Dr. Beachcombing at his folklore and history blog recounts the day Donald Omand tried to exorcise Loch Ness of any evil spirits. You can read it here.
The Doctor asked for and got some photographs of the event, but I can go one further and have found a video of the exorcism episode from the 1976 documentary "The Legend of the Loch". The bloke holding the bottle of water for Donald Omand is Ted Holiday himself. I believe this was actually a rerun of the ceremony as the BBC was not there for the initial run.Click here for the link.
The Loons of the Loch would be more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteHey GB, you have a new approach to ridding your pages of my sceptical influence.- frustrating me by not putting up my posts, but putting pro-Nessie ones up that have been posted after.
ReplyDeleteYou can't even say it's due to me stirring people up when "john" is allowed to be as rude as he wants, just because he believes in the myth.
GS, if I wanted rid of you, I would just ban you outright.
DeleteSo why haven't you? I suspect it's because you are confident and sure of your debating abilities, and you know that to ban me would actually be an admission of defeat, even if the public were none the wiser. Am I right?
DeleteI haven't banned anyone on four years of running this blog and I am confident in what I debate! But I still expect you to eventually get bored and drift off!
DeleteThat’s right GB, eventually GS will realize he is going nowhere with all his bluster and annoying little self and probably drift off to the Bigfoot, UFO and conspiracy sites from which he no doubt came. Or, he may decide to stay and continue to be an irritant, offering little in critical thinking and intelligent comment or debate. You don’t have to ban him, let him burnout and self-destruct.
DeleteJudging by your tone, my posts are working.
DeleteHow feeble would a crypto website be without sceptical input? It would be like an unchallenged religion.
And you once again prove your wonderful ability to make false assumptions. I have never in my life posted on a Bigfoot, UFO or conspiracy forum. My interest is in Nessie and the continuation of the myth in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence.
Overwhelming lack of evidence?
DeleteNow I feel GS is following an internet psy warfare template.
Why?
Control freaks for the evolutionary view point.I even think he is paid,and is probably of a hermetic Scottish order.
Think synergy and guirjeff.
John, GS is most likely not part of some psi warfare corps. If he was, he would be doing a better job. :)
DeleteHermetic Scottish Order? Wasn't there some secret society looking after Nessie in Alten's book?
Oh lord, we're back on the templates stuff again are we?
DeleteWe're discussing the possibility of an unknown animal in a Scottish lake. Nothing that could possibly warrant psychological warfare, cover ups, templates or any other such paranoid nonsense.
Haha,at least day shift,Geordie skeptic has a sense of humor Bette than nightshift Geordie and that hey guys female Geordie who got the sack. on well you get all types for. Minimum wage.
DeleteAnd for GB, I suspect you're right and I will drift away. If there were more believers like you, this would be a great debating site about Nessie, because you hold your own in debates, you're intelligent and rarely sound angry or defensive.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the same cannot be said for most others here. They frequently throw their toys out of the pram and scream "Geordie Sceptic, don't you DARE take my big lake dinosaur away from me!!" It's sometimes funny to read, but mostly toe-curlingly embarrassing.
Hello Geordie Sceptic,
Deletemy Dictionary states that Sceptics believe real knowledge of things is impossible.With that in mind do you ever doubt your own non-Nessie position.
Also out of curiosity can I ask if your name is Geordie or are you a citizen of Newcastle upon Tyne and therefore a ''Geordie''.
Jack.
Hi Jack. Yes I do have a small element of doubt. Without being able to drain the loch I cannot feel 100% sure nothing unusual is in there. Ask the same question of the believers - do any of them have doubts? How about GB?
DeleteCorrect, I am a Newcastle upon Tyne Geordie.
You may drift away, GS, but that just happens. Even "believers" drift off to other parts of the Internet. But again, the insults are most defintely not reserved to my side of the camp. I don't have to search far to see sceptics resorting to this tactic instead of engaging properly.
DeleteTrue enough. I regret the santa comment.
DeleteTurning to this article, why would anyone want to exorcise the loch anyway? I could maybe understand it if there had been several accidents or deaths, but why feel the need to drive away Nessie? Oddballs.
ReplyDeleteI can't recall who insitigated the whole thing, but Omand had a track record of exorcising stretches of waters.
DeleteWell, Omand sensed a 'presence of evil.' Weird link GB, liked the casual reference to what he does when he's 'exorcising big circus cats' as if that's some kind of normal activity.
DeleteGS, there's some explanation of the 'reasoning' behind the exorcism at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mythfolk/conversations/topics/849
and there's a discussion in Roland's book The Water Horses of Loch Ness which says Ted Holiday sensed 'the spectre of the ancient Dragon... overwhelmingly evil in itself' and then suggested the exorcism. A very traditional approach perhaps? GB, do you know if there was a tradition of exorcising water horses in Scotland?
None, Ben. The rite of exorcism is more an Anglican/Catholic thing, Scottish Presbyterians were not really into that sort of thing.
DeleteInteresting. Though parts of the Highlands (round Loch Morar for instance) were remote enough that the reformation didn't get there and they stayed Catholic. Though the stuff in The Water Horses about talismans of rowan or silver protecting people from the water horse sounds more pagan...
DeleteHaven't posted here in months....
ReplyDeleteGS seems fine to me. I'll also agree that some folks will take anything said about their sacred cow as an insult regardless.
I used to believe wholeheartedly back in the 60's and 70's but am now agnostic. While I think there is some of eyewitness 'evidence' that's hard to dismiss, there is a preponderance of fraud, misidentification, lack of solid photographic, physical evidence and ecology factors that makes a LNM very doubtful.
Until something undeniable as proof comes along... even just crystal clear video or stills that show what is obviously 'animal' (as opposed to those skinny sticks coming out of the water that fisherman took a while back for example), I would love there be an LNM
Jon
Thank you Jon, it's nice to have someone not getting angry with me for once!
DeleteLoch Ness is a fascinating place, and like you I would also love there to be a monster colony. I think it's this desire - probably borne out of human intrigue for mystery and childhood interest in dinosaurs - which makes people both (a) do their absolute best to explain away the lack of evidence with at times absurd theories, and (b) react very angrily when their monster is being seriously challenged.
I do recall the sinking feeling I had all those years ago when it dawned on me it was all just a myth, so I do understand why people resist giving up on it. It's never easy to let go of something so exciting.
Hey, I like you too! Any fan of "Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines" can't be all bad... :)
DeleteThanks to you too, Chasing Leviathan. DD and Muttley were great characters, so good in the earlier Wacky Races that they were offered their own show. :-)
DeleteThere are some parallels between the search for Nessie and DD's attempts to catch the pigeon.
I remember Dick Dastardly actually winning a Wacky Race once, cheating in the process of course. Kind of reminds me a little of Frank Searle :-)
DeleteHaha.how do you explain that sinking feeling that guy in the kayak had when a large long neck w flippers and long tail swam a foot under his kayak.?
DeleteYou're welcome GS. I think we come from the same place. We'd like something to be so, but won't rely solely on sheer faith but require somewhat substantial proof and generally find the stretching of usually the very weakest of 'evidence' as definitive proof.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I do have disdain for the usual professional and layman debunker types who kneejerk naysay everything (UFO's, paranormal) with as equally preposterous explanations as the blind faith believer might do.
Concerning the LNM, I'm still not convinced Dinsdale shot a boat, lol, and have debated as much in an earlier posting by GB here on the subject... yet I also feel there is so much that points to there being no LNM
Be Well
Jon
Jon, I hear you regarding blanket debunking. Sceptics would be wise to remember that new discoveries are made, and we can be sure that some of what we currently regard as scientific fact will be laughed at 100 years from now. That's always been the case.
DeleteRegarding the Dinsdale film, have you seen the results of multiple frame overlays, and how a man-sized shape appears exactly where a man would be positioned on a small powered boat?
Hi GS... yes indeed. It was one of the points I had mulled over but wasn't convinced by for various reasons. Its all in the GB's blog post about Dinsdales son's book IIRC.
DeleteBasically I think I boils down to, given the rather short distances involved (despite not ideal atmospheric conditions) that he (or anyone) could have not seen a boat. Plus I questioned the overlay experiment was rather crude in nature and a one off iirc. But that's just me, lol ;)
Anyway, that debate is more suited to some future blog entry
Jon
Jon, the overlay experiment is on my todo list, but it is not trivial due to the large number of frames. But its on the list ...
DeleteGB if you discover a clear image of a man with a sailor's cap, smoking a pipe, you won't suggest it's a growth on a monster's back will you? :-)
DeleteMore like a man-blob as opposed to a Nessie-blob. It seems some blobs are meant to be more convincing than others.
DeleteCertainly a shape of a boat with a man on it is somewhat likely to be a boat with a man on it rather than a monster. Obviously the fuzzy, grainy nature of the film allows people to convince themselves it's not just a boat.
DeleteGB...
DeleteGiven the material one would have to work with, that being not the originals, could anything of value be discerned anyway besides assorted blobs?
Jon
The original is not needed. I have a decent enough copy.
DeleteI suppose if it was just the film on its own merit by some one off tourist or notorious hoaxer, then yeah... but with the accompanying eye witness account by Dinsdale it's difficult for me to write the event off.
DeleteJon
My view is that footage has to stand up to scrutiny entirely on its own. We should not judge the film based on Dinsdale's testimony, because that part of the story is untestable, and to use a favourite GB word, "unfalsifiable". We simply have to accept Dinsdale could have been mistaken, or in fact lied.
DeleteI am as close to 100% certain as is possible that the object in the film is a small boat.
This seems to me to be an example of techie imprisonment. We are presented with something, photo or video, in a neatly-packaged format and invited to argue things from there. Whether or not there was a sound of engines or a certain pattern of weather or waterfowl or humans doing something out of the camera line we don't know. The item is still there for us to debate however many years later, which is a plus. But don't forget that it's an impoverished version of reality.
Delete*AnonStg*
The underwater Rines photos from the 70's were enhanced and many people rubbished the pictures because of this. Why should any credence be given to the image stacking process of enhancement that was applied to the Dinsdale footage? It looks to me as if it has just added some image interference to what was already a reasonable quality film.
DeleteHi GS... while I am fully aware of the varied psychological workings regarding how the human brain constructs representations of 'reality', I am reminded of that somewhat famous reply between I forget who regarding whether or not reality is an illusion... (to paraphrase) 'stub my toe on a rock will it not hurt?" ...
DeleteIOW, regardless of how the brain goes about constructing a view of reality via the senses, there is still a certain fact that most of the time, if I saw what I saw, I saw it! :-)
If on the other hand we all suffer from some form of mass delusion, then we might as well throw out everything gleaned through the senses including all the science and measuring equipment designed and manufactured by the human sensory system for one.
Anyway, that's my current opinion on the subject.
OTOH, I never really bought into the surgeons photo because the object just didn't look very large in comparison to the rippling waters around it
While we'd probably agree on 95% of the overall LNM issue, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. ;-)
Jon
Image stacking does the opposite of introducing interference. It allows the random grain and noise of a film to even itself out, thus ensuring that what appears on the stacked image was actually there. It's a scientific technique accepted by imaging experts - including those in the forensic field - and it is wholly appropriate in this case where an object has been captured on old film stock with enough frames for the overlaying process to be effective.
DeleteYou don't like the human sized image that this technique has revealed, but it's there for all to see. The image does not meet with what you wished to see, but that in no way makes the technique used improper.
My view regarding Dinsdale's testimony is that he probably thought he was filming a hump, and then added the embellishments such as seeing the dapple like a cow's through binoculars to bolster the film. It always struck me as very telling that he filmed neither the beginning nor end of the blob's transition along the water. As a Nessie-believing child I saw this film on TV. I was really excited, then immediately disappointed - the object sat perched on the water, had a boat wake and moved like a boat. From the moment I saw it, I knew it was just a boat. The image stacking process should have ended all debate on this film, but experience shows people fight over their Nessie "evidence" to the bitter end.
Having said all that Jon, I respectfully agree that we can disagree on this one!
Well, no one has the original 16mm film to do the stacking, but the issue here is repeatability, can I (or anyone else) reproduce what is claimed?
DeleteI'll be interested in your results because I think you'll do it fairly. The frames need to be randomly chosen (obviously).
DeleteI thought I saw on the web 2 separate examples of this stacking process having been carried out, both producing the same image, am I wrong?
Oh and Pete - the flippers were actually HAND PAINTED on. There was nothing scientific or objective about that enhancement!
DeleteGS, just so that you don’t think all of us believers are yes-men and go along with everything remotely associated with the LNM mystery, I don’t believe that the famous and controversial “Flipper and Gargoyle Head” shots show anything but what one’s imagination and “wanting to see” mind set allows.
DeleteYou are correct in that the validity of the photos cast doubt as to them actually showing an animal, due to the enhancement and retouching controversy. If the Loch Ness waters where crystal clear than there would be no doubt, so I’ll give you that one! If you haven’t already done so check out Dick Raynor’s analysis of the Flipper pic here: http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/flipper.html
He should know of what he speaks, he was there. You have already cast doubt as to Raynor’s status as a skeptic, so take it for what it’s worth. As I mentioned previously, you are a very skeptical person, even skeptical of skeptics!
John A, I consider it everyone's responsibility to question what they see and hear. If I think a sceptic is talking nonsene I'll call it out. Equally I will admit it when something challenges my beliefs, such as the intriguing tourist video I've mentioned more than once on these pages. I also believe it's the responsibility of believers to let go of previously cherished pieces of "evidence" such as the Dinsdale film, when a fair a scientific modern analysis clearly points them in the opposite direction.
DeleteWe all need to question our beliefs regularly if we want to really find the answers.
You'd be the first to call out sceptic nonsense. They tend to treat each other with too much deference.
DeleteAs do believers, often making statements such as "Mackal's book showed..." as though it's some kind of scientific reference book accepted by the biology community, when it's anything but.
DeleteBoth sides should challenge their "comrades" much more often.
Do to the convergent EV solution,Nessie has developed a growth shaped like. A man w a pip and captain s cap in order to blend in amongst the boats.its for survival.the animals are smart.unlike the skeptics...
DeleteGoogled 'image stacking forensics'
ReplyDeleteon whim, went from here: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/17098/csi-image-resolution-enhance-how-real-is-it
to a link there to here: http://ampedsoftware.com/samples
and: http://www.motiondsp.com/solutions/IkenaForensic
there's some other links in the answer section as well
enjoy!
Jon
Too add to my previous post
ReplyDeleteSo GB, there appears to be software available to do this image stacking thing but whether or not it or its services are affordable I do not know.
@Pete
Image stacking technique is not the only thing to do with an image computer-wise. As far as I understand it, the Rines flipper image was more 'enhanced' by actually painting in a more appropriate looking flipper rather than contrast enhancements
Jon
That's the problem GS. You say that there is a "human sized object" there for all to see. Obviously this isn't the case as we would all have been in agreement years ago. I went over this with Dick Raynor a year or so ago. He says its a boat, I have absolutely no idea what is actually shown other than it being a poorly enhanced form of some kind. He also tried to explain, very unconvincingly, the absence of any propeller wash due to the relatively high 2 stroke oil to petrol mixture used in the motors at that time. As I've already said, not very convincing.
ReplyDeleteDick Raynor is not the almighty spokesman of the Nessie sceptics Pete. If he can't see boat wash from the blob he maybe needs a trip to Specsavers.
Deleteimage stacking is legitimate and in this instance shows a clear, irrefutable artifact which eliminates the possibility of a smooth humped back of a monster. That stacked image looks so much like a man in a small motorboat, I can scarcely believe anyone would argue it's anything else.
Nobody is the almighty GS and I'm sure Dick wouldn't claim to be. He actually said that the prop wash was disguised by some exotically named light reflection involving the supposed oil slick on the Loch surface produced from the emissions of its 2 stroke engine. I do however have some respect for his input, albeit a little strained sometimes, as he has spent many years on and around the Loch deservedly earning it. At the same time this in no way means that he is automatically going to gain everybody's agreement. The additional info supplied with Tim's film, ie. his own account of using binoculars and the filming of a comparison boat shortly after, lead me to believe that calling the object in the footage a boat is the only answer that sceptics can come up with as this is their mind set. I can't say it's the LNM, I don't know what it is but I'm sure it's not a boat and I'm not going to call it a boat just because I have no other explanation. Maybe we could have a poll concerning the stacked image, it would be interesting to see the results.
DeleteA poll on here or among the general public? Think the results would be somewhat different depending on who you asked.
DeleteIts the back of a large animal.computer enhancement showed the neck and tail just under the surface
DeleteThere's no doubt in my mind that it's been shown beyond reasonable doubt that Dinsdale filmed a boat that day. The analysis to that effect from various sources is, to me at least, pretty compelling.
ReplyDeleteDinsdale always came across as a good guy, but on that day i think he was mistaken.
However, his film did usher in an era of more serious investigation of the phenomenon. To that end it did achieve something.
Hi, trevorthecat. Can I please ask you to expand on the 'various sources' you mention above? The only work on this I know of was that of the Loch Ness Project. Dr Henry Bauer has shown some enhanced frames on his website that he claims show there is no boat, but as this doesn't appear to have been an image stacking exercise it's not an accurate comparison and I'm not sure this really takes us anywhere.
DeleteRepeatability is the thing here I'd say. If a number of different sources are carrying out the same experiment and coming to the same conclusions that makes the case for misidentification extremely strong. But it would be useful to know who those sources are.
Many thanks for any help you can give on this.
A Naked Science documentary relatively recently (the date escapes me) used a different technique - stereoscopic imaging - to come to the exact same conclusion, namely that it's a man in a boat Dinsdale has filmed. One of the original JARIC analysts was involved and came to the same conclusion too.
DeleteThat, plus the work of the LNIB on the film, is evidence beyond reasonable doubt for me. It's hard to argue with it, especially when there's little by way of counter argument.
I recall that stereoscopic excerpt and it was very short on detail. I don't remember seeing any of the results being shown and discussed or much detail on how they did it. I would like to know more first.
DeleteI saw it on National Geographic - it wasn't that long ago as i recall. It was only a short 15 minute excerpt, and i can't really recall the specifics, only that it seemed convincing to me, and more telling perhaps also to the JARIC analyst.
DeleteGiven the JARIC analysis at the time is the most cited piece of supporting verification for the original film, i'd say the analyst changing his opinion according to more recent study is fairly telling. Also telling was the fact this study came to the same conclusion as the LNIB study, and using a different method.
Not compelling enough for some perhaps, but good enough for me.
Interesting. Many thanks for the response. It would be useful to know what copy of the film the programme's research was conducted with as this may (or may not) have a bearing on their results.
DeleteThanks again for the info. All good food for thought. :)
There's no doubt that dinsdale filmed the back of a large animal that day. the RAF scientists confirmed it,AND their text was good enough to detect a boat,which they all stated it wasent.give it up paid skeptics.
DeleteGeordie skeptic,its your supervisor .put more emphesis on the long eel theory,and don't even mention the name plesiasaur as it disrupts our masters evolutionary religion.and don't stop posting,or I'll dock you a days pay.good day.
DeleteDick Raynor is a total shill. He even debunks himself from what I've seen. Ted Holiday is the only investigator who has asked the right questions. He knew that something extra weird is going on and still goes on at Ness. If it weren't, this baby would have been put to bed 70 years ago.
ReplyDeleteEach to their own i suppose. Any work i've read of Raynor's has always seemed measured and well argued. Holiday, on the other hand, always came across as a crank.
DeletePity we could ot get some new investigators.if you dont believe then why bother investigating. We need a couple of good investigators who believe or at least are 50/50. All we have now is steve feltham who despite everyone thinking he is the bees knees is actually quite hopless. Who else ? Hoaxer George Edwards. Now Rines has passed away nobody is doing what the believers want. I think all this sonar and feltham / shine investigation is old hat now. Pity we couldnt have another Dinsdale who spent hours scanning the surface and did it all hours of the day not just when he decides to get out of bed like some people.
ReplyDeleteI think many investigators start out as either believers, or at least with an open mind. Rines is in my opinion a poor example to cite as his approach to the phenomenon was flawed and underpinned by pseudo-science, albeit no doubt based on good intentions.
DeleteAs for Steve Feltham - i wonder if he really does still believe in the existence of Nessie? I think he's developed himself a nice little marketable persona as the 'Nessie-Hunter', but really...?
tim wrote Pity we could ot get some new investigators.if you dont believe then why bother investigating. Duh? If you believe then you dont need to do any investigating, just churn out the blogs.
DeleteI speak to Steve whenever I go up, I think he believes there is a large creature under the water. I am not sure what he exactly thinks it is.
DeleteJust churn out the blogs? I don't think so.
DeleteI see Steve most days as i live up here. Have to say, i'm not sure how much actual 'hunting' the Nessie-Hunter does these days as he always seems to be either in the Dores Inn or just chewing the fat with passers by at his cabin. He doesn't appear to get around the loch that much.
DeleteTo be truthful, I doubt I would be running around the loch every day watching the waters. Monster hunting has the potential to be more automated these days.
DeleteTrue, but there ain't much 'automated' about hanging out in Dores Inn carpark;-)
DeleteI've spoken to Steve a few times. Seems a nice guy, very relaxed. Not the most driven or earnest person I've ever met though! I feel like he's just chilling out up there. Very different to the more active hunters of the 20th century.
DeleteGs, your submitted comment on religion has been rejected as I fail to see how your comments relate to the Loch Ness Monster and it may just wind up anyone who a faith based belief system.
ReplyDeleteBut, sceptics who suggest belief in a Loch Ness Monster is somehow akin to a religion are way off base. The debate should be more centred on what constitutes evidence rather than the simplistic view that just because something cannot be measured with a scientific instrument it is therefore a "faith" item.
Fair enough GB, and while I was writing it I was thinking a rejection was likely, and probably justified. But I'm sure you got the essence of what I was saying, i.e. that the fact this story has been around for 80 years with people still believing it, is not in itself any kind of indicator that there must be something in it.
DeleteOf course there is a need to invedtigate if you believe so a bigger DOOHHH ! The investigation is to find out what type of animals they are. If you dont believe there is any large aquatic animals in there then no point in investigating. Not rocket science!
ReplyDeleteWhy would a sceptic who is always on here ridiculing people speak to steve feltham a few times? Mmmmm the plot thickens!!
ReplyDeleteIf you've read my numerous replies to your repeated remarks, you wouldn't need to ask that, john. I'll state (hopefully for the last time), that I have a lifelong interest in Loch Ness. When I was young it was due to wishful thinking that a plesiosaur lives in a Scottish lake, and as I got older my interest remained strong, but from the angle of wondering why what I consider to be a myth persists, regardless of how many decades pass with no evidence beyond the anecdotal.
DeleteIn short, john, I am interested in what makes people like yourself and Steve Feltham tick.
To be fair i'd imagine Steve Feltham is approached by a whole lot of people who don't believe in Nessie on a regular basis. He's in an ideal spot for passing the time of day with visitors, and whether you believe in the monster or not, it doesn't alter the fact that someone like him is an interesting character to chat with.
DeleteHmmmmm ok Mr Sceptic i believe you NOT !!
ReplyDeleteOk please let everyone know your theory about me and my motives. I'd love to hear it, in all its conspiratorial glory. Fire away.
DeleteI d dont need 2. Its obvious 2 everybody!
ReplyDeleteReally john? I don't see anyone else accusing me of being anything more than an irritant.
ReplyDeleteBeginning to wonder if Loch Ness does need exorcising! It certainly seems to generate unnecessary ill will between people interested in it...
DeleteIt's not only LN. From what I gather with an ear to the other 'paranormal' topics... ufo's, hauntings, etc..... there is almost nothing but infighting. You have the opportunistic charlatans, the religious zealots, the egotists with their pet theories.... It's all silly human ego that it all boils down to really.
DeleteThen again, this behavior is not solely restricted to occult research. Same behavior occurs in politics, corporations, communities.... everybody jockying for position.
There's absolutely no reason for rancor here. LN is not life or death. It's an interesting and fun topic to ENJOY.
If it were at all possible to all get together I'd bet we'd have a great time in each others company. Interesting characters all no doubt!
Jon
Nice comment. Well said! :)
DeleteJon, you are so right! Very wise words. I'd love to meet everyone. Well apart from any oddballs who think I'm Illuminati, rather than a bloke who just posts stuff about Nessie a bit too often. :-)
DeleteA prudent comment, Jon. Perhaps best to ignore GS. :)
DeleteWhy do you say that, GB? I've always shown you respect.
DeleteTotally second Jon's comments, and also GS's - it would be fun to all meet up. When I was last at the loch in February and my best friend Faye and I met Dick Raynor again for the first time in almost a decade, he greeted us with: "So, you've made your way back to the centre of the universe!" It's an amazing place, a fascinating place and it's annoying people need to spit vitriol at each other because they do or do not 'believe.'
DeleteI'll crave your indulgence and quote the book that first interested me in Loch Ness as a child. It's the Encyclopaedia of Monsters by Daniel Cohen, and in the section River and Lake Monsters the longest entry is for Loch Ness.
The first paragraph in the nine-page entry runs: "The Loch Ness monster, or Nessie, is quite justifiably the most celebrated of all the modern monsters or unknown animals. The subject of Nessie has been investigated with unusual care, and while the evidence produced has not convinced everyone that there is a large unknown creature or herd of creatures living in Loch Ness, even sceptics have been impressed by the quality of some of the evidence.'
It finishes even more beautifully: "News of the final proof of the existence of the monster may be in tomorrow's paper, or the next day's. Until then the Loch Ness Monster remains what it has always been, the most tantalising and best of the world's modern cryptozoological mysteries."
Written in the 70s when things looked better. But they'll look up. There is, as Dick said to me and Faye, "something strange going on in these lakes."
GS: "Why do you say that, GB? I've always shown you respect."
DeleteNot so much a sign of disrespect as realisation that this is more about point scoring than convincing the other of their view. I suspect it is a rare event when a "believer" goes to "sceptic" and back to "believer". You've burned your bridges and I don't think there is anything I could say or do to change that.
You're basically waiting for the carcass to appear on the BBC news. Until then, this is all rather pointless.
The only reason I've burned any bridges with you is because you know that some (not all) believers can see I'm making very valid points, some of which you're struggling with badly.
DeleteA mature website would welcome such intense debate, but perhaps you're more comfortable surrounded by wide-eyed followers?
Struggling badly? Well, I would expect a sceptic to say that no matter what I said. If you have assigned that hyperbolic label because I had not yet given you an answer on witnesses,cameras and emotional reaction, I have already said why.
DeleteIt is not clear whether that answer has sunk in with you. If it hasn't, that is another reason not to debate because I have no confidence you take in anything I say.
I'm sorry I haven't yet realized my retirement/off grid plans for hopefully settling near lake champlain or memphremagog or perhaps flathead or okanagan out west. This way I could invite you geezers over for some serious monster hunting in a lake whose denizens don't have all the baggage LNM does, lol.
DeleteJon
Hey, Jon. I had the exact same plans for Loch Ness!
DeleteKeep up the hunting Mr sceptic !
ReplyDeleteMr Sceptic you say mature website !!!!! Yet you were the one coming on here trying to ridicule people with your santa claus comments. You like to give it but you cant take it. Why cant you put your views to believers without making childish comments. People in glasses houses shouldnt throw stones you fool.
ReplyDeleteAt least GS doesnt accuse anyone of being part of an abstract conspiracy theory. For that alone you are way ahead in the childish comments league dude.
DeleteIts no theory, the military full spectrum dominance and total information awareness is real.every blog will have a PAID "chaperone",trained in the control concepts of SYNERGY,which Lenin and Stalin studied under guirdjeff.read OCCULT SCIENCE DICTATORSHIP its free on the internet or buy it through Amazon.
DeleteThe indults and ridicule of GS is a divide and conquer of thought on glascow boys blog.
Haha.now comes another "skeptikk supporter".hello comrade,or should I say G S!
Deleteanyhow it would be possible to put an analysis on all of GS comments,and bring in the internet warfare templates,and manuals on synergy, which is the basis of taking over or nullifying a movement,group thought.you guys are bring exposed by whistleblowers around the world,including some prominent Intel agents.so it would be short work to see if Geordie skeptic fits the bill as a paid poster for the control freaks. It would explain a lot about hid comments.
This website seems to be glorifying mental illness. GB I would seriously think about editing out these paranoid comments.
DeleteHmmm, I think everyone has had their say, so no more comments on this thread.
DeleteNessie relevant comments elsewhere on this blog please. New World Order, etc can go to other forums.
Lets not take Mr Sceotics sweets away !!!! Abd as not to confuse any1.......john2
ReplyDelete