tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6121760201417104973..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: eDNA and NessieGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-38470966602174081502017-08-18T07:26:11.931-07:002017-08-18T07:26:11.931-07:00Updated article: the professor is looking for £100...Updated article: the professor is looking for £100K. Hmmm.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71338700308597797192017-04-28T02:44:20.928-07:002017-04-28T02:44:20.928-07:00Hear hear Gezza. The two objects (animal hump and ...Hear hear Gezza. The two objects (animal hump and boat in control video) are so completely different in appearance and movement that there can be no doubt whatsoever that Tim's first sequence does not show a boat.<br /><br />There are two thoroughly convincing pieces of Loch Ness Monster footage available for all to see online. The 1960 Dinsdale film and the 1967 Raynor film. In a peculiar volte-face (that phrase again), D Raynor much later pretended his film shows Merganser ducks, yet he has never given the slightest clue how he didn't notice it at the time of filming, nor an explanation of how he "came to realise it" much later. This makes no sense at all. JARIC's analysis of that film indicated clearly that it was no flock of birds. I can only assume that D Raynor somehow felt it was more "scientific" or "intellectual" to deny his own monster film. Unfathomable to have done so with such a long delay after the event took place.<br /><br />I'd like to thank both the late Tim Dinsdale and the (outwardly) sceptical Richard Raynor for their solid contributions to bolstering the case for Nessie with these groundbreaking pieces of footage.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-15123371351509511092017-04-27T15:52:14.426-07:002017-04-27T15:52:14.426-07:00But the second film was taken under lighter condit...But the second film was taken under lighter conditions so surely the wake would be more visible? For me it is clear that the wake in the original video is far greater than the second one.GEZZAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093032226034742612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28499272956047747392017-04-27T15:45:20.638-07:002017-04-27T15:45:20.638-07:00surely or maybe ? surely or maybe ? GEZZAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093032226034742612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-83606194705893115332017-04-24T05:51:12.367-07:002017-04-24T05:51:12.367-07:00If he filmed a boat then why is the wake far longe...If he filmed a boat then why is the wake far longer and greater than the wake in the second film of the boat as it moves parallel to the far shore? The boat is roughly in the same place as the original and moving at roughly the same pace, so why is the wake much longer and greater than the boat?GEZZAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093032226034742612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-23374610032746598382017-04-19T23:47:56.681-07:002017-04-19T23:47:56.681-07:00As stated, no I don't see that. I only see att...As stated, no I don't see that. I only see attempts to show it's a boat, but nothing that convinces me.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-40440297848346382662017-04-19T06:27:27.134-07:002017-04-19T06:27:27.134-07:00I continue to believe he saw the extraordinary hum...I continue to believe he saw the extraordinary humped back of a living animal. I've not seen anything that proves otherwise.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-16131623425136565902017-04-15T15:22:46.115-07:002017-04-15T15:22:46.115-07:00I agree with Roy. I have seen many a thing on loch...I agree with Roy. I have seen many a thing on loch ness from a distance that look totally different when you see them up close.Things from a distance can play tricks on you.GEZZAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093032226034742612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-90192428834104166282017-04-15T14:58:07.908-07:002017-04-15T14:58:07.908-07:00Not sure how your description tallies up the lack ...Not sure how your description tallies up the lack of clarity he must've experienced with his total certainty about the clarity he viewed the object. He was vehement every time he spoke that he saw the animal's humped back VERY CLEARLY. It can't have been an innocent mistake. He either saw an animal as he said, or he saw a blurred object but then felt it would serve the world best if he stated categorically that he saw a very clear animal's hump. He backed this claim up with drawings, right down to a blotch on the side of the hump and a seam/ridge running down the back.<br /><br />So, it has to be the case that he either saw what he drew, or he lied about what he saw and drew what he thought he should've seen.<br /><br />To reiterate, I believe he was an honest man and saw what he drew.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-35243124537506498522017-04-15T07:56:29.105-07:002017-04-15T07:56:29.105-07:00It is a much talked about debate wether dinsdale f...It is a much talked about debate wether dinsdale filmed a creature or a boat ! And if it was a boat a much talked about debate wether he knew it so was a hoax or wether he made a genuine mistake. Well I just wanted to add my piece on this because I have visited the area in question as my gut feeling was he cudnt make a mistake with binoculars! I made a comment on another Nessie site after my first visit with 16 X binoculars then was told by dick raynor if I went again to go with 7x binoculars just like dinsdale had. I go to the loch 2 or 3 times a year so I took a pair of 7 x bino's the next time. I have to admit the view wasn't very clear from the area and it was hard to make anything out as the weather was bit duller than last time. My conclusion is that it is easy to make a mistake from this viewing point and easy to see things like colour and markings that are not there. So I believe dinsdale did not know he filmed a boat and believed he had filmed a creature<br />If anyone disagrees that's fair enuf but I do say if u go to Loch Ness go and see for urself from the area he took the film. It's a good way from the loch. Another point to make is it was hard to keep the bino's dead still ( after a few tennents the night before) which from the distance u really need to do to get a good view. I should imagine dinsdale hands wer a bit shaky at the thought of sighting the monster he so wanted to see so I really think he was genuine. Roll on my next trip !<br /><br />.ROYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11606400892865604548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-27998630579205215762017-04-13T04:51:59.876-07:002017-04-13T04:51:59.876-07:00I presume they will do it with the good weather th...I presume they will do it with the good weather this summer or perhaps before the tourist season descends in late June.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-61593649973420280652017-04-13T04:50:52.282-07:002017-04-13T04:50:52.282-07:00I would have thought livestock DNA was not persist...I would have thought livestock DNA was not persistent enough to detect,<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-23032197619398012702017-04-12T04:23:32.973-07:002017-04-12T04:23:32.973-07:00So you're mostly in agreement with me... he ei...So you're mostly in agreement with me... he either told the truth and saw an animal or he lied about the clarity with which he was viewing the object? <br /><br />I think we can discount the concept that he knew from the outset it was a boat and just told a huge whopper to fool the public.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-87152358796910024162017-04-11T23:34:12.262-07:002017-04-11T23:34:12.262-07:00A lot was made of the time and month ( 9am at the ...A lot was made of the time and month ( 9am at the end of april) to which Tim saw what he saw. The skeptical side of it say it was dull and not very light. I have never inderstood this as its fully light at 9am at the end of april. In fact its the 12th of april today and i cycled to work at 6.30 this morning with no lights on.GEZZAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093032226034742612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28512898509191465872017-04-11T23:09:01.745-07:002017-04-11T23:09:01.745-07:00If you're going to include otter you should ma...If you're going to include otter you should maybe include human DNA too. I was thinking more along the lines of animals permanently in the water all times of the year, so your list above minus salmon (if out of season) and otter. Also lampreys, I believe a parasite on fish, not to be included if they only have salmon as hosts and it's out of the salmon run season.<br /><br />That's my personal list of what will satisfy me. Glasgow Boy's list minus the above (dependent on season).<br /><br />All this fuss and it might not even happen. When are the dates?Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-67446576145324479692017-04-11T19:43:19.165-07:002017-04-11T19:43:19.165-07:00Given the size of the catchment area I'd expec...Given the size of the catchment area I'd expect a huge list.<br /><br />All the woodland animals, all the farm animals, all the birdlife, innumerable people, etc, etc.<br /><br />For example, if they fail to detect deer DNA or horse DNA or cow DNA that has to render the sampling flawed?<br /><br />Dumping abattoir DNA in the loch? Shouldn't need to as all that DNA should already be in there.RP McMurphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05346900582173520880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-77086501883969219262017-04-11T18:08:40.331-07:002017-04-11T18:08:40.331-07:00There is a fourth possibility Henry: That Tim saw ...There is a fourth possibility Henry: That Tim saw an object that looked to him like a humped back of an animal which he was convinced at the time existed. And yes Henry, in Dinsdale's accounts of his sighting he's adamant that what he saw was the back of an animal of some sort. I've highlighted all the paragraphs in his book - and there are several - where he states he could see the object clearly, that he looked at it carefully through binoculars, and that it was a sunny, clear day. All of this goes against the skeptic's arguments that Dinsdale filmed a boat under bad observation conditions (distance, light). So we now get the bit about Dinsdale having poor eyesight, the binoculars not being very powerful (despite Dinsdale's statement that they were adequate), and Ronald Binns' vivid speculation of what he thought really happened due to Dinsdale being in an exhausted, excitable state of mind. But here's the thing: none of the skeptics were there, Dinsdale was. But this is partly why I said it could be argued both ways. paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990245875787442561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-13259999136391509342017-04-11T14:11:06.832-07:002017-04-11T14:11:06.832-07:00I don't think he did make a mistake, and he do...I don't think he did make a mistake, and he doesn't even allow for the possibility. So certain was he that it was the back of an animal that there are only 3 possibilities. That he saw the animal he described, that he knew he saw a boat and lied, or that he didn't really know what he saw and lied about his certainty of it being an animal. So therefore he either saw an animal or was a deliberate liar of some sort. Having heard everyone's opinion of him and seen films of him describing it, I believe he saw an animal.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-48206356443806050592017-04-11T13:32:03.244-07:002017-04-11T13:32:03.244-07:00The problem is politics.
I already predict that &q...The problem is politics.<br />I already predict that " nothing will be found out of the ordinary,except for a few bait scapegoats".johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948846515909819569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-29894490415809140462017-04-11T12:50:31.988-07:002017-04-11T12:50:31.988-07:00Then let's make up a list to check against the...Then let's make up a list to check against the results:<br /><br />Artic Char<br />European Eel<br />Northern Pike<br />Three Spined Stickleback<br />Eurasian Minnow<br />Atlantic Salmon<br />Brown Trout<br />Sea Trout<br />Frogs,Newts,Toads,Perch,Roach,Dace,Rudd,Carp<br /><br /><br />Otter<br />Brook Lamprey<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-40545691532427317522017-04-11T11:44:21.158-07:002017-04-11T11:44:21.158-07:00Henry, I have read Dinsdale's book. Several ti...Henry, I have read Dinsdale's book. Several times over. Jack, I haven't read Angus' book. I will eventually. My point is that the film itself is inconclusive, it can be argued both ways. I had moved into the it's a boat camp several years ago based on the analysis done on a National Geographic documentary (I think it was called Is It Real?). But after viewing the film numerous times on The Man Who Filmed Nessie site I've backed off the boat theory. What my eyes see is that the blob that is alleged to be the helmsman only appears intermittently at the beginning of the parallel to shore sequence. I don't see it at all in the latter part of the sequence. I also see a similar intermittent blob at the beginning of that sequence - but several feet to the rear of the helmsman. Unless this blob is a water skier, which of course is highly improbable on Loch Ness, then these blobs may very well be film grain artifacts. That said, I can't go back to the it's the back of a monster camp. For me, the film is simply too inconclusive for me to come down on one side or the other. But it remains a fascinating piece of footage. <br /><br />And Henry I'm certainly not grouping Dinsdale with Searle. Searle was a faker. Dinsdale may have simply made an honest mistake. paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990245875787442561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-74279019520073221132017-04-11T09:42:05.242-07:002017-04-11T09:42:05.242-07:00I think we'll get a strong clue as to how wort...I think we'll get a strong clue as to how worthwhile it is by seeing how many of the known species show up. If it's all of them, then it's a very valid test. If it misses some out then it's not really valid is it.Huntin Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663920926515599885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71543330944286325332017-04-11T01:21:08.565-07:002017-04-11T01:21:08.565-07:00My point exactly, no technique is perfect and may ...My point exactly, no technique is perfect and may miss things. <br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-43050559346781844222017-04-11T00:35:41.596-07:002017-04-11T00:35:41.596-07:00Not sure about this? So lake Windermere produced 1...Not sure about this? So lake Windermere produced 14 of the fish that inhabit the lake? What about anything else like frogs toads water birds or otters? And strange how it missed the lampreys!! Maybe it's because not many lampreys are in there unlike the other fish that are in there in there thousands. And if the salmon and trout and eels have travelled into the lake then surely the lampreys would too<br />.at this early stage I get the feeling this DNA will only pick up things that are in the lake in huge numbers, I maybe wrong. And as someone pointed out the sheer volume of the water in the loch is going to hinder the whole thing. I have a feeling this test will never happen!! I also agree with someone above about the BBC sonar search... pointless!<br /> ROYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11606400892865604548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-60282435791592872312017-04-10T17:28:05.864-07:002017-04-10T17:28:05.864-07:00Paddy, have you read Angus Dinsdale's book &qu...Paddy, have you read Angus Dinsdale's book " The man who filmed Nessie " ? Remember Tim viewed what was not a boat through binoculars and described a blotch of colour on the animals flank. The first sequence does not look like a boat. <br />Adrian Shine believes Tim was mistaken and indeed filmed a boat, he presented why in a video. Tim filmed a boat for comparison we all know. Sure it is up for debate since the Dinsdale film is at distance and of low clarity.<br />Tim watched an animal through binoculars and was not impressed with the film footage compared to what he saw with his eyes that day. If you have not read Angus Dinsdale's book ( Tims son ) I highly recommend it.<br /><br />Whatever DNA Is discovered it will probably be interesting no matter what. Loch Ness is not your typical lake. I hope they obtain a silt sample or two because comparing silt against open water samples may enrich the study possibly.Jordan Newhouse Artworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11106532852180727936noreply@blogger.com