Monday, 3 May 2021

More on Giant Eel Stories


It is back to giant eels as I went through my research material and found a few stories of interest. Now I myself do not think the Loch Ness Monster is a giant eel, but that doesn't mean that opinion is false and various theories regarding the beast will continue to be blogged for the benefit of discussion. Of course, if a thirty foot eel is found at the loch, I would have to accept that the monster has been found and some explanation for the non-eel type sightings will be required. That has not happened and so we now continue with some letters from the Fortean Times magazine dated July 2006 (No.212). The first letter is from well known Fortean researcher, Mike Dash:

Loch Ness Eels 

I was very interested to read Jim Currie's letter (FT208:74) concerning rumours that apparently circulated in Glasgow shipyards during the 1960s of an underwater sighting of the Loch Ness Monster. According to Currie, a story went around that a car had careered off the road and into the loch and that when a diver was sent into the water to search for it, he found the vehicle perched on a ledge 80ft (24m) down and surfaced babbling about "giant eels, the size of a man's body, hundreds of them!" In one version of the account, Currie adds, the diver's hair went white and he was rendered insane by the experience.

This tale, which while undated seems to refer to an incident occurring in the latter half of the 20th century, is readily identifiable as a variant on a supposedly much older account first published in the first edition of Nicholas Witchell's The Loch Ness Story (1974) p.29. "There is an interesting story," Witchell writes, "of a diver, Duncan MacDonald, who was sent to examine a sunken ship off the Fort Augustus entrance to the Caledonian Canal in 1880. MacDonald was lowered into the water and shortly afterwards the men on the surface received frantic signals from him to be pulled up.

When he did surface it is said his face was like chalk and he was trembling violently. It was several days before he would talk about the incident, but eventually he described how he had been examining the keel of the ship when he saw a large animal lying on the shelf of rock on which the wreck was lodged. 'It was a very odd looking beast,' he said, `like a huge frog.' He refused to dive in the loch again."

The first point to make is that Witchell's account of the MacDonald sighting is unreferenced and no primary source has ever been found for it (see Ulrich Magin, "Waves Without Wind and a Floating Island: Historical Accounts of the Loch Ness Monster" in Fortean Studies 7 (2001) p.102). Thus, if Mr Currie's memory of dates is correct, his apparently later version, involving cars and eels, may actually predate the MacDonald story. The second is that neither account is at all likely to be true.

Aside from the obviously folkloric elements featured in both tales (hair turning white, refusal to dive again), numerous underwater surveys of Loch Ness, conducted with sonar and echo sounder apparatus, have failed to reveal the various subsurface features so often featured in popular accounts: underwater ledges, caves and even tunnels leading to the sea. Finally, as is fairly well known, underwater visibility at Loch Ness is negligible - of the order of a few feet once one ventures to any depth below the surface - thanks to the heavy concentration of silt particles washed into the loch from the surrounding hills. The reported observations of Duncan MacDonald and of Jim Currie's diver would simply not have been physically possible.

Mike Dash

London

That letter from issue 208 of Fortean Times is short and reproduced below:

When I worked in the Clyde shipyards in the 1960s, a story went round about Loch Ness. It was said a car had careered off the road into the loch and a diver was sent to investigate the insurance claim. Apparently the car had landed on a kind of ledge only about 80ft (24m) down. When the diver broke surface after investigating, he was heard to be babbling about "giant eels, the size of a man's body, hundreds of them!" In one version of the tale, the diver's hair turned white, while in another he became a babbling wreck confined to a lunatic asylum. Has anyone else heard this story? 

Jim Currie

Baillieston, Glasgow 


First off, Mike compares this underwater encounter with the better known story of Duncan MacDonald from 1880 described in Nicholas Witchell's "The Loch Ness Story". Though it is described as a "variant", the two tales are undoubtedly unconnected. It is correct to say Witchell's tale is unreferenced and it is my opinion, it was one of those stories related by locals to the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau team in their years at the loch during the 1960s and 1970s. The local was probably known to Witchell but requested anonymity.

At this point we can also include the stories of Robert Badger (link), James Honeyman (link) and an unnamed diver (link). So you can see we have a growing line of such stories. Now as to folkloric elements,  if Robert Badger in 1971 said he would never dive in the loch again, that would be understandable, not folkloric. We can quite readily assume it for any other diver after such an event. What is not clear is whether they vowed never to dive in Loch Ness again or anywhere at all.

The reference to hair whitening is indeed not true in the sense of happening overnight. However, extreme stress could trigger an autoimmune response which renders further hair growth a lighter colour, but that is speculation as such a condition has not even been recorded in Death Row. The only defense is that it is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally.

The two points about the nature of the loch itself take a rather binary view of the situation. The Duncan MacDonald account actually says "the rock ledge" and not "the shelf of rock". A rock ledge can mean several things. In the case of the loch, the land underwater can gently incline before one reaches a precipice which takes us over the edge into the deeper parts of the loch. Or it could simply be a ledge with a small drop and nothing more. It is my opinion that when ledges are spoken of in these reports, we are talking about these initial shallows and it is no surprise that boats end up there.

The other point about poor visibility underwater is taken, but in both cases discussed, the distance between diver and animal is not given, so how do we know it is a problem? Robert Badger states the creature he saw was about 15 to 20 feet away from him. The answer here is depth, once you get to a certain depth at say about seventy feet, then all light is lost. I would suggest these divers were at lower depths and/or the creature was as close as Robert Badger's incident. So visibility, though poor, is not a blocker.

However, Mr. Currie's diver's comments about hundreds of eels does not sound literally true if visibility is out to twenty feet, unless he had a good flashlight or he employed a metaphor to signify a lot of eels. One final thought I would add is that Jim Currie reminds me of the apocryphal James Currie, who was an alleged banker from the 1930s, who held a sensational film of the monster, but held it back until the public took it more seriously (link).  Does that suggest this person's name is not real and is taking us for a ride? With that we move onto the second letter by James Kitwood:


Jim Currie makes reference to a story about a giant eel seen in Loch Ness. He asks if anybody else has heard a similar story. It is said that during the construction of the hydroelectric plant at Foyers on the shore of Loch Ness, a lorry that had been dumping soil into the loch reversed too far and slid into the water. During the salvage operation. divers came up in a hurry and refused to go back as they had seen huge. hairy eels. In a related story about the Foyers power station, there was a rumour of giant eels that had been trapped against the metal grilles on the entrance to the water intake pipes. (Ness Information Service Newsletter 84, Oct 1987) In 1998 I wrote to Scottish Hydro Electric and received a letter from a man who had worked there since its commission in 1975. He said that the story about the lorry was unsubstantiated and the issue of large eels getting into the water-cooling system was a physical impossibility.

He did, however, relate a story he heard as a child about a diver who was lowered into Loch Lomond. When he resurfaced not only was he badly shaken, but his hair had turned grey. It seems this story is not unique to Loch Ness. Another Loch Ness eel story that may yet be possible to verify concerns a minesweeper travelling through the loch at the end of World War I. Apparently, the crew thought it would be a good idea to try and blow up the creature. They released a depth charge and after the explosion the bodies of two eels floated to the surface. One was 11ft (3.4m) long and one was 9ft (2.7m) long- but this was just the tail end of it! (Ness Information Service Newsletter 116, April 1993)

James Kitwood

Calverley, West Yorkshire 


Since James mentions his sources as Rip Hepple's Nessletters, we can have a look at them in more detail. The first being number 84 from October 1987 which I quote below. Rip had contacted a Mr. Hancock on updates for the then Operation Deepscan. He worked for the company which distributed Lowrance sonar systems in Britain and he relayed the story:

One evening after the days operation and evening meal they were relaxing in the hotel when a local man approached them and told them of a big eel. Foyers hydro-electric station is one of the water storage type, pumping water from Loch Ness up to Loch Mhor when there is spare electricity, then using it to generate power during peak periods. The water intakes have metal grids over them, to protect fish being sucked in. This local told them that some time ago staff noted that water pressure was falling and when they investigated, the grid on one of the intakes was clogged up with eels among them a real giant of around 18 to 20 feet long and some 2/3 feet in diameter. I do not really know what to make of this story, Mr Hancock said the man seemed sincere.

One point that came to me later was the question of how could the grid be seen, the intakes must be some distance below the surface, well out of sight unless there are observation ports of some kind built into the installation. To clear the grids of debris the usual practice is to stop the turbines and allow the water to back-flush the system.

I remember that another giant eel story did the rounds when the power station was being built. A wagon driver was dumping soil in the loch when he got too close to the edge and managed .to lose the wagon into the water as well . The story was that divers went down to attach lifting gear, but they came· up in a hurry and refused to go back down, claiming they had seen huge, hairy eels. Attempts were made to locate the divers later, but failed and the story remained hearsay. Perhaps the account told to Mr Hancock will remain in the same category. 


This story has been remarked on before in less detail and it presents a few questions. The first is the obvious one as to why finding the remains of a 20 foot eel did not lead to sensational headlines and a carcass ending up at the Natural History Museum? Since the grid has to stop all manner of fish, the meshing must be quite fine which makes one ask how a powerful large eel could get stuck there? The answer to that may be the ability of the pump storage devices to suck up 160 tonnes of water per second! 

Nevertheless, why no body parts? I thought perhaps this was a pre-Nessie event before 1933 since a hydro-power station has been in operation since 1895 when it supplied power to the now derelict aluminium smelting plant. Perhaps so, but that was a low powered setup and it was not until 1976 that the present 300MW plant came into operation, so I suspect the tale is from that year onward. 

Or we could speculate they failed to obtain any physical evidence because, as Rip says above, the pumps were turned off and the back-flush drove the eels back into the deep. Or perhaps they couldn't get samples. If any of these critters were still alive, no diver would go near one, even for a ton of gold. We also have James Kitwood's letter above in which he states he wrote to a worker at the power plant who could not confirm the story and thought it was a physical impossibility anyway. Which turns us back to 1987 and who on earth was this chap who walked into that hotel and related the story? We may never know and move on.

Rip's second tale about the dump truck falling into the loch is also tantalizing and the hairiness of the eels reminds us of the mane seen on the monster. If this were true, it would suggest these are not the species of European eel that inhabit the loch. But once again we are frustrated by the lack of a first hand testimony by one of these divers. The second account from Mr. Kitwood regarding the depth charging of Loch Ness is from Nessletter 116 dated January 1994 and relates a story told by an angling correspondent for the "Salmon, Trout & Sea-Trout" magazine called "Viking". It is dated February 1993 and Viking is quoted first:

At the end of the first world war, a mine-sweeper was on her way through from Fort William in the west to the Beauly Firth in the east, by the Caledonian Canal that connects the great lochs to the sea. On her way down Loch Ness she passed over the depths below Urquhart Castle which are a favourite of the 'Beastie'. The crew had been celebrating peace all the way and still had depth charges ready to launch. Some one had the bright idea of having a go for the monster, so they set off a charge and up came two gigantic eels. One was 11ft long and the other 9ft, but that was only the tail-end!

Rip Hepple then adds his thoughts:

Viking said that is a true story. I wonder how, after seventy years such facts could be checked? Lobbing live depth charges into Scottish lochs would hardly be legal, even in celebratory high spirits, so I doubt if any official record would have been kept. However he does go on with an account of an incident which happened to him. Saying, 'An old friend of mine, now long gone to the 'fishers tryst', was trapping salmon for the hatchery on the River Garry at the top of Loch Ness. The fish he trapped were kept in a long iron tank until they were ready to be stripped of their eggs. The water supply was piped from the tail-race of the small hydro-electric generating station a short distance upstream, where the blades in the Francis turbine could chop up migrating eels. A chunk of eel had blocked the pipe which was 5 inches in diameter. it must have come from an eel at least 10 feet long.' 

One does not doubt that minesweepers passed through Loch Ness and it is possible they indulged in this foolish behaviour. However, the incident is dated to 1918 and the Loch Ness Monster did not become a national phenomenon for another 15 years. It was however a well known local legend, but since a Royal Navy vessel would contain a crew from all over the United Kingdom, they were unlikely to have any regard to this.

Depth charges were developed to take out German submarines and could be preset to detonates at depths of up to 300 feet. In this instance two dead giant eels were observed coming to the surface. One presumes they were forced to the surface by the explosion and then promptly sunk again in the normal manner. To achieve this, the charge must have detonated at a depth a lot less than 300 feet. Viking says this is a true story and, 28 years on, perhaps he is still alive to state who his source was? To that we can add nothing more, you either believe it or you don't.

Viking's final tale about finding a five inch diameter chunk of eel is interesting and probably the most credible to the bulk of readers. He suggests this scales up to an eel at least ten feet long. My own scaling measurements based on a good picture of an adult European eel suggests a length of eight feet. Nevertheless, that is a substantial eel as all eels caught in Loch Ness will be less than three feet and would raise some serious questions. Note a thirty foot eel would scale up to a diameter of  about one and a half feet, unless you ascribe to Roy Mackal's thick bodied eel theory.

So there we have several tales of giant eels in Loch Ness, all at best second hand tales. Where does it take us? Not very far, but it will be of value to some more than others.



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

206 comments:

  1. Great read Roland. I think whilst stories change or get blown out of proportion over the years there is still no smoke without fire. As the years go by i have 2 say im leaning more and more towards the giant eel being the main candidate for our loch ness monster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would the simplest explanation, as Loch Ness full of them. and maybe a few grew hugh!

      Delete
    2. Well,it cannot be discounted.

      Delete
  2. I enjoyed reading this Roland, cheers!

    On a personal level I reckon in all honesty that I'd be disappointed if Nessie was nothing more than a giant Eel. Saying that, a 30ft Eel would still be crazy to see. I guess over the years I've set my expectations too high but I would love Nessie to be anything apart from a giant Eel.

    What a find very interesting are the accounts of Nessie being close to the shore but still deep enough to avoid detection. I know that you've covered that theory before and I do genuinely believe that it's possible. All we need now is to explore that theory whether it's done be divers or sonar. The issue (I think) with sonar being used so close to the shore is that you might pick up rebounds, I'm no expert so it'd be interesting to hear another opinion on that matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just seems that there have been various accounts of larger then expected eels in the Loch at times!

      Delete
    2. If the creature(s) patrolled along the loch wall just below the steep drops, I reckon they would be hard to detect with sonar.

      Delete
    3. A.R, I hear you here. The paradox of being disappointed with just a giant eel as the identity of Nessie yet, equally, being staggered by the sight of such a thing! And I'm in the same boat - the hope that, against all the odds, there could still be something more amazing to discover!

      Had a quick look at your profile. It was almost like reading my own! Would be delighted to connect and discuss all things Loch Ness! :-)

      Delete
    4. @GB - I agree! I know that ODS made contact with a target said to be bigger than a shark but smaller than a whale, I'd love to know the exact spot and location of these hits.

      In regards to the shallows I'm going to assume that patrolling so close to the shore may be difficult and also dangerous.

      Delete
    5. @Lawrence B I'm more than happy to connect mate, it's always a pleasure discussing Nessie with someone who has the same passion. I'm actually in the middle of creating a small group for similar individuals who'd be keen to join me on several trips per year to Loch Ness and carrying out our own wee hunt.

      Feel free to contact me anytime through email or any other platform of social media.

      Cheers Lawrence!

      Delete
    6. @A.R. Great! Looking forward to connecting!

      What is your email please? Or, you can drop me a line at lbennie@icloud.com

      Delete
  3. Another belter Roland. Thanks!

    Roy Mackal does make comment of big eels they found in 1970 I think it was, they noted that the eels grew in girth as they got longer, he mused about a 20 foot eel and the potential diameter being massive.

    Speaking of Mackal, do we know if there have there been any recent acoustic captures from the loch, or has it purely been sonar?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think large eels like morays and congers keep the same proportion as smaller eels? Not sure.

      The hydrophone experiments of the 70s produced interesting results, where the recordings are now is another question for the LNIB's inheritor, the Loch Ness Project.

      I think some stuff has been done recently, perhaps by Gordon Holmes.

      Delete
  4. I've always thought the loch has a layer of peat and silt near the surface, but the water becomes clearer some meters down? Maybe I'm mistaken, I read this years ago in a book about the LNM (can't remember which). How far can you see with a light further down in the loch?

    I'm not sure what kind of lamps divers had in the 1800's. But as you say, it all depends how close this Duncan Macdonald was to what he saw (if it's true).

    White hair or not, any diver must have nerves of steel to go down there in the first place!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is silt with peat content. The particles will suspend themselves in the water column according to their weight/surface area.

      I was thinking that too, how did one carry a light in the 1880s?

      Delete
    2. Early attempts in the 1890s for underwater lighting included an underwater “strobe” consisting of an alcohol lamp in an oxygen-filled barrel over which a puff of magnesium is sent to trigger a flash (sounds dangerous); by the early 1900s underwater lights were fixed electric flood lamps or portable lamps with dry batteries...

      Delete
  5. Here's what an 11-foot eel looks like (not quite LNM size but still):

    https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/168610/Mei-Foo-seafood-stall-shows-off-11-foot-long-eel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just double that and when have us a Nessie!

      Delete
    2. Great photo Ken. Im suprised how large the head looks. I think it resembles a still shot fron the John Gillies video.

      Delete
    3. They're gonna eat that! Disgusting looking animal. Delicasy or not. No thanks! LOL!

      Delete
  6. There was another eel-ish account I have in my mind but I cannot find where I read it. It concerned another diver (the name Ian perhaps). This was from the 70s and he was exploring amongst the rocks in the shallower depths when he claimed he saw a large serpentine form slithering away from him through the rocks. That is all I recall, any takers?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The giant eel theory can't be discounted and ticks boxes but leaves many features of sightings unanswered. The head and neck. The hump(s). The upturned boat descriptions. As ever, a mystery...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is why should be at least 2 creatures in the Loch that have been seen over the years as Nessie!

      Delete
  8. Hey! First time posting a comment, but I have been reading your posts for a while! I really enjoy the blog. Is it any true that people before the 30's used the term 'giant eel' when talking about the creature?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, as you all say over there, but I beg to differ and I am not in the eeler camp. A few interesting eel stories dose not a LNM make. Yes, it may tick some boxes but does leave many key features of sightings unanswered and that is precisely why the eel theory can be discounted. Eels do not display those features, not even if it were a forty foot one, I may be committing heresy with so many eelers on here espousing the eel theory. To each his own, believe what you want. Where's JesusFan? He was a big eeler, he'd have a heyday and be in hog heaven with this article. Maybe deep down, I just don't want it to be an eel. :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you bud, I don't want it to be a giant eel either, very mundane (as much as a giant hitherto unknown subspecies of eel can be mundane of course), I would far prefer some new species of large aquatic animal.

      The problem is in Mackal's book, he noted capturing big eels, and observed how as they grew larger, the diameter gre exponentially as well. He mused at how big a 20 foot eel would be in diameter if this trend continued.

      Delete
    2. I forgot to state the obvious as well......not being a marine wildlife expert, someone please correct me if im (most likely) wrong, however, eels don't typically break the surface of the water and look around ala the classic Nessie 'head out of water' pose, do they?

      Delete
    3. I am still here, and this article was very encouraging to my viewpoint that Nessie at least just might be a giant Eel!

      Delete
    4. I just don't like eels.

      Delete
    5. Disgusting, filthy, slimmy animals. And that's why I don't want Nessie to be an eel! LOL

      Delete
    6. The classic hump five feet out of the water and the six foot by 1 foot neck pushing forward through the water in a straight non undulating line does not exactly fit an eel. We would need an unusual eel which can somehow inflate its middle section rather like a pufferfish.

      Delete
  10. The thing is nobody knows how a giant eel or a eunuch eel can act because we donteven know if they exist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm going to reiterate something I wrote on here a few years back. There's a type of eel called neck or longneck eels due to the first third of their length having a taper to it giving them the appearance of having a long neck. It's not a true neck in the sense of being able to flex vertically independently of the rest of the body. That said, I've wondered if there could be a vastly enlarged offshoot, but with the tapered neck region having developed into a true neck. In response to this development the pectoral fins have relocated further down the body. And with the enlarged size the central body belly region is thicker. Eel studies at Loch Ness and elsewhere have shown that as some eels get bigger they get thicker around the mid-section. So what we would have is a giant eel with an elongated, tapered, independently flexing head/neck region, a thick central body region, and pectoral fins at the sides of the upper body region. Such an eel would go a long way towards providing a candidate for the hair/horse eel legends of Scotland and Ireland, and by extention the LNM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds like the big body Eel of theory!

      Delete
  12. Back in -97 I went on a hunt for the Lake Storsjön monster in Sweden with the late Jan-Ove Sundberg (he later started GUST if anyone remembers). The Swedish monster has some similarities with LNM like the "upside-down boat" description.

    J-O thought the Swedish monster was some sort of unknown amphibian, based on this witness sketch which is seen here on the cover of his book (he interviewed the witness himself):

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51306699-storsj-odjuret-seljordsormen-nessie-och-andra-sj-monster

    Sorry for the bad quality image, I don't have the original book. To me it could also be some sort of fish. And of course the LNM could be something completely different. Well, I'm on the fence about what these things are!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Long necked eels? The plot thickens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or long neck Turtles or long neck seals!

      Delete
  14. Eels live most of their lives burrowed in mud or rocks at the bottom of the lake or river bed, why would they want to arch their bodies out through the surface of Loch Ness, especially considering the depth of the lake, they would have to emerge from.I don't buy into that theory.If Nessie is a giant eel, and with the huge populations of eels in Loch Ness you would have to consider, Why is there only one or two mutant giant eels, there should be dozens of them, but sadly sonar can't justify this argument.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A lot of descriptions of Nessie are like a back of a boat, 4 or 5 feet wide, I hope nobody is suggesting there are eels that wide never mind the length, in Loch Ness.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are few creatures that wide though, other then some large sharks or whales!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Interestingly, the hairy eel story came up in the book 'The Search for Morag' where a local account talked about fishermen who were repulsed by hairy eels sometimes netted, and refused to keep them. As I remember, this was not a tale relayed to the author in the early 70s firsthand, but a story that was passed down, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Great discussions! LOL wonder how a poll among the world's cryptic fans would turn out? Which would get most votes:
    1) long-necked eel
    2) long-necked seal
    3) turtle
    4) amphibian
    5) plesiosaur
    6) other?

    I tend to switch between which one to pick.. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as we're talking about long neck this or that, can I vote for the long neck catfish or sturgeon? All kidding aside I'll go with the other and I wouldn't venture to guess what the hell it is!

      Delete
    2. I don't think the creature is anything we know. Because then we would have some kind of definite description. Instead we have 101 opinions. The kraken was portrayed as a giant squid. And yes, it is a giant squid. Eyewitness accounts of Nessie are more in line with the Australian bunyip. Not it terms of form, but in terms of lack of specifity.

      Delete
    3. Lack of specificity can also trend towards nothing. It would suggest people aren't seeing a "real" creature and are interpreting known phenomenon.

      Delete
  19. Malcolm Robinson who descended Loch Ness in a submarine said in a radio interview that below 500 foot the water was crystal clear.

    If Nessie lives in a murky environment and has evolved poor eyesight as reported in other creatures, breaking the surface to look around would seem unlikely. Maybe she inhabits the bottom of the loch.

    A thirty foot eel would validate witnesses who claim to have seen something large in Loch Ness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. indeed, an Eel as big as a bus would indeed qualify as a monster!

      Delete
    2. What do you suggest the width is.A foot diameter for instance.In this regard I don't see eyewitnesses confusing 1 foot diameter with 4 or 5 feet diameter.My webcam sighting of 2018 was a far cry from something been 1 foot diameter, and it certainly did not look like a giant eel on the surface, or did not move like an eel either.
      Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    3. If you take the Tim Dinsdale footage at face value, it sure doesn't look like a one foot diameter eel?

      Delete
    4. Thats probably because its a boat.

      Delete
    5. Hello Eoin O Faodhagain,

      Roy Mackal estimates a 25 foot creature could have some central body thickening of 40-60% of length, giving a 5 foot diameter for such a creature.

      I am not insisting nessie is a eel, this is all speculation.






      Delete
  20. The problem with the eel theory remains if we look at the accepted sightings of McLean,the Finlays sighting and the numerous sightings by Mrs Cary and others from her vantage point looking down at the loch.
    All suggest something other than an eel as we know it.
    Of course its possible large eels reside in Loch Ness and may ,on occasion, have become entangled in water treatment facilities. They may also account for some of the land sightings ,particularly when described without the lock neck but giving off the familiar slime and smell effect associated with eels.
    But in my opinion we must exclude them from surface sightings as described (particularly in the incidents mentioned above),and realise that we are looking at something else which has the ability to change shape, direction, speed,and general appearance and which has a fondness for salmon and trout- especially where rivers enter the loch.
    Whether it's itinerant or a long term resident is open to debate.
    It remains unclassified and could be some kind of hybrid between a seal and a large amphibian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, so true. I think it's time to move on from the giant eel theory. Enough already!

      Delete
    2. The long necked eel yes..aka the narrownecked eel.I wonder if with all these different eels we cud have sum kind of hybrid. I dont know why people dismiss eels at the surface so easily.. Yes they bottom dwellers but all bottom dwellers make rare appearances now and again.. If not then what did Gordon Holmes video back in 2007?? Great discussion and I hope ur all well... Cheers ROY

      Delete
    3. Why is that John? Just becsuse you dont believe it can be a giant eel?

      Delete
    4. I don't mind reading about eels. I can do without the photos, though. Be forewarned I've got my eye out for trouble-makers here and have the fastest scrolling wheel known to man. :)

      Delete
  21. I think Gordon Holmes proved in 2007 with his video that eels do come to the surface on rare occasions!! and in my humble 99 per cent of people have never seen an eel in real life neva mind a giant one.. so if they did see a 20ft one at the surface of a loch or lake they wud indeed think they wer looking at a monster!.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  22. John alvarado, Roland's blog would not exist if we all stopped a debate because someone did not believe in one thing or another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Believe what you want and debate all you want. I am just suggesting that eels as Nessie has been discussed ad infinitum and has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and with not a shred of evidence as such, in my opinion. Carry on.

      Delete
    2. BTW Geeza ask Roland if he believes it's a giant eel. I believe that he has stated that he does not. He just posts these stories of eels in the course of his research about the experiences and opinions of people. That does not make the giant eel theory true.

      Delete
    3. I dont need to ask Roland.Everyone has a different opinion, it doesnt mean we cant discuss them just because you dont believe it.

      Delete
    4. Well discuss it then, I cant stop you. I'm just giving my opinion and you don't have to ahree.

      Delete
  23. Giant eels are known to exist in the Loch, so why make Nessie something not known at all?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Most of the people who see Nessie are townsfolk on holiday who are expecting to see the monster as a result of press coverage. So otters = monster, deer swimming = monster, even a floating log = monster. Environmental DNA recovered from the loch reveals no unknown creatures at all. So if you don't accept the giant eel hypothesis, you're left with nothing. Sooner or later, no matter how much you want to believe, you will have to accept that you are chasing a fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh! Oh! We got us a skeptic here, I smell trouble! What you say may be true for many sightings. By townsfolk I take it you mean tourists because I'm sure the locals would never mistake an otter, deer or log for a monster. There have been credible sightings made by dependable upstanding people who would know the difference between an otter and something unusual and those are the eyewitness that support the probability of some unknown creature.

      Delete
    2. The eDNA study was great and I totally welcome it. But if you look at the study in detail, you'll see it's far from "case closed". It's an important piece in the puzzle, but not the only one imho.
      Cheers

      Delete
    3. Hello Arthur.. I dont think what u said is quite true. Lots of people who see things in Loch Ness are locals! I go to loch ness regularly and I have not mistaken otters or anything like that for a monster and I have watched otters in Loch Ness that were on the Fort augustus cabin Park a couple years ago!.. Cheers

      Delete
    4. I saw a large dark 'upturned boat' shape on the webcam, after it had gone, an actual boat (white in colour) was cruising over & over the spot for around an hour, presumably they saw it too. If there is nothing there, why was the boat hovering there, presumably sonaring the area.

      Delete
    5. Hmm...interesting. Wish the operators of the boat would come forward and tell what they saw and whether in fact they were scanning with sonar and detected anything.

      Delete
  25. Some of these stories are very similar to the "giant catfish" tales in the United States. The one I heard reported that a diver went down to check for cracks in a dam and found huge catfish (man-sized and larger)in shallow "caves" at the base of the dam. When the diver surfaced he swore that he would never go back in that reservoir again.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with Martin, I think there's something more to this horse eel that people have talked about in Loch Morar. It might not be an "eel" could be an unknown animal that resembles an eel but is large and has a horse like head. Which could account for some of the sightings in Loch Ness when they said the creatures head was "horse like"

    ReplyDelete
  27. I thought most "horse-like head" descriptions relate to purported sea monsters, particularly Cadborosaurus. Horse eels I just recently started hearing about, and I haven't seen a good illustration of what it's supposed to look like.

    As for the Holmes video, I wasn't aware it was considered definitive proof of a large eel, though it was certainly his take on what he filmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mentioning Cadborosaurus, it is reportedly (a photograph was taken of a supposed dead one some time ago) a long serpentine/eel-like creature that is seen raising its head and a portion of its body out of the water giving the impression of a neck...

      Delete
    2. Caddy matches some sea monster and a few lake monster reports, but I don't think it's a good candidate for LN. If you believe there's something strange in the loch, you have to assume some sightings are of the actual creature. I'll pick the John McLean sighting. But what it is he saw, I have no idea.

      Delete
  28. Ron ur right there is no definitive proof Holmes video is an eel. What I meant was in my humble it was proof.. hence the ', I think' ... I just can't see how it can be anything else.. Only my opinion of course! On another topic I have a friend who works with sonar and he tells me eels don't show up well on sonar like other fish.. Can anyone clarify if this is right or not... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  29. I used to believe it was an eel, but it really is impossible to think it's an eel without discrediting a lot of sightings and even some pictures from the 30's. Even if they account for some of the sightings, surely they can't be the animal we are looking for. Been reading the blog for a while, by the way. Always a good read. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  30. Great article. I'd personally be happy with a giant eel but the eye witness accounts don't really back it up. Also I'm kinda exhausted even thinking about them because JF used to mention them in every single comment he ever made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aw c'mon Kyle! Think big, not just big eel. Don't get eelitis and give up yet. Some are satisfied with a big eel, but as you say, the facts just don't support that. Wonder what happened to JF?

      Delete
  31. Kyle, at first i wasnt happy with the thought of nessie as a giant eel but if it is and it prooves euenuch eels do actually exist then its quite remarkable.I am quite sure if anyone was in a boat on loch ness and a 20ft euenuch eel popped up close by it would be an experience they would never forget.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think the truth is a lot of people dont want or wont accept nessie 2 be a giant eel so they refuse to believe it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geeza, stop it! You're starting to sound like JF. LOL

      Delete
  33. John alvarado its right though.:-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm not refusing to accept the Eel theory because it is of course entirely possible, I however do not believe the giant Eel approach due to the overwhelming variety of accounts that point towards something entirely different.

    Also, aren't Eels bottom feeders and if so then why breach the surface? The movement of an Eel resembles that of a snake and I've yet to see or read an account with that particular movement being in the description. Serpentine features but not Serpentine movement!

    ReplyDelete
  35. As I sit in my 18ft long living room, I can imagine an eel, or an anaconda (some 20-30+ feet it seems) lying across the floor. While seeing something like that would be astonishing, it's not lake/sea monster astounding.
    However, if you plopped a creature in my room with, say, a 5ft head/neck, a bit of tail, and blew up whats left for the mid section into something 6ft tall and wide, now that would be a freakin' lake monster!

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon, as you know, what you are describing in your second scenario would be Roy Mackal's “thick-bodied” modified eel. However, I don't recall how large he said such a creature could be to qualify as a monster! A 20-30 foot eel would not be astounding as it would be mundane and not the exotic or fantastical cryptid we would all like it to be. Anacondas grow to an extremely large size and can reach a length of 30 ft, yet we don't consider them “monsters” rather just big snakes. I have always thought that whatever the LNM is, it has eel-like qualities, though I don't believe it is a pure eel.

      Delete
  36. Catfish are bottom feeders, but ask any catfish fishermen and they will tell you now and again they will breach the surface.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jon you will be telling next you wouldnt blink an eyelid if a 20 ft eel popped up next 2 your boat whilst cruising down loch ness lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like I say, it would be astonishing but upon continued observation, it'd be something recognizable. Like, "holy s***, that's a freaking huge eel!!" lol.

      However, if some creature came up that was even so much as being in a 'paltry' 15ft - 20ft range but had a huge bulbous body and wasn't an animal we're all familiar with, that would truly be amazing. And if the LNM is, by some accounts, more in the 20's, 30's, 40+ foot length, then so much the better, heh
      Jon

      Delete
    2. John A.
      Was it eel? He had illustrations of hypothetical amphibians with a neck/head, with a bit of bulbous body in 2 sections. The head neck on the cover illustrates that part of the supposed animal. At least that what has stuck in my memory. Did he also do hypothetical eels as well? Quick image search just shows the amphibian take.

      Jon

      Delete
    3. Yes you are correct. You just jogged my memory. The amphibian type of animal he hypothesized had the long neck and that was illustrated on the book cover if I remember correctly. The thick-bodied eel was just that, a fat eel with no apparent neck. Not having access to his book I can't check to verify, but if you go to the link to the right on this blog "WHAT IS THE LOCH NESS MONSTER? under "Nessie the Giant Eel", first link, there is an illustration.

      Delete
  38. The Giant Eel theory works, as it would be using a known creature in the Loch!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm surprised anyone is moaning bout giant eel talk.. After all the post is exactly that.. Giant eels lol! Im surprised also people saying 20 foot is not big for a monster!! I think a creature 20 to 25 foot in a loch wud be defo classed as a monster! Personally I don't believe our nessies are much bigger than that.. Its easy to get sizes wrong looking out over a loch! With all these different eels mentioned is there any chance of a big hybrid?? Maybe something new to science?? Cheers x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we're debating and discussing the pros and cons Roy! So what's the problem? And maybe a 25 footer by your definition would be a "monster" eel, but not the Loch Ness Monster.

      Delete
  40. Gentlemen, comments getting heated about whether giant eels are worthy of debate. Of course it is worthy of debate. Every theory has its problems, from plesiosaurs to paranormal entities to boats and logs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Giant Eels at least have the advantage of being known animals!

      Delete
  41. Mackal had the LNM's maximum size at 20-25 feet regardless of the candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, but I am sure there was a 50ft individual in the loch in the 1950s which is now dead.

      Delete
    2. Wow. News to me. Any link you can provide re: 50-footer would be appreciated.

      Delete
    3. The old bull patriarch is dead then. RIP LOL

      Delete
    4. 50 ft? Thats a big beastie Roland.

      Delete
    5. You may not be far off, John.

      I detail this individual in my treatment of the Torquil MacLeod sighting in the land sightings book.

      Delete
    6. You believe a 50ft beast was in the loch based on one sighting Roland? What if he was mistaken or even lying?

      Delete
    7. It is based on more than one report.

      Delete
  42. I will go with mackal..20 foot seems the average size description. Wasn't the latest big sonar contact said to be 15-20 foot?.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  43. The Alistair Grant/Hugh Rowand sighting was a big beast. Robert Rine's hump sighting the hump alone was over 20 feet. And the hump witnessed by Ted Holiday and the two gents on the other side of the Loch was around 30 feet IIRC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This beast was around in the 60s, when it died is not accurately known.

      Delete
    2. The one Torquil MacLeod saw partly out of water at the Horseshoe scree was a big one if he could see it from across the Loch, albeit with the help of binoculars. He saw it in the early 60s didn't he? Wonder if it could have been the animal in question?

      Delete
  44. 50ft? Wow thats a big eel ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  45. MacLeod thought the front end of the thing was like an elephant's trunk. (Was there controversy over what end he was actually describing?) Could the head be so small, or his eyesight + distance be so off that he just missed it? That makes the most sense, since what amphibious creature has a "nose" like that?

    Interesting to think if the "bull patriarch" is dead, then what's out there now are his offspring, not yet grown to full size.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "MacLeod thought the front end of the thing was like an elephant's trunk."

    I saw a nature doc once about some gecko (? some lizard anyway) that kept moving its head from side to side in a weird way when looking for food. And the presenter said animals that don't see so well (or lack stereoscopic vision maybe?) do this to focus better on what they're looking at.

    If this has any bearing on the LNM is anyone's guess...

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Arthur King, the eDNA testing missed several large animals that we know visit the loch,otters and seals for instance. Plus 25% of all the sampling remains unidentified, one in four. So how do you make such sweeping conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
  48. ....are you saying that sooner or later we are going to have to accept that seals and otters in the loch is pure fantasy? Because professor Gemmell didn't find evidence for them they cannot be there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever Nessie is, would have to be the same creature probably as in other lakes and Loches that are getting reported, such as Champ!

      Delete
  49. @Arthur King... how does this fit into your theory?
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/loch-ness-monster-found-sonar-22801900

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree Mr Feltham.. As I've said I've watched otters from the Fort augustus cabin Park and no way in the world anyone cud mistake them for a monster!!!

      Delete
    2. What if the Otter though was a giant one, such as say 12-15 feet?

      Delete
    3. What if the otter was say 12-15 feet long though?

      Delete
    4. I'm a bit confused about something regarding that article Mr Feltham posted.
      "The mystery creature is likely to feed on trout and eels at the bottom of the loch, which has the largest volume of freshwater in Britain."

      I've always been of the understanding that most of whatever life there is in the loch exists only in the uppermost region. There's no light penetrating that deep
      for any sort of plankton for the kind of fish in the loch to live on afaik. Eels certainly are bottom feeders, but has there been any study done regarding the availability of organic matter at the bottom for them to feed?

      Oddly though, there is two ways to read that sentence from the article. I read it as both trout and eels at the bottom. OTOH, it can mean trout (which live at the top) AND eels (which live at the bottom) heh

      Jon

      Delete
  50. Torquil Macleod's sighting was a truly remarkable story in the history of the mystery GB.. But what do u make of Dick Raynors investigation on it using same binoculars in same location??? He said it was impossible for Torquils size estimation to be correct???? . Cheers.. ROY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is all explained in my land sightings book as well as Binns' "explanation" of what McLeod saw.

      Delete
    2. Dick published a paper on the Macleod sighting. I foung it on Academia.edu. I hope it is accessible as I had to login with my account. Let me know.

      https://www.academia.edu/20148125/Torquil_MacLeod_1960_study?email_work_card=view-paper

      Delete
    3. That is the paper I critique in my book, John.

      Delete
  51. For a start I wudnt take any notice of what binns says!!! Secondly I still haven't read ur book yet. Its in the pipeline.. Can I just ask briefly then do u think Mr raynor is incorrect? I find it puzzling really cus by all accounts torquil was a sincere man and a big nessie hunter... I dont think he wud lie... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is suggesting he lied. Dick Raynor is correct in pointing out the issue with the sketches (also pointed out by Binns in 1983).

      The resolution of the problem becomes clearer when one goes to the same book by Dinsdale and looks at the binocular sketch of his 1960 hump sighting ...

      Delete
  52. I'm intrigued.. So I've just ordered ur book off amazon haha!12.99 and free delivery.. Happy days! Torquil spent hours looking for nessie and I believe he had another sighting from the shoreline in 1960 but this time it was seen by other eyewitness's..and a photo was also taken of something in the water in what I personally think is one of the best sightings in the mystery history..multiple witnesses with same story version in the same location and same time and a photo to go with it.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the Lowrie family sighting. Multiple location witnesses, good sighting.

      Delete
  53. Yes the Lowrie family off their boat 'finola'..their story matched Torquils of the objects movements.. The way it went and the the way it turned! The foto shows a powerful wash created by something just under the surface.. Clearly not a boat.. One of the most compelling bits of evidence in the history.. in my humble.. Cheers... Ps.. Book coming tomorrow.. Verdict after the weekend ha . Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  54. Roland and Roy have you ever thought of going on mastermind with the Loch ness monster as your chosen subject? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Naah.. My general knowledge wud let me down!!!! Ha...cheers

    ReplyDelete
  56. Your book has arrived GB.. Just flicked it quickly to the torquil mcleod sighting! I'm totally with u on this one not bin a herd of goats.. In fact I'm astonished Mr raynor has even suggested it!! Im lookin forward to reading the rest of the book over the weekend.. . Verdict Tuesday ha .. Cheers.. ROY

    ReplyDelete
  57. What has Dickie boy said now ? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  58. ". . . I'm astonished Mr raynor has even suggested it!!"
    Not the first time DR has gotten too far over his skis, Roy. He thinks it's all hogwash, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To borrow a phrase, sceptics abhor an explanation vacuum.

      Delete
  59. Replies
    1. Dick Raynor suggests Torquil MacLeod mistook a small herd of goats for a 45ft monster.

      Delete
  60. WHAT? Are you serious Roland ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His article was mentioned earlier in the comments:

      https://www.academia.edu/20148125/Torquil_MacLeod_1960_study?email_work_card=view-paper

      Delete
    2. He doesn't hold "believers" and their ideas in high regard. Maybe he enjoys making jokes at their expense(?)

      I'm don't remember much trigonometry, but the article seems to suggest the "monster" would have to be the size of Godzilla, so obviously something's off, either his calculations or MacLeod's.

      Delete
  61. This beats his Hugh Gray white swan photograph PMPL LMAO.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I thought goat's are white? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ron yeah he has raised my eyebrows a few times with his opinions on sightings ie hay bale for Cameron /holiday sighting and boat for the Gillies video...but my mouth was wide open when reading this one! I admire Mr raynor but don't know were he is coming from with this one!!! Just reading GB's book now and it makes u realise its good to see someone taking the sceptics to account. When a sceptic gives an opinion lots of people just take it and say ah well it was only this or that...but GB has shown we need to take them to account and sometimes realise what the say is a load of old horlicks ha... Enjoying the read so far.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  64. Still think that Giant eels would be the easiest way to explain who Nessie is!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Still think that the easiest explanation would be Giant eels in Loch Ness, as is a known creature, and whatever nessie is, think would have to be something commob to other Lake Monsters also!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Even if I can't always follow the math, I appreciate it when researchers use science to explain what's being seen. Despite that, they often come up with different conclusions, so it comes down to what makes the most sense.

    I'll suggest again that I think some explanations are jokes made by some researchers against those they think are unworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I agree with GB about a big one in the loch in 60's and early 70's..there was a lot of credible sightings around then.. Rines.. Cameron/holiday.. Boyd!! But even later we had good credible ones of 30 ft objects like val Moffat(, passed a lie test) 1990 and the multiple sighting near dores 1996 (5 witnesses) then 2001 the AAS video with a separate foto of same object by a another witness..so they kept on coming!! Enjoying the book so far GB and I love the story from Inch Bay with the two old ladies describing a huge creature moving like a caterpillar.. When u see the photo of the two old ladies still telling their tale years later u just know they are not lying! . Cheers..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder what Dickie boy suggests for the 2 ladies sighting? A highland cow with a fur hat on and sunglasses? PMPL

      Delete
  68. That eel's "face" sure looks a lot like the one on the Hugh Gray photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The eels "face" on the Gray pic is just fanciful speculatipn. Just blur.

      Delete
    2. Since I was the one who brought the "eel" head back to the attention of the Nessie community, I of course disagree with your statement, John.

      Delete
    3. LOL Well you were being just a wee bit fanciful then with the "Is Nessie Looking at You?" Title. There's so much blur in that pic, who knows what it really shows! There's one thing I do agree on that pic though, I consider it to be a genuine representation of the LNM.

      Delete
    4. The "face" on the Gray photo does look like an Eel, turtle, some type of a fish!

      Delete

  69. This is apparently the remains of a long serpentine creature, but I don't think a fish like an eel would have a bone structure like that...
    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/mystery-diver-spots-remains-100ft-24108483

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was thinking the upper spine of a shark made of cartilage, but that would be a really big shark, bigger than a whale shark if the stated size estimate is correct. Many a mystery in the sea/loch!

      Delete
  70. Note that the person examining the skeleton is a "paranormal researcher." Maybe better to have a marine biologist with credentials making pronouncements on what the thing is and is not? Thirty meters is blue whale size, but the Med is out of their usual territory (though one was recently spotted in the Red Sea, so . . .). There are whales in the Med, just not of that dimension. Hope there's a follow-up report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assuming the 30m estimate is correct.

      Delete
    2. No use trying to bring that up. It crumbles at the slightest touch. Maybe some type of prehistoric sea creature?

      Delete
    3. I would question whether prehistoric bones could have lasted this long in salt water. Unless the Mediterranean is some way conducive to that.

      And I'm unaware of any prehistoric aquatic creature that reached this length: mosasaurs could reach 40+ feet, pliosaurs up to 40 feet; megalodon 50 feet (and would only leave teeth behind?) and livyatan, 60 feet.

      All of which makes me question the length estimate, among other things seen in the video.

      Delete
  71. Those are ancient rolls of toilet paper from Atlantis!

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't believe the G.Homles footage shows an Eel or a Windrow as Raynor suggests. We don't need maths and science to identify a windrow, especially one so isolated. I'm pretty confident in saying that I'm not alone here, we have all observed and are well educated on natural behaviour within and around the Loch. I do believe the footage shows an animal but no idea what. On a recent documentary I remember seeing Holmes sitting with Gemmell and it's the first time I've heard Holmes mention a hint of a flipper. I've watched other interviews with Holmes and there's no mention at all of flipper movement. Has anyone else seen or heard anything about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought Holmes was sure his was a 55 foot eels?

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure where that 55ft Eel comment has come from, I haven't heard or read Holems saying anything like that. If you have a link can you post it?

      As far as I'm aware Holems believed the object was between 10-15ft in length.

      Delete
  73. It was 45 ft not 55..Holmes actually said his sighting was bout 4 or 5 ft long...someone in the media heard it wrong and claimed he said 45 ft! It then stuck and people including Jeremy wade claimed it was 45 ft long but it was 4 to 5 ft Holmes said.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So a real creature, but no where large enough to be nessie?

      Delete
  74. Then it would appear that even Holems is confused. We've got 4-5ft and 10-15ft. Maybe the whole chinese whisper game?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we watch the video i think we can judge 4 ourselves the size of it.I agree on 5ft ish.

      Delete
    2. https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-gordon-holmes-video.html?m=1

      If you scroll down you'll see his comments of the size of the object. If there's a link sharing new information on size and estimates Gezza then fire it over, I'd be interested to see it. I'm not saying you are wrong at all, there's many things that I'm good at but estimate the size of an object on the move while in water can be difficult. I still maintain that this isn't a windrow and I know I might come across as a hypocrite for saying we don't need math to identify a windrow but we do need it when it comes to measuring an estimate of size.

      Delete
    3. I agree its not a windrow, it is a living animal in that video.It is of my opinion that its about 5ft long and not much bigger than that.

      Delete
  75. If you're sitting on 5ft do you believe it to be a seal? 4-5ft is too large for an otter in Scotland and of course this now leaves us with an Eel?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Seals don't move in that way? Which way would that be Gezza? I've spent years living around Lochs, more so Sea-Lochs and I've watched plenty seals move in the same manner. I'm not saying the Holmes video shows a seal but you also can't rule it out.

    @JesusFan - There's been no agreement at all in what the video shows. As always you've got opinions and theories but nothing set in stone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just saying that Mr Holmes himself though th that he had recorded an Eel moving across the Loch

      Delete
    2. Ive watched plenty of seals too but never in that manner so yes i do rule it out.

      Delete
    3. I don't think Holmes even knows what he's filmed. I have heard him mentioning Eels but in his last interview with Prof Gemmell, Holmes has recently said that there's hints of flipper movement in his video. I personally can't see that within the video, I've no idea when and where this hint comes into sight. Perhaps he was just getting too excited about being back on TV? He actually seems like a genuinely nice guy.

      Delete
    4. @Gezza Fair play and this is why the mystery will always endure.

      Delete
  77. I agree A.R, nobody knows what it is but we all have different opinions on what it could or could not be.Its a great mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of me never wants to Loch to be solved as it plays an important part of my life. Cheesy as that may sound but it's true! Even catching the smallest glimpse is like winning the lotto so whoever proves once and for all that Nessie is true just imagine what that's going to feel like. People will claim its not true but I want to see their conclusion before I even give them my time. Debating is good fun but saying it doesn't exist without putting forward any evidence I tend to ignore that.

      Delete
    2. I just wonder of some would really like us to discover that while Nessie exists, that she was a giant EEl. Sturgeon, unknown seal etc something "not exotic enough"

      Delete
    3. I'm sure I've said this already and I'm pretty open about it, I reckon on a personal level I would be extremely disappointed if Nessie turned out to be a giant Eel but saying that, finding a 20-30ft Eel would still be impressive but somehow my expectations would still not be met and that's my issue so I'll deal with that if a giant Eel is discover.

      I'm a firm believer that Nessie is NOT an Eel. Yes there are similarities but there's also a huge amount of accounts that describe something totally different from an Eel and its those accounts that grab my attention!

      Delete
    4. Oh boy, here we go. Nobody but you wants Nessie to be an eel.

      Delete
    5. That's okay, John, this is a Giant Eel article with a Giant Eel comments section.

      Delete
    6. Oh yeah, you're right. Never mind he can eel all he wants then. LOL

      Delete
    7. I am not saying that Nessie must be a big eel, but that is a plausible answer, as there are instances of people claiming to have seen really big ones in the Loch....
      Whatever nessie is, must be a small community of them, must stay underwater most of the time, and should be the same creature as seen in other lakes around the world!

      Delete
    8. John mate, now I'm even confused! I honestly don't know if that comment was for me because I've clearly said that I DON'T want Nessie to be an Eel. My apologies if I've misunderstood your comment.

      Delete
    9. Not intended for you A.R. In reference to JesusFan. It's a running gag with him and his fondness for eels. :)

      Delete
  78. Speaking of something long and on the slender side, has anyone gotten the impression from the MacLean sighting, that the creature described was almost lizard-like? I don't know what kind of "lizard" would fit the bill, but the form sketched by MacLean could probably maneuver around the Loch quite easily while being mistaken for something else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not much of a neck either if we expect the Nessie model to have a long slender neck. I guess we"'ll just have to take his word for it.

      Delete
    2. A quote from MacLean 'The skin was for all the world like a horse that's been well-groomed and polished'. Far from a lizard.

      Delete
  79. @JesusFan - Haven't you already suggested that individuals have seen big ass Eels? I've heard no such reports as Eels in the Loch only reach 2-3ft. There's individuals who say that Nessie resembles an Eel rather than it actually being an Eel.

    Also, why should it be the same creature from other bodies of water? You can't make that call purely because we still don't know what animal lives in the Loch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought have read where a couple of tourists got shocked when they came upon a 25 ft eel laying in the shallows, and didn;t another couple see an eel like creature as "big as a bus>"surface?

      And was just think ing that the lake monsters being seen all were around same Northern latitudes, so why would there be many different types and kinds, would not the simpler answer of many of the same make better sense>

      Gave been sighting for decades her ein the Great Lakes of Mi of "something" many times looks like rally large water snake, and have on video something that did look large and eel like caught on tape in midd;e of a massive storm on lake mi!

      Delete
  80. Im quite sure that there are eels in loch ness that are bigger than 2-3ft.

    ReplyDelete