The connection between creatures such as the Loch Ness Monster and the semi-mythical Water Horses of Highland folklore has long been discussed and held to be a continuous theme by various crypto-researchers (myself included).
A new source of such stories has now been made available online and free to the public by the University of Edinburgh in the form of the Carmichael Watson Project. Carmichael Watson wrote the well known work on Highland culture and folklore entitled Carmina Gadelica published in 1900 but this is a mere fraction of his total research which is now available online here.
The problem is most of what I looked at had not been translated from the Gaelic, so in that sense it is still a work in progress. Nevertheless, entering the search term "water-horse" yielded 14 results which gave stories from the isle of Lewis and Harris and no doubt elsewhere but without their translation, I cannot be sure. I have contacted them asking for clarification on future translations.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
The Latest Nessie Sighting
This has already done the rounds today on crypto sites but I like to put it in the blog for the record. Basically it was a long neck sighting at about a mile off. Coloured black, submerged for 30-40s and disappeared after 4-5 minutes. I say submerged as the report does not state that they saw it sink once and for all - can Steve Feltham clarify? Final submergences are important since they tend to discount the usual explanations trotted out for these sightings. A bird will fly off, a boat will just stay there until it disappears from view round a peninsula, etc.
So in this case, the crypto-skeptic response will be "bird". Of course, people mistake birds for Nessie - inexperienced people that is. But these witnesses issue the key phrase:
“We stand here all the time and look out and we see boats and kayaks but it didn’t look like anything we have seen here before.”
In other words, they have experience of watching this same vista many times. They have impressed upon their minds multiple memories of boats, etc at the same distance and they have a sense of proportion as to how big something is at that distance.
Of course, the skeptic may still say "bird". I have a scene that often plays in my mind. I dump the carcasse of a Nessie at the skeptics' feet and say "There's your proof!". To which they reply "Can you prove it came from Loch Ness?".
Original link here - and its Mr. Dinsdale!
So in this case, the crypto-skeptic response will be "bird". Of course, people mistake birds for Nessie - inexperienced people that is. But these witnesses issue the key phrase:
“We stand here all the time and look out and we see boats and kayaks but it didn’t look like anything we have seen here before.”
In other words, they have experience of watching this same vista many times. They have impressed upon their minds multiple memories of boats, etc at the same distance and they have a sense of proportion as to how big something is at that distance.
Of course, the skeptic may still say "bird". I have a scene that often plays in my mind. I dump the carcasse of a Nessie at the skeptics' feet and say "There's your proof!". To which they reply "Can you prove it came from Loch Ness?".
Original link here - and its Mr. Dinsdale!
Loch Ness Monster sighting reported by locals
FOYERS shop and cafe owner Jan Hargreaves and her husband Simon believe they caught a glimpse of Loch Ness’s most elusive resident — Nessie.
It was while taking a break on the store’s front decking — looking out to the loch — when Mrs Hargreaves and kitchen worker Graham Baine spotted an unusual figure cutting a strange shape through the water.
“We were standing looking out and saw something that looked bizarre,” said Mrs Hargreaves.
“I said to my husband to come and have a look.
“We stand here all the time and look out and we see boats and kayaks but it didn’t look like anything we have seen here before.”
Despite the unidentified creature being quite a distance from their vantage point, 51-year-old Mrs Hargreaves said it had a long neck which was too long to be that of a seal and it was black in appearance.
“It went under the water and disappeared for probably 30 to 40 seconds and then came back up again,” said Mrs Hargreaves.
“It was around for a good four to five minutes. It was just so strange.”
Keen to stress she is not seeking publicity, Mrs Hargreaves does firmly believe what she saw was the Loch Ness Monster.
“It was so exciting,” she declared.
Since August last year, The Waterfall Cafe and Foyers Stores with post office, opposite the village’s famous Falls of Foyers, has been run by Mr and Mrs Hargreaves.
Nessie hunter Steve Feltham, who lives in a former mobile library turned research centre on Dores beach, said he heard about the possible sighting when he popped into the store last week and believes because it was from residents rather than tourists, it is more credible.
“I’m excited by the fact it was locals who had seen it,” said Mr Feltham.
“It’s quite a distance from the shop to the water and they watch everything that goes on there.
“For them to be impressed then there is a possibility it could have been Nessie.”
What particularly excited Mr Feltham was that it was from the exact same vantage point where Tim Binsdale shot the best footage of the legendary creature back in 1960.
“I’ll put the sightings with the other sightings,” said Mr Feltham. “I will also continue to carry out surface observations.”
The sighting was recorded on Wednesday afternoon between 2.30pm and 3pm
Thursday, 16 June 2011
An Inverness-shire Water Bull
In my previous blog about the angler on Loch Ness, it was pointed out to me that there was a water bull story just before it! Unfortunately, the loch is not stated as being Loch Ness but a body of water four miles by two. An inspection of an ordnance survey map may reveal some likely candidates but here is the story:
"In Inverness-shire there are many lovely lakes, and many an hour and day have I passed in fishing on some of these. There was one beautiful lake to which I used sometimes to take net and boat, as well as rod. It was a piece of water about four miles long, and one or two broad ; at one end were two sandy bays, forming regular semicircles, with their beaches covered to a width of a few feet with small pebbles. Between these two bays was a bold rocky promontory running into the lake, and covered with fine old pine trees. Along one side was a stretch of perhaps three miles of grey precipitous rocks nearly covered with birch and hazel, which hung over the water, casting a dark shade on it. The other end of the lake was contracted between the rocks till it was lost to the view, while on the remaining side was flat moorland.
Indeed, the hill side which sloped down to the lake had the name of being haunted, and the waters of the lake itself had their ghostly inhabitant in the shape of what the Highlanders called the water-bull. There was also a story of some strange mermaid-like monster being sometimes seen, having the appearance of a monstrous fish with long hair."
After a bit of grubbing around various maps, I think the most likely candidate for the loch is Loch Duntelchaig which is the biggest "satellite" loch around Loch Ness and lies about 3 miles south east of Dores. It seems it once (or still does) form some of the water supply to Inverness. On an older map the loch is named "Loch Dun Seilcheig". Curiously, "seilcheig" is the gaelic genitive singular form of "seilcheag" which means "snail" or "slug". So this loch would appear to be the "loch of the fort of the slug". There are the remains of an Iron Age fort nearby but we wonder what the word "slug" connates. Ted Holiday and other Nessie invertebrate theory fans would be pleased ....
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Interesting Loch Ness story from 1846
Charles St. John in his 1846 book "Short sketches of the wild sports and natural history of the Highlands" had an interesting experience on Loch Ness:
"I was crossing Loch Ness alone one evening with my rod at the stern of the boat, with my trolling-tackle on it trailing behind. Suddenly it was seized by a large trout, and before I could do anything but take hold of my rod he had run out eighty yards of line, and bent my stiff trolling-rod like a willow, carrying half the rod under water. The loch was too deep for me, and he snapped the line in an instant, the rod and the twenty yards of line which remained jerking back into the air, and sending the water in a shower of spray around. Comparing the strength of this fish with that of others which I have killed when trolling, he must have been a perfect water-monster. Indeed I have little doubt that the immense depths of Loch Ness contain trout as large, if not larger, than are to be found in any other loch in Scotland."
Now I don't fish and I doubt Mr. St. John actually saw the brute he got a hold of if it had already spun out 80 yards of line in seconds. Note that if our intrepid angler had taken five seconds between hearing the line turn and grabbing it, then 80 yards in 5 seconds is an average speed of more than 30 miles per hour.
Clearly he was impressed enough with its strength and speed to class it as something beyond an ordinary trout - in fact he calls it a "water-monster" in Loch Ness!
Perhaps some anglers could enlighten me as to the strength required of a freshwater fish to treat a fishing line like this one. Pretty big would seem to be the answer ...
"I was crossing Loch Ness alone one evening with my rod at the stern of the boat, with my trolling-tackle on it trailing behind. Suddenly it was seized by a large trout, and before I could do anything but take hold of my rod he had run out eighty yards of line, and bent my stiff trolling-rod like a willow, carrying half the rod under water. The loch was too deep for me, and he snapped the line in an instant, the rod and the twenty yards of line which remained jerking back into the air, and sending the water in a shower of spray around. Comparing the strength of this fish with that of others which I have killed when trolling, he must have been a perfect water-monster. Indeed I have little doubt that the immense depths of Loch Ness contain trout as large, if not larger, than are to be found in any other loch in Scotland."
Now I don't fish and I doubt Mr. St. John actually saw the brute he got a hold of if it had already spun out 80 yards of line in seconds. Note that if our intrepid angler had taken five seconds between hearing the line turn and grabbing it, then 80 yards in 5 seconds is an average speed of more than 30 miles per hour.
Clearly he was impressed enough with its strength and speed to class it as something beyond an ordinary trout - in fact he calls it a "water-monster" in Loch Ness!
Perhaps some anglers could enlighten me as to the strength required of a freshwater fish to treat a fishing line like this one. Pretty big would seem to be the answer ...
Saturday, 11 June 2011
RockNess
In its continuing attempts to make visitors come to Loch Ness for reasons other than you know what, the local authorities have been supporting the RockNess music festival for the last five years and it continues to grow in popularity.
There is normally something Nessie related and this time we have the mini submarine being rolled out for some monster hunting. No doubt there will also be a good chance that someone high on alcohol or drugs may see something unusual in the waters.
However, some sightings of the monster suggest that the creature is sensitive to noise. Someone shouts, the creature submerges. A car door slams, it's gone. RockNess is reasonably out of the way in the Aldourie Castle area but it seems certain that Nessie will be steering clear of the cacophany.
The BBC Gaelic channel BBC Alba will be showing highlights from the festival tonight so may be worth checking out for any monster related items.
There is normally something Nessie related and this time we have the mini submarine being rolled out for some monster hunting. No doubt there will also be a good chance that someone high on alcohol or drugs may see something unusual in the waters.
However, some sightings of the monster suggest that the creature is sensitive to noise. Someone shouts, the creature submerges. A car door slams, it's gone. RockNess is reasonably out of the way in the Aldourie Castle area but it seems certain that Nessie will be steering clear of the cacophany.
The BBC Gaelic channel BBC Alba will be showing highlights from the festival tonight so may be worth checking out for any monster related items.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Loch Ness Monster Revisionism
There is a trend I see today in Loch Ness Monster research and perhaps cryptozoology in general that I can only describe as harmful to future research. I describe it as a form of revisionism in which the original raw data is subject to additions and deletions all in the name of said research. Let me state the obvious, raw data is of vital importance and to subject it to unwarranted change is to be avoided at all costs.
I have witnessed this in various forms across the board and there is no one single person particularly guilty. It just seems to have become the accepted norm that the data can be revised as if it was incomplete. The problems arise however when the data is being arbitrarily altered to fit current theories rather than because other raw data or the internal evidence demands it. Let me give two theoretical examples where the two opposing approaches are used.
Firstly suppose a witness states that they were looking south towards Castle Urquhart from Foyers. This is patently wrong since Urquhart Castle is north of the village of Foyers. The raw data can be acceptable revised to say "north" instead of "south". However, suppose the editor of the data decides to move the story from Foyers to Inverfarigaig (a few miles north of Foyers). The change may seem negligible but it is wrong if the internal evidence does not warrant it. The first example is correction, the second is revisionism.
I have been debating Dale Drinnon on his theories that some land based sightings of Nessie were elk and six foot otters. Dale is entitled to hold these opinions, promote them and defend them. I don't single him out as being the worst example of what I have seen, in fact, those who believe in a large, unknown creature may also indulge in this. But since he is currently blogging on this, I give my critique. Let me give an example of the problem here.
I posted recently on the Alec Muir land sighting. I quoted verbatim from the original text which you can read here.
Dale mentions this case in a recent blog and I quote:
Name: Alec Muir
Date: 1930's
Location: Inverfarigaig
Description: Large beast crossed road in front of car. Left visible trail (footprints or hoofprints, normal 4-legged animal) and showed depression in vegetation where it had been resting.
The first problem encountered here is the addition of the data "footprints or hoofprints, normal 4-legged animal". The words are not offered as opinion or labelled probable but are given as a statement - they were four legged footprints. However, you will not find these words in the original account for they are words extrapolated and then interpolated into the text above. The original in no way offers any internal evidence to suggest what kind of animal left what kind of trail. There is not enough internal data to make this extrapolation. These are unwarranted words.
The second problem is the omission of data or rather what is not mentioned in this text. The original account states that the creature obstructed the car for a full ten minutes! Now I may be going out on a limb here, but if a witness cannot after ten minutes figure out they are looking at a moose or something that is patently "normal" then they are most likely blind and should not be driving in the first place. The problem is that if the ten minutes is not mentioned in the text then the uninformed reader will naturally assume that this account was fleeting like the other ones and hence "may" have misindentified the creature. I will assume Dale was not aware of this ten minute problem and the omission of data is accidental - although the effect is the same.
So the underlying problem is the all too common problem of making the data fit the theory. Assume a theoretical researcher does not believe that Loch Ness holds large unknown creatures. As a consequence, if he reads an eyewitness report as reporting a long serpentine head and neck, this will be regarded as untrue and inconsistent with whatever theory they hold. The witness was clearly wrong in the researcher's eyes and two things must have happened:
1. The witness misjudged the situation and/or
2. The original account was subsequently exagerrated by the witness or another.
... even if there is no evidence to suggest these accretions happened. However, this leads to the problem of what the witness actually saw and this is where the interpolation prejudiced by the researcher's pet theory comes in. The researcher has justified re-editing the account, but solely on the grounds that there just cannot be a large unknown creature in Loch Ness.
The danger here is that what the editor has added as a comment/opinion can often end up as part of the alleged "original" account. Perhaps in 20 years we will see "de facto" accounts of the Alec Muir sighting in which a beast quickly shot across his car and left hoof marks in the grass and all because of a succession of copying and pasting off the Internet.
I said those who believe in a monster in Loch Ness can be guilty too. Regarding the Alfred Cruickshank land sighting of 1923, Tim Dinsdale was troubled that the beast described was khaki green and had a short neck. This did not harmonise with the usual elephant grey and long neck. Tim to his credit still published the account without any redactionism but offered his thoughts on why this was so. Perhaps the creature was looking towards the car and gave a foreshortened neck appearance. Perhaps the car's ancient magneto lights as they faded gave the creature a green tint.
Ironically, Dale Drinnon accepts Dinsdale's fading green light explanation (presumably because it is convenient to his theory with its inconveniently brown-gray colored super otter). I emailed the owner of a Model T Ford enthusiast's website and asked if the colour of a magneto headlight emitted any colour in full or fading luminence. His reply was this:
"The bulb was a typical light bulb of the time. It was bright white at full brilliance but turned a bit yellowier as the engine slowed down. Looking at it, it just dimmed...a color change was not too evident."
In other words, not very likely to turn a grey/brown otter khaki green. Whatever Cruickshank saw was most likely green. So, when the redactionist approaches this account one can imagine the checklist:
Short Neck (fits my theory - accept)
20 Feet Long (does not fit my theory - change)
Emits barking sound (fits my theory - accept)
Khaki Green in colour (does not fit my theory - change)
You begin to see the problem I hope.
We are in the third generation of Loch Ness Monster researchers. The first were led by Rupert T. Gould and believed in a monster. The second generation were led by Dinsdale thirty years later, went through the LNIB and the Rines expeditions and believed in a monster (with some exceptions like Burton). Nearly thirty years on again and this third and current generation largely does not believe in a monster. In this case, those who believe in a monster are now the exception. Such is the evolution of a skeptical society. The Loch Ness phenomenon is shoehorned into the genres of each successive generation but what the beast actually is when stripped of each generation's preconceptions is another matter entirely.
I have witnessed this in various forms across the board and there is no one single person particularly guilty. It just seems to have become the accepted norm that the data can be revised as if it was incomplete. The problems arise however when the data is being arbitrarily altered to fit current theories rather than because other raw data or the internal evidence demands it. Let me give two theoretical examples where the two opposing approaches are used.
Firstly suppose a witness states that they were looking south towards Castle Urquhart from Foyers. This is patently wrong since Urquhart Castle is north of the village of Foyers. The raw data can be acceptable revised to say "north" instead of "south". However, suppose the editor of the data decides to move the story from Foyers to Inverfarigaig (a few miles north of Foyers). The change may seem negligible but it is wrong if the internal evidence does not warrant it. The first example is correction, the second is revisionism.
I have been debating Dale Drinnon on his theories that some land based sightings of Nessie were elk and six foot otters. Dale is entitled to hold these opinions, promote them and defend them. I don't single him out as being the worst example of what I have seen, in fact, those who believe in a large, unknown creature may also indulge in this. But since he is currently blogging on this, I give my critique. Let me give an example of the problem here.
I posted recently on the Alec Muir land sighting. I quoted verbatim from the original text which you can read here.
Dale mentions this case in a recent blog and I quote:
Name: Alec Muir
Date: 1930's
Location: Inverfarigaig
Description: Large beast crossed road in front of car. Left visible trail (footprints or hoofprints, normal 4-legged animal) and showed depression in vegetation where it had been resting.
The first problem encountered here is the addition of the data "footprints or hoofprints, normal 4-legged animal". The words are not offered as opinion or labelled probable but are given as a statement - they were four legged footprints. However, you will not find these words in the original account for they are words extrapolated and then interpolated into the text above. The original in no way offers any internal evidence to suggest what kind of animal left what kind of trail. There is not enough internal data to make this extrapolation. These are unwarranted words.
The second problem is the omission of data or rather what is not mentioned in this text. The original account states that the creature obstructed the car for a full ten minutes! Now I may be going out on a limb here, but if a witness cannot after ten minutes figure out they are looking at a moose or something that is patently "normal" then they are most likely blind and should not be driving in the first place. The problem is that if the ten minutes is not mentioned in the text then the uninformed reader will naturally assume that this account was fleeting like the other ones and hence "may" have misindentified the creature. I will assume Dale was not aware of this ten minute problem and the omission of data is accidental - although the effect is the same.
So the underlying problem is the all too common problem of making the data fit the theory. Assume a theoretical researcher does not believe that Loch Ness holds large unknown creatures. As a consequence, if he reads an eyewitness report as reporting a long serpentine head and neck, this will be regarded as untrue and inconsistent with whatever theory they hold. The witness was clearly wrong in the researcher's eyes and two things must have happened:
1. The witness misjudged the situation and/or
2. The original account was subsequently exagerrated by the witness or another.
... even if there is no evidence to suggest these accretions happened. However, this leads to the problem of what the witness actually saw and this is where the interpolation prejudiced by the researcher's pet theory comes in. The researcher has justified re-editing the account, but solely on the grounds that there just cannot be a large unknown creature in Loch Ness.
The danger here is that what the editor has added as a comment/opinion can often end up as part of the alleged "original" account. Perhaps in 20 years we will see "de facto" accounts of the Alec Muir sighting in which a beast quickly shot across his car and left hoof marks in the grass and all because of a succession of copying and pasting off the Internet.
I said those who believe in a monster in Loch Ness can be guilty too. Regarding the Alfred Cruickshank land sighting of 1923, Tim Dinsdale was troubled that the beast described was khaki green and had a short neck. This did not harmonise with the usual elephant grey and long neck. Tim to his credit still published the account without any redactionism but offered his thoughts on why this was so. Perhaps the creature was looking towards the car and gave a foreshortened neck appearance. Perhaps the car's ancient magneto lights as they faded gave the creature a green tint.
Ironically, Dale Drinnon accepts Dinsdale's fading green light explanation (presumably because it is convenient to his theory with its inconveniently brown-gray colored super otter). I emailed the owner of a Model T Ford enthusiast's website and asked if the colour of a magneto headlight emitted any colour in full or fading luminence. His reply was this:
"The bulb was a typical light bulb of the time. It was bright white at full brilliance but turned a bit yellowier as the engine slowed down. Looking at it, it just dimmed...a color change was not too evident."
In other words, not very likely to turn a grey/brown otter khaki green. Whatever Cruickshank saw was most likely green. So, when the redactionist approaches this account one can imagine the checklist:
Short Neck (fits my theory - accept)
20 Feet Long (does not fit my theory - change)
Emits barking sound (fits my theory - accept)
Khaki Green in colour (does not fit my theory - change)
You begin to see the problem I hope.
We are in the third generation of Loch Ness Monster researchers. The first were led by Rupert T. Gould and believed in a monster. The second generation were led by Dinsdale thirty years later, went through the LNIB and the Rines expeditions and believed in a monster (with some exceptions like Burton). Nearly thirty years on again and this third and current generation largely does not believe in a monster. In this case, those who believe in a monster are now the exception. Such is the evolution of a skeptical society. The Loch Ness phenomenon is shoehorned into the genres of each successive generation but what the beast actually is when stripped of each generation's preconceptions is another matter entirely.
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
The Elk debate continues ...
Sadly, not a lot happens on the cutting edge of cryptid research as far as the Loch Ness Monster is concerned. You may read what is called research as people offer new explanations on how a famous case was actually a hoax or some known animal will be brought in as a new suspect for what was actually seen by witnesses. Useful in terms of cleaning up at the edges, but it does not get us further in identifying what actually lurks beneath the waves of Loch Ness.
That this should not surprise us is evident for most researchers I will bet do not believe anything monster like exists there today. It is all misidentification and lies. I have addressed this overblown theory before and will continue to highlight its deficiencies. But that does not mean debate should be stifled on either side as some kind of sense is made of the raw data.
In that light, I go back to Dale Drinnon who has replied to my earlier posts on elks at Loch Ness (see link). Elks follow on in the line of deer, otters and homo hoaxus as possible explanations for lumbering nessies.
My latest reply is this:
I think you are making the data fit the theory. Firstly, there are no elk in Scotland. I asked you for specifics on where and when but you did not choose to reply. Unlike the more exotic interpretations of Nessie, surely an Elk carcass or live animal would have been found or caught around Loch Ness a long time ago. They can't hide under 700 foot of peaty water after all. Or the idea that an elk turned up in 1933 and died a few years later is just too convenient. There are too many improbables that have to come together for the elk theory:
1. One or two turned up when they are not indigenous to Scotland.
2. Witnesses exaggerated their statements through misperception, lying and partial amnesia.
3. No one stayed around long enough to see one submerge and if they did it was probably drowning.
4. Why no such sightings along the other Great Glen lochs?
If you say that the stories become more plesiosaur like with the telling then you have to go the whole hog. Fordyce would have added flippers and made his animal less hairy to keep up with the plesiosaurs! And to be frank, an elk head is HUGE, it is a bit of a push to have us believe it was not noticeable to witnesses.
Some of the accounts may have elk like features such as hooves which need some explaining on my part. But others don't and that invalidates the elk theory - it has to explain everything.
So please do not go down the "rest are hoaxes" approach to shoehorn in partial theories! I know it bolsters your case but try and make your elk theory stand on its own four feet.
As some kind of advance publicity, I will be talking on land sightings of Nessie in January 2012 at the Edinburgh Fortean Society. I will be taking the stance that the thirty land sightings do in fact describe an unknown or unidentified large creature. That does not mean I gullibly swallow all accounts but neither should the extreme of rejecting the lot be countenanced either!
That this should not surprise us is evident for most researchers I will bet do not believe anything monster like exists there today. It is all misidentification and lies. I have addressed this overblown theory before and will continue to highlight its deficiencies. But that does not mean debate should be stifled on either side as some kind of sense is made of the raw data.
In that light, I go back to Dale Drinnon who has replied to my earlier posts on elks at Loch Ness (see link). Elks follow on in the line of deer, otters and homo hoaxus as possible explanations for lumbering nessies.
My latest reply is this:
I think you are making the data fit the theory. Firstly, there are no elk in Scotland. I asked you for specifics on where and when but you did not choose to reply. Unlike the more exotic interpretations of Nessie, surely an Elk carcass or live animal would have been found or caught around Loch Ness a long time ago. They can't hide under 700 foot of peaty water after all. Or the idea that an elk turned up in 1933 and died a few years later is just too convenient. There are too many improbables that have to come together for the elk theory:
1. One or two turned up when they are not indigenous to Scotland.
2. Witnesses exaggerated their statements through misperception, lying and partial amnesia.
3. No one stayed around long enough to see one submerge and if they did it was probably drowning.
4. Why no such sightings along the other Great Glen lochs?
If you say that the stories become more plesiosaur like with the telling then you have to go the whole hog. Fordyce would have added flippers and made his animal less hairy to keep up with the plesiosaurs! And to be frank, an elk head is HUGE, it is a bit of a push to have us believe it was not noticeable to witnesses.
Some of the accounts may have elk like features such as hooves which need some explaining on my part. But others don't and that invalidates the elk theory - it has to explain everything.
So please do not go down the "rest are hoaxes" approach to shoehorn in partial theories! I know it bolsters your case but try and make your elk theory stand on its own four feet.
As some kind of advance publicity, I will be talking on land sightings of Nessie in January 2012 at the Edinburgh Fortean Society. I will be taking the stance that the thirty land sightings do in fact describe an unknown or unidentified large creature. That does not mean I gullibly swallow all accounts but neither should the extreme of rejecting the lot be countenanced either!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)