranormal is my lack of scientific knowledge. There's nothing normal about this phenomena, nor has there ever been. People laugh at how ludicrous this whole thing is. Of course the establishment has played their part in making fools of believers, because it can't understand what is going on. Neither can I, but I believe we are on to something and not nothing. I just have the wherewithal to admit I don't understand it, unlike the establishment. All of my thinking points to something unknown to science, with the context unknown also. I think if we don't adjust our thinking we will be looking for this entity in another hundred years.

      Delete
    3. Catch what? Nessie? Sorry Martin i dont share your views but we are all entitled to our opinions. Paranormal nessie? I dont think so.

      Delete
    4. I think in a way, there being virtually little to no scientific rationale to support the existence large creatures in the loch, let alone a species of animal that could exist there in the first place, that hanging one's hat on the naturalist science explanation is almost as much a chimera as the paranormal one. :)

      I'm hoping for itinerant nessies as an explanation.... somehow! lol

      Jon

      Delete
    5. Gezza I know you're a good contributor to these pages, and I respect your own views, but I took your comment as disrespectful to those of us who may think differently about this issue. In terms of what might be described as paranormal, I think of it as science we don't yet know. I don't subscribe to all of Ted Holiday's views, or Eric Beckjord's. But I do think Holiday had the beginnings of what might be the truth of the matter. As for his final book, it was quite crazy, but asked a lot of questions that are yet to be answered. I'm not a tall tale person, I like evidence. But we are lacking a lot of evidence with regards Nessie. We have almost none, in truth. Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong light.

      Delete
    6. I wasnt disrespecting anyone Martin, i just gave my opinion. Like i said, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this subject.

      Delete
  10. I think a lot of what this person is called paranormal can be explained through Pareidolia which is the peculiar capability of the human brain to identify familiar images on unknown patterns ie. a fairly large unknown creature moving in water...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I do apologise if i came across as disrespectful with my comments about daftness but in my opinion the whole paranormal thing is just that. Im sorry but that is what i think. Im only being honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No worries Gezza on the daft comment, I'm thinking 98% chance of Nessie as a large biological animal that is flesh and blood. The remaining 2% chance Nessie is a phantom dragon - and that is DAFT!!! Haha! But for all we know .....

      Delete
  12. I didnt mean to say peope are daft i meant that i thinks its daft, there is a difference. People think im daft for believing in nessie but thats ok with me. Large Sonar contacts in the loch along with sightings seen by more than one person at the same time has nothing to do with paranormal, well thats my thinking anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I appreciate your clarification Gezza,and I do enjoy your contributions on these pages.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks Martin. I should of worded it better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No worries, it happens to us all!

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I agree. I think Gezza meant a daft idea, not that some of us are screwy. LOL

      Delete
  15. FWIW, found Gezza's remark totally fine and understood what was meant by it. Don't get why it became sort of an issue. Maybe the word 'daft' has a far stronger connotation in the UK than america? Kinda like how a certain word in the UK is very blase' but is very off putting to americans? lol

    ReplyDelete