I was invited to speak on the Loch Ness Monster from the guys at the Controversial Science website last week and spent over an hour answering questions and comparing-contrasting the various cryptozoological disciplines and the common themes we see from scepticism in these areas. You can click on the video below or find the talk at this link.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Damn your laptop! I could have listened for another hour. Well, it was a good one anyway. Good historical overview of the Loch Ness Monster story. Good you mentioned the Johnston series of pics. Seems very little attention has been given to that event. So the Spicers saw a giant stomach with connected esophagus lunge across the road did they? Add a new theory to the list. Not any weirder than the roast chicken photographed by the guy a few years back. LOL
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the other Lochs he mentioned all have samr typr of creature as nessie? What about the Creature of Champ and Ogopogo?
DeleteI think it was Holiday that used the stomach metaphor. Ugh!
DeleteYeah, Skype on the laptop was draining power faster than was coming in which suggests the battery is on it way out.
Yeah that was funny. I couldn't help myself and busted up laughing when you mentioned the "loathsome" stomach and esophagus as the neck. Ugh! indeed!
DeleteNow, back to the Johnston pics, if those are genuine, they are the best evidence bar none, for Nesssie's existence.
Oh, by the way, glad you made a link to the YouTube channel. Looks like a lot of good stuff I will be indulging myself to there.
ReplyDeleteCould the Johnston photo show a big eel?
ReplyDeleteThere was a report that tourists to the Loch saw a 24 ft eel in the shallows scaring them off!
Delete24 ft ? That is a strange estimate.
DeleteIf true, there was nessie!
Delete@jesusFan Can you share that link about the 24ft Eel?
DeleteOne of the benefits of obtaining Roland's book "Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster" is that he provides a link to a site where you can see the Johnston photos sequenced in such a way that it simulates the look of a video. While the photos in isolation - especially the 1st one - could indicate a hoax (the 1st one has a pencil thin neck and a prominent head - which doesn't seem to match the many descriptions of a head that is merely a continuation of the neck) - the sequence as animated is far more convincing that this indeed was a sighting of the LNM, complete with splash at the end when it submerged. Difficult to see how that could have been managed as a hoax.
ReplyDeleteIf you fiddle around with the contrast on the Johnston pic you'll see the "neck" is a little bit thicker than it first appears (due to some light reflection on the back). Can't make out any features on the "head" though. Would have been nice to catch a glimpse of an eye or something, if it is an actual head... Beats me what it is, if a hoax it's cleverly done.
DeleteCould some be seeing a tail thinking is a neck though?
DeleteDick Raynor has provided his own analysis of the Johnston photos. I remain undecided and cautious. That is why I always preface any comment I make in referring to these photos with "if they are genuine"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/gray.html
Didn't he hold that Nessie was a large seal coming into the Loch at times?
DeleteDick Raynor doesn't hold to anything being the LNM. PERIOD!
DeleteThought he saw Nessie as a grey seal?
DeleteI couldn't hack the trig calculations so don't know if they hold up, but once he started in on the weather conditions claimed vs. shown in the photos, I figured the conclusion was preordained.
DeleteI'll listen soon GB. Just briefly on the Johnson photos - it's my own bias but to me they just don't look like a living creature at all - except perhaps as part of an octopus/squid which wouldn't behave that way. Seems too thin, uniform and smooth and simply looks like a hoax. Probably a model.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it does conform to some eye witnesses for sure so I wouldn't completely rule it out. As we don't know what the LNM actually is I'm prepared for anything really. If it's a hoax it's a pretty good one and if it's a real creature it is really bizarre.
Some think that its a supernatural thing going on , so the "creature" adapts to whoever is seeing it!
DeleteIt does look like one of the feeding tentacles of a giant squid, but that makes no sense. Neither does that crazy bowed neck.
DeletejesusFan
DeleteI understand the "supernatural" thing with the LNM. But, for me anyway, that's a dead end. It's borne out of going nuts trying to solve the mystery.
Think that could be one of the possibilities, as doubt one explanation fits here!
DeleteAnybody hear about this? Something or nothing?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/loch-ness-monster-spotted-on-sonar/
Interesting to me was that the size was about 9-11 feet?
DeleteActually 13 feet. Puny by monster standards. But that might not show the real length. From talk of last years sonar contact, sonar can only resolve the densest parts. I think, if I remember correctly, it was a possible swim bladder showing up as a crescent shape What say you GB, can you confirm that?
DeleteThat size would fit though seals and eels!
DeleteThats what I thought too John, when I read the size of this contact. However, that would mean the previous one is absolutely massive, some may even say monstrous ;).
DeleteSo, this one could be a juvenile, or male / female depending on whether one gender (am I allowed to use that word?) is larger than the other as with most other animals.
Roland, would you be able to get a better image of that sonar capture, I know you have contacts (no pun intended) with some of the boat crew?
DeleteLast September's sonar contact was between 15-20 feet, initially they thought it was 32 feet long till, the sonar manufacturers confirmed a lesser size, then we had Skipper Mike Bell in 2019 with a sonar contact of 20-25 feet long. This all suggests that we have possibly 3 different size individuals swimming in the depth's of Loch Ness. Eoin O Faodhagain.
DeleteThe sonar manufacturer estimated last Septembers contact as between 20 and 25ft.
Delete... And the manufacturers admitted that their figure was only an estimate due to the problems relating to estimating length.
DeleteThe sonar manufacturers told Mr McKenszie that the first contact in September was estimated between 15 and 20 feet as reported by the Strathspey & Badenoch Herald. Eoin O Faodhagain.
DeleteAnd on the 7th August the same newspaper said that there had been nine sightings of Nessie so far this year, so you don't want to believe everything that they say do you.
DeleteGreat interview Roland, Edinburgh (Scotland's last English city ;p) though....this weegie is saddened by that :D
ReplyDeleteStill a weegie myself!
DeleteSo can sonar give off a size length? Yes or no?
ReplyDeleteNo, if you mean an exact size. Yes if you mean estimates.
DeleteAn estimate is what it is, an estimate.
DeleteMost eyewitness reports are estimates - unless there is a frame of reference - e.g. Peter MacNab photo and castle.
DeleteHow com there's never contacts of two or more together. Yes i'm being provocative. Anybody got an answer for that, :P
ReplyDeleteI thought Cruise loch ness have had contacts of 2 or 3 together in the past?
DeleteThey did.
DeleteI thought so.
DeleteOMG! A flock of potential Nessies...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-india-58498881
Reminiscent of the description given by Lieutenant McP Fordyce.
DeleteFirst Nessie was an Elephant, and now a Camel?
DeleteOf course the LNM is not a camel, but I post this as representative of the high-quality National Geographic calibre photographic/video evidence that would be required to prove the existence of the LNM without the doubts that a fuzzy photo or sonar image brings. If one can take clear photos of immediately recognizable camels in the water, why not the LNM?
DeleteBecause LNMs and camels are chalk and cheese. LNMs spend 99.99% of their time underwater, when they surface, there is usually hundreds of metres between them and the onshore camera. When they surface, the reaction of an eyewitness can be counterproductive to taking some or any pictures.
DeleteSkeptics will only accept a live or dead body as evidence!
DeleteHow could you actually do this - perhaps a whale harpoon gun and a powered winch to reel the steel cable with the penetrated LNM in? I know this would be against various laws, but would settle the issue once and for all...
DeleteJesusFan No. The scientific method will only accept a live specimen or a carcass. I'm sure most sceptics would accept good close up video footage.
DeleteYes, I think I heard or read of some law protecting the LNM from killing or harm, and there should be. So that's out of the question. Closest you're going to get is biopsy darts or some other type of sampling projectile. Would that be considered harming it? And you know the animal rights people would be up in arms about it. That's a fine legal and ethical line.
DeleteFortis Fortuna Adiuvat...
Delete