Saturday, 3 October 2020

Some good evidence coming up?

 


Steve Feltham posted this yesterday on his Nessie Facebook group:

So much driftwood,
So many boatwakes,
So many false alarms and out and out fakes.

For so long now we have been searching for that definitive, game changing piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
Decades can pass between one great piece of evidence and the next.
People ask me if I ever lose heart?
I have been constantly excited by the unpredictability of this mystery, there has always been something coming over the horizon, the next game changing twist in the pursuit of an explanation.
Strap yourselves in!
The next game changing piece of evidence has breached the horizon!
...and its the best I've seen in decades.

Can't say any more yet.


Naturally, this has got a lot of people excited and I await with some degree of anticipation what is about to be revealed myself. Is it a series of still images or a video or perhaps a sonar trace? Perhaps it is none of these. Steve says it is the best evidence he has seen in decades. Is that the best since the Dinsdale film or Rines body photo or Johnston photos? Well, I cannot be sure since my idea of best evidence in decades is not the same as another monster hunter's best. But it is described as "the next game changer" which is a phrase carrying a burden of expectation with it.


So, if it is such evidence, that means whatever media outlet will publish it also had to pay up. The better the images, the higher the fee. When such items come on the market, they are not just published with minimal checking such as the obvious bobbing log recently filmed at Dores Beach. No, one would expect that they are sent to people who try and test the claims to destruction. In the past, people such as Adrian Shine or others have been called in to assess images and testimony to provide an "expert opinion". Sometimes that opinion is not so expert but sceptics will never accept any images as proof of the Loch Ness Monster.


That's why the media can always rely on them to provide reasons why images should be treated with suspicion. These opinions may even move a media outlet to drop the items and the image owner moves onto the next newspaper. Anyway, once both sides of the fence have had space to investigate and contracts are signed, the images are published. At the end of the day, I hope this evidence is of such a rugged nature that even the sceptics are scrambling for excuses.


Steve, I've strapped myself in.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




155 comments:

  1. Steve’s a proponent of a cat fish (or was it sturgeo, I forget?)

    I wonder if this new evidence backs that theory up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More than 1 animal in the loch sez i

      Delete
    2. I give you catfish for 500
      Greenland shark for 250,
      Pike for 175
      And Tully nostrum for 50
      Gaseous log for 190
      And plesiosaur for negative 1000!
      Place your bets laddies!

      Delete
  2. Hi Roland,
    Yes we are all captivated by this declaration, of Steve Feltham "the next game changer", and all wondering what that means.I suppose everyone is thinking visual images, well this may not be the case. Maybe it has more to do with the DNA study of last year.Have they found new evidence in relation to that.If this is the case it might be a long wait, especially if somebody has to make a documentary on it.If somebody did capture an amazing image on camera I would imagine its very hard to keep it a secret in Loch Ness.
    Eoin O Faodhagain

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lets not forget Steve Feltham said a 3ft fibreglass hump was the best photograph he had seen in Loch ness before we all fet excited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trying to provoke a response, Gezza? Let's just wait and see before passing judgements.

      Delete
    2. No, im just stating a fact Roland.

      Delete
    3. But to be fair, in the end, wasn't Feltham in the forefront in exposing the hoax by Edwards. Sure initially he may have been taken in as many would have by such a realistic prop. Haven't some of us been fooled before e.g. Tricky Ricky Phillips. And as I recall he was one of the first to raise a red flag on that one. Sometimes I think I get in the habit of defending Steve. But I call it as I see it. I am giddy with anticipation also. Oh my!

      Delete
    4. Yup, focused on the message, not the messenger here.

      Delete
    5. Let's not forget Steve exposed the fibreglass hump hoax.

      Delete
  4. Im suprised you stick up for him after all the crap he has given you Roland.If you really think he has game changing evidence i think you are going to be very disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't expect it to be the best ever evidence. Steve said it was the best in "decades" not best ever. So, as I said. Lets wait and see.

      Delete
  5. Ok Roland, lets wait and see.I wont hold my breath though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Phoenix Man, let's not inflame things further.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough Roland but you're very forgiving and tolerant.
      I'm afraid I'm much more black and white. Too many lessons learned the hard way.
      I'll wait and see.

      Delete
  7. Just to add. A sonar trace won't do it for me. A photo or a video had better be fairly up close and crystal clear showing an animate live creature with little room for doubt. No more far away hazy blobs!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like it will be published today (Sunday).

      Delete
    2. I hear that John! There are enough sonar traces already. This new evidence I pray is finally a clear video or photographs depicting a large animal in the Loch.

      I was just claiming lately there are zero clear photo's - maybe I'm about to be proven wrong. If so , all good!!!

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Dont know. Mail on Sunday usually a good guess.

      Delete
  9. Drunk on a bus somewhere in North London trying to get home. This is quite exciting. Clearly not definitive or Steve would have said so but I'm up for a decent bit of new evidence. See you all tomorrow...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awesome Kyle !! Sounds like most of my 20's and 30's. Hope yah don't have a hangover and we all get to see a major Nessie sighting soon, cheers man!

      Delete
    2. The way I feel about this at this point, I wish I was with you Kyle. In my case, drunk and stupid suits me just fine.

      Delete
  10. A body or a piece of a body would be nice...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Intrestin stuff....im strapped in as well.. Hope its not one of them ones that drags on for months..hope it comes out soon... So I'm firmly strapped in and awaiting Mr felthams news.. Cheers!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see its a sonar trace 33ft long. 500 feet down.
    Eoin O Faodhagain

    ReplyDelete
  14. It will be eel,sturgeon,Greenland sharrk,long necked seal,Tully nostrum,AquaPhant,giant carp,gaseous log but NOT an Elasmosaurus.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Roland,
    The new sonar trace proves that there are at least 2 Nessies in Loch Ness.The sonar trace from last year 27/06/19 estimated size 20-25 feet long,
    now this one 33 feet long.The mystery continues.Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its a good sonar contact, I will blog it later.

      Delete
    2. If it's a PLESIOSAUR then that sonar will be mostly body..however if it's an ELASMOSAURUS,as i suspect,then most of that "33 " feet will be neck.

      Delete
  16. The man who took the image says it could be a shoal of fish or a sturgeon.
    Tantalising again but no cigar amigo.
    However it's good to know people do bring things to light now and then -especially from people living and working close by.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The man who took the image should know no sturgeon has ever been caught in Loch Ness and I have looked over 200 years of newspapers which readily report other catches in the Highlands. Shoal of fish at 500 feet? I doubt it.

      Delete
  17. I agree ,just quoting directly from the mail on Sunday online.
    The exact length of the mass however,33 feet,does suggest one of our elusive friends .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does, I have some questions for the boat man which I hope he can answer.

      Delete
  18. Was that it? A sonar trace? Disappointing again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You guys are so negative! I did say in the article it could be a sonar hit. Are you old school optical images?

      Delete
    2. Well yeah Roland. A good quality photo or video is second only to a human eyeball. Sonar can be misleading and requires too much interpretation. But if this is a bonafide something there and at that size, I guess believers can have some sense of vindication.

      Delete
    3. Gotta marshal all the evidence. We have some great photos out there already but they always get the "too good to be true" treatment by even Nessie believers.

      Delete
    4. Okay, maybe you have the modern Johnston and Grey pics in mind? Lets just hope they are genuine. I would like to think so.

      Delete
    5. Yes indeed. Say "NO" to toogoodtobetrueitis.

      Delete
  19. If it’s simply a sonar contact with the guy who recorded it stating it could be a shoal....how is this game changing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasnt the guy who recorded it who said that, it was the rep from kongsberg sonar.

      Delete
    2. Apologies, I’ve not seen the evidence yet. 😀

      Delete
  20. When I heard game changer and best for decades I thought it must be a quality video! A sonar contact is an anti climax.. all the books I have on loch ness all say sonar can't give u a size length only an estimate. So how did 33 feet come in?..sonar doesn't proove anything.. Cud be anything!! I really thought we had sumthing this time with words like game changer and best for decades! Ah well... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont think it could be "anything" Roy. Anyway, I will follow this up with some observations.

      Delete
    2. Yes well said Roy i totally agree.Can somebody explain how a length of 30 ft can be concluded by sonar?

      Delete
    3. The estimate of "at least" 10m needs to be asked of the boatman. Until we see all of the original images which Steve says he will post, I defer judgement.

      Delete
    4. Isn't "33" feet "666" centimeters?

      Delete
  21. Well I for one feel very disappointed, completely let down and cheated. A sonar trace? This is just what I was not hoping for. We've seen sonar contacts of similar ilk before, nothing new. On The Mail on Sunday, Steve Feltham States “ If I was asked to pick the best ever sighting of Nessie, I would pick this one. It is startling “ Really? The best sighting would have been a clear photo or video of a no doubt about it strange, living creature. Mr. Feltham has over played and sensationalized a dubious “sighting” at best. I can not stand with Steve on this one.

    A small sidebar on the papers page proclaims “This is the best ever sighting of Nessie” ...Right. In addition, the paper depicts a drawing of a plesiosaur-like head and neck as if that could be discerned by a fuzzy sonar image, total hype and tabloid reportage. I thought at last we had reached a major breakthrough. Back to square one as far as definitive proof goes. I guess Gezza was right in saying we were going to be disappointed. I am, for sure. If this is a harsh condemnation, so sorry and so be it. No offense to Mr. Feltham

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hate to say i told you so.Its not negative Roland its realistic.How is this a game changer?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eels are bottom dwellers. Why cant this be a load of eels travelling together? It could be a tree trunk moving up and down or even something else.Its laughable 2 say this is a game changer. I didnt expect anything else 2 be honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A tree floating around at 500 feet? Once tree debris gets waterlogged at the shallower levels they drop to the bottom, they dont hang around like a ghost at 500 feet!

      Shoal of eels? The only time we see eels in Loch Ness underwater footage is on their own.

      Delete
    2. According 2 Adrian Shine there are water currents and movements in the water,this could lift a tree or log off the bottomt b4 it sinks down again and maybe this is what the sonar went over.

      Delete
    3. Lift them 100 foot off the loch floor? I doubt it. The currents will be at their weakest at those depths, well away from the thermocline.

      Delete
    4. Nearer 50ft according 2 the boatman's depth.

      Delete
    5. 50 or 100, I am not buying this sceptical argument and nor should you.

      Nobody has ever witnessed this kind of thing, it is complete darkness down there, only ROVs rarely go there and they show a placid environment. If they ever saw a tree floating that high it would not be visible because the alleged currents would have kicked up a silt storm.

      Adrian is only speculating on this without knowing if it is even possible or being able to prove it to be so.

      Delete
    6. Im not looking 4 a sceptical argument here Roland. We have 2 consider other things, we cant just say 100 % its a large animal. We have had sonar contacts b4,including off Cruise loch ness without much attention paid 2 them, so why is this one suddenly a game changer? Because Steve says so? ?

      Delete
    7. Yes, we should consider the non-nessie arguments first. I'll knock 'em out the park as you bowl them to me. :)

      Delete
    8. But you cant answer how to get a size on sonar so ive just bowled you out middle stump :-) This could just be a large fish or 2 together.

      Delete
    9. But explain the other fish in the sonar trace which are normal size and tiny compared to that big one. We await the answer from the skipper on how he estimated the size.

      Delete
    10. I think he just made it up :-)

      Delete
    11. Do you think 8t could be an Elasmosaurus?

      Delete
    12. Or a Gaseous Log ( G.L.)?

      Delete
  24. The sonar contact resembles the inverted-v that's characteristic of a fish contact (the signature of a swim bladder?). Makes me wonder if Jeremy Wade would do another River Monsters special at the Loch.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find two aspects of the above comments quite puzzling. First of all, the almost immediate dismissal of the latest sonar contact as being of no importance. Who knows what it represents but surely it is worthy of further investigation and may turn out to be of real significance. It certainly could be important. Secondly, I am amazed at the apparently anti- Steve Feltham attitude displayed by some people. The guy has dedicated a large part of his life to searching for evidence at Loch Ness. He is often referred to by contributors to this blog as a sceptic. He is certainly not that but is rigorous in investigating and rejecting false or mistaken sightings. Surely he is to be praised for that.
    I became interested in the subject in the 1969s mainly because of Dinsdale's book and film. Many of us in those days believed there was some sort of long necked prehistoric creature in the Loch. As the years went by, theories changed. I suppose I am an agnostic now hoping that an amazing unknown animal is eventually found. However, I welcome all serious contributions to the subject and Steve Feltham has made many of these. The latest sonar may be important or it may not but it is worthy of further investigation instead of knee jerk disparaging comments.
    Chris Morris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes it is worthy of further investigation and thanks to Steve for persuading the sonar operators to consent to publishing the images.

      Delete
    2. Steve is not a skeptic. I don't think anybody regards Steve as a skeptic. He just thinks differently... like the rest of us. LOL

      Delete
    3. Sorry if anybody misinterpreted my comment, I don't believe for a minute Mr F is a sceptic, the amount he has sacrificed for this enduring mystery proves that. I just find the whole hype around this sonar contact to be quite overstated.

      Yes, it’s pretty cool that we get another large contact at a decent depth, but, what makes this one game changing?

      Not surprised to see Adrian Shine explain it away as a weather balloon / swamp gas or whatever nonsense he can think of. You'd think he would be intrigued by the possibility of a potential unknown marine animal (wouldn't it just be the kick in the nuts to him if it were some evolved offshoot of the plesiosaur/Elasmosaurus :-)) being discovered in Loch Ness.
      If nothing else, think of the tourism boost the area would get (once COVID settles). Given how close I am to Loch Ness (I’m just outside Glasgow myself), I’m ashamed at fact it’s only been a handful of times I’ve visited myself, normally only when out on jobs.


      Maybe he's jaded after all his attempts early on proved fruitless?

      Anyway, I look forward to further analysis of this, with my mind wide open.
      Speaking of open minds, I'm currently reading Dr Mackal's "The Monsters of Loch Ness" and as a result re-watched the Dinsdale film last night (quite a few times) and Im puzzled why people explain it away as a boat. Especially after he had the boat follow the same route, and ESPECIALLY after the JARIC analysed it and discounted a boat.

      Sceptics wanna sceptic I guess.

      Dr Mackal also mentioned large unknown marine animals being sighted during transatlantic journeys, notably John Ridgway & Chay Blyth, when I googled that:

      "John Ridgway and Chay Blyth saw a 35-foot sea animal around midnight on July 25, 1966, during their journey across the North Atlantic in the English Rose III rowboat. The creature dived and passed underneath their boat, surfacing on the other side."

      35 foot. Sounds familiar eh?

      Delete
    4. Swamp gas? Has Shine said this?

      Delete
    5. Dinsdale also watched the back of this creature through binoculars that day. He saw no boat. He described the back of this animal with a colour blotch on its flank.

      Despite the popular belief it was a boat all along I just don't see a boat in the first half of the old film. It appears as a large hump with no sign of a person in a boat. The ending sequence of a boat being filmed seems to be taken as if we all think it was an animal.

      First the monster/animal being filmed by Dinsdale - next is the comparison boat. Once the comparison boat was in place wouldn't Tim realize the difference had he been mistaken? It just seems to me that he actually filmed a Nessie that day. Then the skeptics viewed the boat footage thinking we believe it to still be the monster.

      Delete
    6. Swamp gas is just sarcasm lol! Not bad Latman hahah

      Delete
    7. Popular belief Jordan was that it was a plesiosaur type monster..not a boat.

      Delete
    8. It was the belief back then John yes. But these days it is now accepted among the skeptics it was a boat all along. Not just skeptics but general media and much of the public.

      I always thought Tim filmed a large living animal, especially after reading Angus Dinsdales book ( Tims son ). The skeptics just write it all off as a boat.

      A discovery channel documentary had an interesting point when adjusting the film there was indeed a plesiosaur type shape right there just below the water surface. Perhaps 33 feet in length maybe??

      Delete
    9. Don't feel too bad about it Latman. I thought I was the one to be lambasted for my scathing rebuke of this "game changing" new evidence. Made it though OK looks like. Still, I feel disappointed and let down. I really can't fault Steve Feltham thought, he was just putting it out there.

      Delete
    10. Ha ha i would not put anything past Adrian Shine.

      Delete
    11. Hahaha, no, my swamp gas / weather balloon comment was just generalising for any excuse Mr Shine finds to explain away the real possibility that some unknown animal frequents the loch.

      What gets me is the tone he takes with people on the TV, its as if "Oh you silly people, I know you captured a stunning HD film of what's clearly an evolved plesiosaur waving to you, but, its clearly some tin cans/a log/a dog swimming/a person swimming floating around the loch" all the while with that smug condescending expression on his face.

      I'm not saying Nessie is a plesiosaur by the way, was just plucking an example from the air.

      Delete
    12. Oh,so when you said " popular belief of the time" you meant " popular belief amongst the Skeptics" was that dinsdales Nessie was a boat..I was confused since the popular belief amonst the General public was that dinsdales film
      was of a big living animal.

      Delete
    13. Can we start calling SOME skeptics,Propagandists?

      Delete
    14. You're a one trick pony, aren't you, john?

      Delete
  26. Chris Morris we are not sayng it is of no importance, what we are saying is that we were told it was a game changer and the best evidence for decade's, which it simply is not.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Great news! Also very interesting that the depth of the sonar hit closely matches that of Operation Deepscan's sonar contact in '87. Does anyone know how deep the eDNA samples were taken by prof Gemmell?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Is there any1 here who knows their sonar and can answer my question on how they got a size of 33ft on this contact?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I too was underwhelmed by news of another sonar contact after the hype from Steve. I do appreciate all the effort Steve Feltham puts into solving the mystery. Although this new sonar hit is much better than the usual dark blotch at distance photo that somehow gets into the press.

    What I would find interesting is an analysis from the sonar experts who could properly read and explain the details of this new contact. It is good that the boat skipper sees this as interesting, he has experience.

    What indicates a high probability of a large biological creature ? Does a 33 foot whale appear the same ?

    And yes again how do they know 33ft as opposed to other lengths?

    Would a shoal of fish actually appear on sonar very similar?

    Who exactly are the best in the sonar business that can understand the contact as it appears?

    What's with the usual crescent shape?

    It's great to see something on sonar again, maybe this will be enough to get some searches going once again.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well it was an anti climax after hearing bout strapping yaself in and best in a decade but still I think this sonar image is quite exciting news!it defo looks like there is summit biggish deep down there. I cant see it bin a shoal of fish because the skipper said he hadnt seen owt like this before. If it was a shoal of fish he wud be getting them images regularly.The big question is how big is it? I dont know much bout sonar but I'm sure u can't put a direct length on it of 30 odd foot.. Saying that it does look a big solid object! I wud love to see some sonar comparisons of big things like sharks bin compared to this to give us a rough idea!No game changer here but something exciting to get in to! Great sonar image off quality sonar.. great stuff... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roy that's a good point, comparing that image from Loch Ness to other sonar images of whales, sharks, shoals of fish, and other marine life. Should not be too hard to find images as such on Google searches..

      Delete
    2. And a museum could put a life sized model of a plesiosaur in water to see if it matches 5hat sonar image.

      Delete
  31. Not weighing in on the sonar hit. I'll be interested in the technical aspects of how they measured it, and what the other still images from the sonar screen look like. I believe there were several, and there are copyright issues about releasing more than the 1st one at this time (legally). As with Roland, I was first 'bitten' by the LNM story through Tim Dinsdale's book while in school. There also was an article about the Grant sighting written up in the US Scouting magazine "Boys Life". I've followed the subject and read most of the books over the last 50 years since then. I've always been struck that in 1961 David James formed what he called "The Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau Ltd". There is the search for the animal and its identification of course, but there's also the "phenomenon" of why some (not all - I'm not a skeptic) people so passionately need an undiscovered animal to be there, and why their minds can twist explainable objects into dinosaurs. So it's a sociological as well as a psychological "phenomenon" running in tandem with a zoological one. I for one think there is a very large animal there - something like Steller's sea cow with something resembling a long neck, which may be retractable. But part of the interest in following the decades long story is also pondering on peoples' motivations in wanting it to be there. I salute Steve F. for his commitment to whatever answer there is. There is only one answer to the physical mystery after all. The rest is - to misquote Hamlet - Noise.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Would 2 medium sized fish travelling next 2 each other give off one big image?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No,the sonar is too crisp..it would show 2 fish.
      To get the serpentine image shown,an animal like a plesiosaur or an Elasmosaurus would have to swim by the sonar beam.

      Delete
  33. I respect this as a piece of intriguing evidence and will look forward to GB's blog buuuuuut... on its own it won't shift the needle. Only a clear still image or video will ever do that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Searching Google for sonar images there are much clearer images from market fish finders, far superior imaging than that of the recent Loch Ness contact.

    Do these personal fish finders not reach the depths of Loch Ness? Some of these on the market fish finders reveal sharp detail - enough detail to distinguish Nessie from fish shoals easy!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They only work at shallow depths I believe. 500ft way out of their range.

      Delete
  35. Around the time of Operation Deepscan they talked about sonar contacts maybe being echo's off the side walls. Can we rule out this on this sonar?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The boat does the same route multiple times every day, so all things being equal a reflection/refraction should appear regularly if the same conditions are there.

      Delete
    2. Yes your right. It would if it does the same course every day.

      Delete
    3. Could you explain how a hard contact sound wave reflection could materialize as a solid body sonar contact in the middle of the loch?

      Delete
  36. Compared to the recent crop of dreadful photoshop hoaxes, sketchy video footage of just on the surface objects miles away and a bunch of eyewitness stories with not much to back them up I'm delighted that something potentially tangible, with the data to back it up from the sonar's memory card, has been put out for all to see. If it's concluded to be a singular object then it's surely a lot better evidence than fuzzy mobile phone footage or webcam stills of poor quality? Steve's doing his bit, Roland is doing his. Step back and look at where this fits with other recent 'evidence' - it's better than a lot of it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. My last take on this, i asked a lot of questions because i feel that if you claim this is a game changer then you need 2 eliminate a few things.I think Roland that you have answered very well and im left feeling that this sonar contact is most probably a living creature.The big question though is how big is it? How do we get 33 ft? It could be a very large animal but at the
    same time it could just be a very large pike or Eel or a passing sturgeon or maybe 2 large fish together.Im still suprised this was claimed as a game changer or the best evidence 4 a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or a PLESIOSAUR,or Elasmosaurus..( they eat Pike)?

      Delete
  38. The MUNIN sonar maps out the Loch floor with clear contours but how does it depict midwater contacts? There needs to be higher quality imaging results from the Loch to see what these contacts are.

    Although much better than Deepscan we still are dealing with imaging that is inconclusive. If shoals of fish or other objects can enter the debate there needs to be improvements in the sonar used on Loch Ness. This recent development is intriguing and yes it helps support the theory of Nessie but it is another " possibly " scenario. I myself and many LNM enthusiasts await the follow up analysis, learning more about sonar readings may give more credit to Nessie.

    All in all it is good to have a development with some potential again at Loch Ness.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In case anyone's interested... There have been many sonar questions so I found this "basic tutorial" site, the most interesting bit of course on how to judge fish size:
    https://deepersonar.com/us/en_us/how-it-works/how-sonars-work

    ReplyDelete
  40. I had forgotten I had blocked Erik Kristopher Myers on Facebook years ago and noted some people one fb were replying to "Erik" on Steve's page. I blocked him because he is a .... well that's another story. But it was no surprise when I unblocked and his posts appeared that he was stomping around dissing the latest sonar contact of Nessie. Some things will *never* change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I too have had some negative issues with "EKM" - not on cryptozoology, but on (perhaps peripherally related) the subject of The Exorcist III film, about which he was in the process of writing a book which to my knowledge never came to fruition. Anyway, I was just surprised to see his name crop up here!

      Delete
    2. He was toying with making a documentary about monster hunters. I often wondered if he would portray the sceptics as all having pointy ears and able to raise their right eyebrows effortlessly while discoursing on pure logic while the believers were all swivel eyed loons drooling uncontrollably.

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah, I remember EKM from a few years back on here. He was one of those die hard skeptics that wouldn't except anything short of a carcass on a slab for proof. If I remember correctly he was or is a film maker. At that time I think he was in the process of producing some type of docudrama on the Loch Ness Story with a skeptical leaning, using some of us Nessie adherents as templates for his characters. I was to be the sycophantic supporter of GBs fanatical believer character. LOL

      Delete
    4. Well, I would left him off if he cast Henry Cavill for my character.

      Delete
    5. Well you can make mine Tom Cruise, because these days I'm afraid I look more like Elmer Fudd.

      Delete
    6. Have to break it to you, John ... you're not in the movie. :)

      Delete
    7. Exorcist III is pretty underrated to be fair. I can kinda see why someone might consider writing a book about it. It's far superior to Exorcist II: The Heretic, which is famously appalling. Shame, Boorman was an occasionally exceptional director. Ah well...

      Delete
    8. Didnt he direct Zardoz?

      Delete
    9. He most certainly did! Which is mental. But also Point Blank, Deliverance, Hope and Glory and Excalibur which are all fantastic.

      Delete
  41. So Erik the gonad is now a sonar expert too pmpl.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Careful, you might draw him back here, a flame war starts, I will have to start deleting inflammatory comments and he will accuse me of OTT censorship.

      Delete
  42. From that sonar image alone can we safely say there is an adequate fish supply in Loch Ness to sustain one or more large predators? I know the surveys and fish counts go back decades now and the consensus is the Loch lacks the fish population to feed large animals ( for the most part )

    By the look of the sonar image featuring this likely large animal there seems to be a healthy fish population. Also there is a healthy eel population.

    It looks to me Nessie has enough food in the Loch to keep her nice and plump.

    Anyone agree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there is enough food for a certain biomass of predator but it depends on the type of predator. I covered this subject 8 years ago: https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-there-enough-food-for-nessie_12.html

      Delete
    2. Well if not fish, eels, there are plenty of eels!

      Delete
  43. Ah yes! How did I miss that as it is also on the right of this page in one of the headings...anyway I just caught up on this now. Lots of info thanks.

    Does the world wait now until the next big sonar contact whenever that may be or is there sufficient interest again to mount another great search???

    ReplyDelete
  44. Get a sub down! I saw a Jeremy Wade episode where he went looking for a six-gill shark in a small submarine using infra-red light (if I recall right) which fish can't see, so he was able to sneak right up on one...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A sub did go down..and was "nudged" violently at 600 feet..this was long ago.

      Delete
  45. Regarding the tree argument - accepting that a tree will sink to the Loch bottom once waterlogged it has to be borne in mind that at some stage in its descent it will be at the depth of this sonar contact. By the law of averages at some point one assumes a sinking tree will be caught on sonar before it reaches the Loch bottom. I would be interested to know if deep water lakes with no 'monster' reputation have similar sonar strikes.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Submarines have been in the Loch for many years and was there not a regular scheduled Loch Ness submarine tour for tourists? ROV's have been down there. The cameras in Urquhart Bay for the Rines searches were in place for months were they not? ( summer at least )

    My point is a suspended midwater tree was never encountered. Has there ever been from any lake in the world an instance of a tree drifting around midwater?? Would that not be extremely rare? Like less than 1% I would imagine.

    The sonar would register a tree in midwater differently than the latest Nessie contact. Or would it not? The experts are indicating of course it has all the makings of a large animal.

    If I was a skeptic I would not feel comfortable betting money on the odds of a tree suspended in water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a exact tree,but a "Gaseous Log"( G.L.) rumored to be a good source for my Theoretical AquaPhant!!

      Delete
  47. Interesting Facebook post by Steve Feltham yesterday. He reported that Raymarine ( the manufacturer of the sonar equipment used in the recent contact image) has stated it is an image of a single solid object as opposed to a shoal of fish and is between 15 to 20 feet in length. In my humble opinion, this definitely warrants further analysis and is an exciting piece of potential evidence.
    Chris Morris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reply to Martin Curran: Unfortunately I'm not the Brass Eye presenter! I'm just a 70 year old grumpy pensioner who has been interested in Loch Ness and its possible inhabitants since I saw the Dinsdale film when I was a schoolboy. I went to the loch when I was at university and met Dinsdale who impressed me as a man of integrity. These days I sit on the fence but find the recent sonar intriguing and potentially very important.
      Chris Morris

      Delete
  48. 15-20 ft in length.. Well that goes with the size I've always felt that these creatures grow too! Great news.. And glad shoals of fish bin ruled out as for me didnt make sense anyhow as the sonar on the boat wud be getting these contacts regular seeing as the boat goes up and down same route a few times a day everyday... The mystery continues lol . Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not the size witnesses say Nessie is!!
      They usually say the BACK alone is 15-20 feet!!

      Delete
  49. Sure theres more that can be done a few things unsaid wonder how many nessie hunters out and about that day

    ReplyDelete
  50. So we are now told it could be half the size of the original statement of 33 ft? Something is not right then.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly it's not an exact science. If the skipper is not trained or adept at taking measurements using this equipment he may have made an honest overestimation. If the manufacturers have studied the file and say it's 15-20ft, then that's probably more like the truth.
      Let's face it, to the untrained eye, sonar looks like very little. Whatever it is in the end, it may well be significant.

      Delete
  51. Your right Martin but if he is untrained then why come out with a size of 33 ft?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I figured that out, one uses the depth axis on the right. I will demonstrate in my follow up article.

      Delete
    2. Fair point Gezza. He probably should have stuck to the 'large unknown target' type of terminology.

      Delete
  52. 15 to 20 feet is still a fair size, and potentially bigger than the 'known' marine life in the loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right Latman, its a fair size and bigger than any known fish that comes into the loch.

      Delete
  53. Of course though it could be a couple of feet out either side therefore this could be a big fish ie sturgeon that entered the loch.I dont understand how Mr Feltham says we are getting closer to the truth? Plus he said we now know the animals are still in the loch, how? I think he is misleading the public on this one,something he always accuses the press of. Double standards im afraid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's serpentine shape lends it to be an Elasmosaurus more than a plesiosaur.
      Remember the prominent gov PHD Biologist Professor Tucker himself saw the back of Nessie and said it was like an Elasmosaurus,this differs,of course,from the witness of that ww2 disfigured diver who saw Nessie right above him! He described it as a classic Plesisaur!!( Of course he wasn't a PhD Biologist!!

      Delete
    2. How could Dr Tucker think it was an elasmosaur's back? All he had was fossilized vertebrae spine to work with, He had no idea what colour they may have been or the texture of the skin on the back.

      Delete
  54. GB,I have the impression that Tucker's elasmosaur indentification was based on eyewitness testimony in addition to his sighting. And in the last addition of Witchell's book Tucker went with cryptoclidus.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Uh - no one has ever seen an living elasmosaur's back, to be able to compare! All one can say is - I saw a drawing of a scientist's reconstructions of what an elasmosaur's back may have looked like. I am happy for the LNM to be an elasmosaur, but. . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not god you cannot say "nobody" has seen an Elasmosaurus back.
      Professor Tucker PhD bioogist said he saw it!

      Delete