On the 25th anniversary of Operation Deepscan, The BBC have run an article and podcast on the Loch Ness Monster worth reading and listening to. Adrian Shine is interviewed on his times at Loch Ness and his views on the 79 year hunt and what may constitute the Loch Ness Monster. Jonathan Downes of CFZ also contributes.
The theme of not quite "getting there" in a final theory continues to this day as Adrian looked back on those three sonar contacts from 1987 which he says he cannot explain to this day. In fact, the general tone of the article may be summed up in one quote:
Nevertheless, Shine says it is hard to dismiss "the honesty and volume" of eyewitness testimony of the Loch Ness monster.
Now this raises a question with me. Adrian is honest enough to say he doesn't quite know what these sonar contacts are telling him. Yet, he could have simply said it was a seal or his favoured sturgeon. But it seems these explanations are inadequate as it was a bit deep for a seal (and did anyone in that mass of boats see a seal surfacing - as it must). As for a sturgeon, again I guess it did not pass muster.
So, fair enough, it was marked inconclusive. But 25 years on, should it still be marked inconclusive? After a quarter century, has no progress been made on what a seal sonar signature looks like or how a sturgeon would behave in Loch Ness? Perhaps the "inconclusive" tag is better served with a "waiting for an explanation" tag.
But if you run out of "normal" explanations, should there be a "sell by date" on them and tentatively conclude it could be an unknown and animate object?
P.S. They mentions "Doctor Who and the Zygons" which features a rather threatening Nessie. The sooner they get this on DVD the better ... perhaps next year?