Thursday, 13 August 2020

Loch Ness and the Scientists


Here is an article I found recently from the Today magazine dated 8th July 1961. Tim Dinsdale had just recently published his first book on the monster entitled "Loch Ness Monster" and this had generated some interest amongst the media. The article itself does not interview Tim or go into the matter of his 1960 film or book in any great detail, it is more interested in the scientists and what they were going to do about it.

To that end, Doctor Denys Tucker, once of the Natural History Museum, figures prominently as he is interviewed about the negative attitude of the British scientific establishment and his failed attempts to drum up support from them. Constance Whyte who authored the book, "More than a Legend" which was published four years previously tells of her visits to the Natural History Museum to garner support for some kind of expedition to the loch by these fellows.

The author of the article then tells us of his telephone merry-go-round as he interrogated various scientific establishments on their plans. The Natural History Museum had none and it was a matter for the Royal Scottish Museums. The Royal Scottish Museum said they had no funds and it was a matter for the Natural History Museum.

A call to the Royal Society produced subdued titters and they had never heard of Denys Tucker. A final call to the government's Minister of Science elicited the response that it was a matter for the Scottish Department of Fisheries. Our caller must have gotten quite dizzy by that stage.

Now this was all before the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau had gotten off the ground and since then various scientific endeavors have been mounted at the loch, with or without the help of said institutions. The last was the eDNA studies conducted, not by a British establishment, but one from New Zealand on the other side of the world.

To view the article, click on the image and, depending on your browser, you can right click to view image and a magnification option may come up.

The author can be contacted at


  1. My preference is for the ordinary person , without fancy titles,who report what they saw. Unfortunately society has deemed these guru scientists to be our lord's and masters and dare anyone challenge their lofty pronouncements that there's nothing to see here.
    We can see nothing much has changed from 1961. I can just imagine the frustration of people such as Constance Whyte and Dr.Tucker.
    I have a master's degree.So what?
    I prefer to listen to those such as Mrs Cary who lived overlooking the loch for many years and whose quote illustrates the sheer annoyance of so many who have been dismissed as blind,stupid and ignorant.
    "To say that what we saw were otters
    Or eels or logs or somesuch is absolute nonsense. A log or a tree trunk doesn't suddenly change direction and move off at 30 miles per hour".

  2. They are "useful idiots"( educated)
    Paid to protect the evolution hypothesis with "carrot and stick" rewards( for them.)
    Giant salamander
    Elasmosaurus ( or similar shaped animal)
    Giant horse eels
    And the strange kelpie ( which might be an unknown animal)
    All visiting/ living in the loch.

    1. LOL, you still think Nessie is proof of creationism?

    2. I didn't say that.
      I said that the skeptical point of view is heavily influenced by the prevailing hypothesis of evolution.
      I don't believe in creationism like they say.
      I also don't believe in a hypothesis ( evolution) that has never been proven..I believe in variations WITHIN the species,based on environmental factors.
      I have never seen a cat evolve into a dog.
      It's a form of institutionalized dementia to ignore all the eyewitnesses of Nessie accounts.
      As for dating geology,that's another no science,as atomic neucleii varie based on external radiation influences.
      So it's near impossible to date anything millions of years ago..
      Tesla shielded radon in a box and stopped it's radioactivity..he said radioneucleides are absorbing very high frequencies from stars and stepping them down and RE radiating them as radiation.

    3. John, no evolutionary biologist ever predicted that a cat would evolve into a dog. Both evolved from a common ancestor millions of years back, you're not going to see it in your lifetime. You are flat-out wrong about radiometric dating. Tesla was wrong as well (science has actually advanced since his day). You would still be wrong even if a plesiosaur surfaced in Loch Ness and took a bow for the camera.

    4. We have seen evolution in action - or the process by which it occurs.

      There was a species of moth in the north of England that lived on birch trees. Accordingly, the moths had white wings. However, there were some born with a colour mutation that caused their wings to be black. These black “mutants” showed up against the white of the trees easily, and as such were eaten by birds.

      Then came the industrial revolution. Suddenly all those white birch trees were stained dark with soot and ash from the factories. Now those white moths were the ones that stood out and were eaten, and the black members of the species survived to pass on their genes, and lo and behold, now the black-winged moths are the predominant individuals.

      In the incredibly unlikely event a plesiosaur is found in Loch Ness (note: I’m not saying Nessie isn’t real, simply that I think the plesiosaur idea has been thoroughly proved unworkable at this point) then that in no way disproves evolution - it simply means this subspecies was lucky enough to survive in environments over the eons that didn’t lead to any major change.

      Indeed, I’d argue a plesiosaur species found in Loch Ness would, by necessity, exhibit a number of evolutionary changes from those on fossil record, just by necessity of the environment of the Loch. Probably warm-blooded to combat the cold, harder skin to counter the extreme water pressure at the deepest depths, etc.

    5. Fascinating about the moths...think I may have heard of it before.

  3. Roland,the article failed to mention that Professor Tucker actually saw the creature.

  4. My understanding is that plesiosaur fossils have been found in more recent eras past the K/T extinction, but these have always been dismissed as somehow being "reworked" upwards and mixed with more recent eras. So maybe some did hang on and evolve, like the Coelacanth, which today is different from its prehistoric ancestor...

    1. Intrestin stuff Olrik fossils bin found in more recent era's! Love the coelacanth story and bin found alive after bin
      presumed extinct..out of interest can I just ask what is different about them to their prehistoric.. ancestors?? CHEERS...Roy

    2. Well apparently they are larger than the fossil ancestors and there are two distinct types found today, one in the West Indian Ocean and the other off the east coast of Africa. This is an interesting quote from their Wiki article:

      "Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing is that the coelacanths are still evolving today (but at a relatively slow rate). One reason the coelacanths are evolving so slowly is the lack of evolutionary pressure on these organisms. They have few predators, and live deep in the ocean where conditions are very stable. Without much pressure for these organisms to adapt to survive, the rate at which they have evolved is much slower compared to other organisms."

    3. You should read about the hawksbury river monsters,up to 25 meters long..boat occupants missing,workers clearing brush nearly eaten and Gorman forbidding them to be on the wharf.. Aboriginal s call them mollywogs and carve pleasiosaur type images in stone.
      They are called longnecks.
      Rex gilroys mysterious Australia.

    4. Cheers Olrik..yes I think lots of things adapt over the years and sum things have or have had bigger relatives like the squid. I wonder if things like eels and lamprey could have adapted in big volume waters to look slightly different and cud the tullimonster have had a bigger relatives hmmm..any of these then cud look similar to a plesiosaur shape... Just saying lol... Cheers ROY