Tuesday, 28 December 2021

Nessie Review of 2021



It is time to look back on the year past and so let us get straight into the recorded sightings via Gary Campbell's sightings register. This records six sightings for the year which compares to eight in 2020 and thirteen in 2019. Now not every account will turn out to be the monster, let everyone judge and be persuaded in their own mind. In fact, to this day, there is no such thing as a "confirmed" sighting as there is no agreed benchmark by which to measure such accounts and who would be the judge that chooses the ruler to perform the measurement? In my mind there are sightings that are beyond my reasonable doubt, but that will not be the case for others.

I would categorize four as single humps, one as a water disturbance and the last was detected underwater on sonar. Three had photographs and one included a sketch. The quality of the photographs are not good and again exemplify the problem of photography at the loch with mobile phone cameras - assuming these were the devices in use. The image below taken by Thomas Dobinson on the 30th July drives home the point.



The witness states that the dark coloured object below the castle was about two hundred yards away and the size of a dog. One may churlishly ask what kind of dog - a great dane or a chihuahua? If we assume a typical mutt then we are talking about two to three feet across. If we triple this to represent the six to nine feet of hump that would break the surface for an eighteen to twenty seven foot monster, even that would not look great on such a photograph - and this is a distance one may expect some clarity. But, no, assuming these estimates are correct, even a close up of a large creature may not cut the mustard due to the poor lens and aperture involved.

Remember, mobile phones are for close up friends and family or huge buildings, mountains and so on. I do not think I have seen a decent defensible picture of the monster since 2016 and the Kate Powell fin-like object. Before that we may go back to Bill Jobes and Jonathan Bright around ten years ago. Have mobile phones made the situation worse as people ditch decent cameras for them? I don't know, but it is a subject for discussion.

One report that I rank higher was by Colin Veacock on the 30th July. I have read the reports in the media, but I know Colin from his previous postings as a Nessie fan on Steve Feltham's Facebook group. Colin said the newspaper reports got various things wrong, so I lifted his own account given in fragments and reproduce it here.

I was scanning up and down the loch north of the castle when on my third pass I noticed this object about two thirds of the way across the loch. It was suddenly just there. I didn't, as one site put it, see a prehistoric monster surge out of the water! At first I thought it was small but later when the Jacobite Warrior passed I got a better idea of scale. It was two feet high, ten to twelve foot long and tapered away into the water. I came to that estimate by judging it was the same size as the handrail at the rear of the Warrior. A black dinghy speedboat passed close but it never moved. An Indian couple parked on my right followed my directions and gave me a thumbs up indicating he could see it. Then the clouds broke bathing the opposite shore and hills in bright sunlight and I lost sight of it in the reflections in the water. I didn't, as one site said, see it plunge into the peaty depths, I just lost sight of it.

... I think it was an animal but not prehistoric. Got to admit though, while watching it I was hoping the classic neck and head would pop up.

... I've always thought that 'Nessie' is something completely knew. Something we haven't come across before due to it spending most of its time in the deep water. I also think its the same species of animal spotted in other bodies of water at that latitude.

... It was just too far away. It was the same size as the handrail at the rear of the Jacobite Warrior. Besides which, every time I looked away it took me a while to relocate it. I should say as well, I thought it was much smaller until the boat came along and gave me a better understanding of the scale and distance involved.


Colin provided a sketch shown here. When I saw this, I thought to myself, where have I seen this before? The high end and the tapering hump evoked a memory of another sighting separated by decades but connected by similarity. The answer came from Rupert T. Gould a mere eighty eight years before and the witness was a Mr. W. D. H. Moir near Inchnacardoch Bay on the 26th August 1933 about 9:15pm. The text from Gould is below.






Mr. Moir was walking from Fort Augustus along the road running towards Port Clair, which skirts Inchnacardoch Bay. Just after he had passed Cherry Island, he noticed a " powerful wash" in the Loch, and observed an object heading to pass close to the far side of the island. He took it at first to be a boat hurrying for the Canal lock - whose gates, at that time, were closed at 9 p.m. As to the visibility, he remarks : "At the time . . . the sun was setting behind the hills, casting bright reflecting lights high over the Loch and the tree-tops, while the water was dead calm."

The object passed "dangerously close" to the far side of Cherry Island, and headed into Inchnacardoch Bay. By this time Mr. Moir - who, having heard no sound of oars or engine, had concluded that it was not a boat - had turned round and was walking back towards the bay. When within the bay it slowed down and appeared to roll from side to side, causing a "rolling wash" which spread until it reached the shore. Suspecting that he was looking at X, he left the road and went down towards the shore for a closer view - managing to get within, as he estimates, 200 yards of it. ...

Two points chiefly surprised him - X's colour, and its size. He had gathered, from previous accounts, that X was black, or almost so - whereas it appeared to him to be brown, "with a tendency to changing colours of a lighter nature, nearer the surface of the water." And he estimated the length of the portion visible to him at 40 feet. Somewhat resembling an upturned boat, it rose moderately sharply to a height of some 5 feet above water at about the same distance from the rear end, and then sloped gently down towards the front ... As he saw neither head nor tail, he concluded that the total length could scarcely be less than 50 feet. [He had X in view for four to five minutes.] He started to walk back towards Fort Augustus; hoping to get a lift on the way, collect his camera, and return to photograph X. After he had gone some distance, he noticed that the time was 9:30, and decided that the chance of getting a photograph was remote. He therefore returned  - but discovered, on coming in sight of the bay, that X had disappeared. 




Two differences between 1933 and 2021 was that Moir's creature was more than three times longer. The other was that the Moir creature was moving whereas Colin's did not seem to budge an inch. Note that the Monster continues to surprise. If one had been asked to guess what direction the creature would move, you may have said right to left as you assumed the raised portion was the shoulders and the back receded down to the submerged tail. But, no, it heads off tapered end first. Would Colin's object have moved in a similar fashion? 

The length to height ratio of the Moir monster was 8:1. Colin estimated his as between 10:1 and 6.7:1 which averages to 8.3:1  - very close to the Moir account. As stated above, Colin was less in accord with the journalists who typed up his account:

Since this sighting the reporters have driven me to the point of madness. Only one swapped an email with me. The rest just exaggerated and right out lied about what I saw. Seems if you're a reporter and you're going to write up a piece on Loch Ness, you either exaggerate and blow it out of all proportion, or you ridicule it and belittle the sighting - but what they don't do is just honestly report the facts.

One argument of the sceptics is that journalists take mundane accounts and spice them up to monstrous levels. In other words, the original account would have been easily explicable if known. It is an attempt to tar and brush many an eyewitness story in one sweeping generalization. As we can see here, they do exaggerate, but the original account is good enough to avoid simplistic dismissal.

Indeed, Gould himself re-interviewed many a witness who were previously published and found them still to be noteable accounts. One final observation is that the Veacock and Dobinson accounts happened on the same day separated by three and a half hours and perhaps less than a mile apart (perhaps Colin could verify that). Maybe that is just coincidence or perhaps it lends mutual credibility. 

The sonar image was discussed in this blog only a few weeks ago at this link. It is a good account by Benjamin Scanlon allied with the boat captain, Mike Bell. I discussed the matter with Mike and felt it was an object of some considerable dimensions, though what exactly those were and what the actual morphology of the object was were beyond the capability of the sonar device. I assume that we will be getting a few more of these images in the year ahead of us.

The third class of account now merits its own section on Gary's sightings website and that is the genre of webcam video images. Gary numbers them at ten for the year compared to five local sightings and one sonar scan. Five were by regular webcam watcher Eoin Fagan, two by Kalynn Wangle, and one by Weiming Jiang, Matt Reddick and Roslyn Casey. Now the regular charge is that these images are just specks of not real use. I wouldn't disagree much with that, but when I checked the three photos we have of the local surface sightings, they were no better, perhaps worse!

That's not the fault of any person, they can only work with the tools they have. But perhaps some hope is at hand as Steve Feltham is looking into installing a webcam from his home on Dores Bay or perhaps somewhere close by. Obviously as close to the loch as possible is high on the list, but I would also suggest a bit of elevation as well and a good HD resolution. Other higher cost questions may be infra red night vision, slow panning to cover more loch and zoom. I have no idea how feasible all of that is.

So much for the sightings log, what about research on this blog? The main breakthrough was finding the Sidney Wignall aerial film of something in Loch Morar. It took a bit of digging and luck but I got some images out there and the object itself (below). However, I concluded I was as ambiguous as Sidney was as to the object's identity. For now, I will say tree log, and hope to investigate it on site in the year ahead.



The other area of investigation this year was the location of the famous 1934 Surgeon's Photograph. I take the view it is a fake, but where from? In my article, I hesitated an educated guess that clues in the story and picture suggest it may have been taken at a quiet spot in Foyers Bay. That opened a slight possibility that something of the model may still be recoverable under ideal circumstances. To that end, I headed there in July with my metal detector. You can see me in action below trawling the shallows.



The trouble was I picked up so much metal thrown in over the decades, any trace of the Christian Spurling submarine may be lost in the noise - if there at all! It was a speculative punt and a bit of fun to boot. At the loch in general, I published two trip reports which are here and here. I also did a couple of interviews for crypto-oriented podcasts and you can see what else I wrote by clicking through the 2021 article history to the bottom right of the blog. The other event of note was an unwanted one in the death of water cryptid researcher, Scott Mardis, who died too young this year and all I can say again is rest in peace, mate. You will be missed.

In summary, I wrote 34 articles this year which is actually an all time low of one every 11 days. The best was 104 posts in 2012 or twice every week. You may well ask if I am getting bored with the subject or am finding less to write about. Well, I am actually concentrating more on other subjects non-Nessie related which has had an effect. But there is a bit of truth in the less to write about category. As I enter the thirteen year of this blog and 787 articles on, the majority of the major photos, films, sightings and hoaxes have been covered.

But some have been revisited this year, as mentioned above for the Surgeon's Photograph and also the AAA sighting by John McLean from 1938 as new information bolstered that account. In fact, I hope to start 2022 with an article on one of the classic sightings yet to be covered here. New sightings will obviously continue to come in and personal research will continue as it looks into things old and new.

With that I will wish all readers  prosperous 2022.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



174 comments:

  1. Found this compilation of lake monster videos/photos from around the world (some from Scotland), some of which I haven't seen before and seem to show some type of living creatures. Have a very Happy New Year!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrlluQXM78Q

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An interesting video with some unexplained footage, especially from Loch Lomond. Regarding Loch Ness I've never seen the image at 2:47 before. There does seem to be something in the water, apart from the boat wash. If it's an animal it has the lighter colour underside, which has been reported before. Urquhart Castle is clearly in the background. I wonder what do others think.

      Delete
    2. It is a staged hump for Werner Herzog'd film "Incident at Loch Ness".

      Who knows about the hump at 1:10?

      Delete
    3. 🤭😊 should have known it would have been covered by the blog if there was anything it.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately the Ricky Phillips photo is in there also.

      Delete
    5. LOL Yeah, he fooled us, but in the end he crashed hard! Another infamous hoaxer that got his 15 minutes of fame. One more to add to the Hoaxer's Hall of Shame.

      Delete
  2. My crypto-new year's wish is for a McLean-quality sighting and sonar scan. A healthy new year to all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And so the search goes on...
    Hoping that 2022 brings the Loch Morar 'real McCoy' image from 1981 and perhaps a close up shot from a boat, of the Loch Ness creature's .
    Above all may 2022 bring an end to the covid madness.
    Wishing Roland and all contributors a very happy new year and much success.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you Roland for the frequent blogs/updates and overall vigilance.
    I am pleased to hear that a new/updated webcam may be in the works. I am sure I am not the only one who would gladly pitch in financially to make it happen if needed. Perhaps some sort of investment perks for those that do??
    I believe the future interest in Nessie, and potentially part of the key to solving this mystery, depends on it.
    Regarding your post:
    I am very happy to have made the registry, though I fear it will not ever be given much credence because its a webcam sighting. I totally understand that viewpoint, and overall agree with it. That being said, I would love for people to check it out in all of its low-def glory! I have watched a ton of webcam footage, always with a skeptics view. This I found unique. It aint proof of anything though, other than the fact we need a much better webcam/webcams!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. That Moir drawing sure looks like that of a whale body to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whales spout
      That thing didnt.

      Delete
    2. Any ideas then, Sturgeon or giant eel maybe?

      Delete
    3. Maby..but steurgeon has a nobby back..that thing is very strange.

      Delete
    4. Much larger then normal Nessie sighting also

      Delete
    5. The Return Of The Giant Eel!!

      Delete
    6. @JesusFan - Are you literally going to ask everyone on this blog the same question until you get a different answer? I get the impression that if someone showed you a goldfish you'd still reply with....Giant Eel 😉

      Delete
    7. Well, it does seem to check off may of the boxes, especially if the eel is adapted to the Loch

      Delete
    8. The eel is adapted to the Loch. There's probably more eels than other types of fish. The eDNA showed that. Lots and lots of eels.

      Delete
  6. Hi Roland,
    It was interesting reading Mr Moir's account, at viewing the object at 200 yards, and noticing it wasn't black like all other accounts of the creature, it was in fact brown, changing to lighter colours near the surface. My sighting in Invermoriston in July 1987, was most definitely mottled brown hump. Not black, not grey. Mottled brown with no sun on its back to change it's colour. It was raining, and very windy on the day of the sighting. Happy New Year Roland.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Happy New Year GB and a'body who comments! Big shout out to that oh so elusive monster, she who keeps this mundane world just a tad more interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Happy New Year to you to Kyle and Happy New Year GB and a'body who comments! Big shout out to that oh so elusive monster, she who keeps this mundane world just a tad more interesting...

    Best Wishes Everyone,
    Jack.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are more brown coloured sightings than we think...including one of the best ever sightings in the 90's on the Dores road witnessed by 3 different groups of people.. Teaky brown was described by one and the others said it was brown too! Happy 2022 to all on here and hoping for more things to discuss in coming year.. I've got a spring and summer trip planned for my usual haunt in Fort augustus.. Roll on.. Happy New year to you all .. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is the most normal color for Nessie reported?

      Delete
    2. Pink, if you drink enough Scotch whisky.

      Delete
  10. Hi Roy,
    Happy New Year, and Thanks for sharing that information on the brown colour of Nessie, as I said above, I thought it was mottled brown myself from what I saw of it in 1987.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alrite Eoin.. Happy New year! I didn't realise you had a sighting yaself only knew bout ur webcams vids.. What did you see and how far out was it? Yes the mid 90's sighting was said to be of a brown colour..all the witness's agreed on this.. Some fotos were obtained but sadly the woman was chasing behind the object therefore only snapping a curious wash behind the object she saw. Another middle aged lady who saw it from her house said the wash was unlike any boat wash she had seen on the loch in her 20 years there! Good luck with ur webcam search and I shud be up in March then again in July.. All the best.. Cheeers

      Delete
    2. Hi Roy,
      My sighting took place last week of July 1987. Conditions far from ideal, but a sighting is a sighting, and glad to get one. I was on a regular bus traveling from Fort Augustus to Drumnadroicht,sitting upstairs next to the window, and before Invermoriston, out through the window I saw a large mottled brown hump at least 5 feet out of the water and slightly longer length out about 100 yards in the loch. From the road to the object about a quarter of a mile.On the day there was a 2 to 3 foot swell, on the water and a force 8 gale blowing north to south, a skipper I was with the next day confirmed to me the weather conditions of the previous day, and that is how I was able to judge the size of the object that I saw for about a minute and a half, before I lost sight of it when the bus came into contact with forestry.The waves were coming up on half of the object out of the water, so that is where I got the size of 5 feet high.Because the bus was moving I could not say that the object was moving, my first impression was that it was motionless.At the time I saw it I never even spoke, I was so captivated into what I was looking at, and by the time I realised the situation, the dreaded forestry, took away my line of sight and that was the end of that.34 years on I can still see it out the window, as if it only happened yesterday.It is funny remembering that episode, so clearly, I can hardly remember what I did yesterday.You could nearly say Roy, it was like a form of Trauma I experienced, that day, it never left me. Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    3. No, JesusFan, I did not get any impression, what I saw had anything to do with a fish, but then again Who knows?, but I think Nessie is unfortunately going to remain a mystery for a long time yet. I think we need a different approach on how we tackle this mystery. Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunately, yes Eoin. I am in the last legs of my life and I fear that as with the mystery of the UFO phenomena, The After Life (I guess I'll know when I I get there, or maybe not) and other mysteries in life. I have become pessimistic, but I can not walk away form this. In my death bed I will be mumbling Nessie... Nessie...among other things like #$@^&

      Delete
    5. @John Alvarado Hope you're around for a good long time yet, I do like reading your comments! My hope is that some new sonar technology is brought to the loch and shares with us in glorious detail exactly what our creature is.

      As for the afterlife, if this were a paranormal discussion, I would share my experience of at age 4 (and sort of witnessed by my mother) having a conversation with my Gran during the night, about 18 months after she died!

      Delete
    6. Thanks Latman, glad you can put up with my silliness! Well this blog does discuss the paranormal every now and then. UFOs and MIB at Loch Ness, oh my! And don't forget Ted Holiday with his quirky ideas.

      Delete
  11. Great account, Eoin!...and keep up the good Webcam work!

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are new technologies, as alternatives to sonar systems, being developed to make oceans "transparent" to track enemy submarines. It is a matter when these are available at reasonably cost for civilian applications, then you could see exactly what is in the loch and track the creatures... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-04/chinese-scientists-are-developing-lasers-to-find-submarines/11570886

    ReplyDelete
  13. It has been a wild ride Roland since I first came across your blog 10 years ago. I have seeing commenters come and go, each with their own unique thoughts and interpretations for this mystery, that in itself has added to the quality of my life. I thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think that there might be more then one nessie type seen over the years so just when one actually record one could be another type in there also!

      If nessie is shown to be a non exotic creature, such as large Sturgeon, will that bum people out here?

      Delete
    2. I can't speak for everyone on here obviously but I'd like to think that others would be delighted if it wasn't a sturgeon or any known animal. Again, those are just my thought's and I'm sure many may feel completely different on the matter.

      Delete
    3. t would surprise the hell out of me if it were a giant sturgeon. Exotic this, exotic that who knows. Our expert on everything Nessie Roland has postulated a giant exotic fish for lack of any credible candidates. Sure is a head scratchier of monumental proportions . Throughout the years, there has been incontrovertible evidence of some real physical phenomena at Loch Ness, but as with all things paranormal, UFOs, ghosts and the like, there is no concrete evidence as to the true nature and origin of these phenomena. We can make some good educated guesses and theories. When I was a wee lad many years ago perusing the paranormal section of the local library and came across Tim Dinsdale's landmark book, there was no dought in my mind that in fact a living throwback to the dinosaur age was involved.

      1972 came around with the astounding proposition that what the Rines expedition had supposedly captured by way of photographic evidence was for all intents an purposes the flipper of a Plesiosaur type creature. Well that clinched it for me at that time. Since then, that photo has more or less been brought into question and debunked to, dare I say it, my satisfaction. I hope I'm wrong. Where are we now? Nowhere. That being said, I still remain a believer in some strange inexplicable phenomena at Loch Ness.

      Delete
    4. Think some have stated that it might be the "ghosts" or maybe echos form the past that one would be seeing? Or maybe that there is a real supernatural element involved here, and that kelpies and water beasts now seen as nessies?

      Delete
    5. When I was kid and in my early teenage years I was 100% convinced we had a plesiosaur hiding in Loch Ness but naturally you start to mature and apply logic, I've never viewed that as a negative and to this very day I almost feel that it's statutory when discussing the LNM. I would absolutely love to find a plesiosaur in those dark waters but I sadly don't think that's the case.

      We are all hoping for that missing piece of conclusive evidence and who knows, it might be you, me or someone else that's lucky enough to bag that opportunity. I for one will never stop searching until we obtain that vital piece of evidence!

      Delete
    6. Interesting that you should say that jesusfan in reference to ghosts and echos of the past, that in my thinking evokes the realm of quantum physics and other possible alternate realities. Some of the leading theoretical physicists have proposed such possibilities. The multiverse, string theory, alternate realities, the holographic universe, the simulation hypotheses e.t al. Call me crazy but the fact that we exist is a mystery in itself

      .Why do we exist? Why is there a universe? Something from nothing? Consciousness, the idea that our reality is not tied to our physical gray matter, but rather that the physical world we perceive is created by a remote universal consciousness separate from our material reality. Dammit! I gotta stop getting drunk so late at night. But I digress.

      Delete
    7. As awesome as it would be for a Plesiosaur to still be visiting the loch, that animal has been used to beat the evidence into submission.

      I've shown colleagues the sonar scan (printed it on nice photo paper and pinned it above my home desk), eventually some wise ass will say "You cant possibly be one of THOSE people who still thinks dinosaurs are in the loch" (normally accompanied with an eye roll or two). At that point anybody who is showing interest in the sonar picture switches off.

      Without a photo, what other hard evidence do they need, well, I would say a sonar image is the next best thign to a photo.....as Steve Feltham said to Phil & Holly.... "is there a monster in Loch Ness, Bam, there's one, right there."

      Delete
  14. New documentary on The History Channel

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apRbJMSNNo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks John, is it any good? Wont let me see it as it's "Not available in your country". I'll sort that on my non work machine later....

      Delete
    2. Oh no, it's Giorgio Tsoukalos, the "It's Aliens" guy. Can't find that missing sock, car keys, wallet? Aliens!
      Wait an hour for a bus then three come all at the same time? Aliens! They forgot to include noodles in your chinese takeout? Aliens! Heh

      Jon

      Delete
    3. Yeah, it's that crazy haired Giorgio. And if anyone has seen any of his programs you can expect anything! Well yes Latman, if you believe in the Paranormal Nessie. He visits Steve Feltham and has a talk with Adrian Shine. Giorgio and Steve discuss sonar hits and other theories such as a portal to hollow earth and a spaceship at the bottom of the Loch in connection with Nessie! And, get this, Nessie may be a UFO.

      Don't think Giorgio or Steve necessarily believe any of that. Shine offers a new way of looking at the mystery, suggesting that, and quoting him “We are looking at this subject in new ways, which are not necessarily technology based. But they are evidence based. They are ways of treating anecdotes as data” What does he mean by that? That maybe we should place more credence on eyewitnesses? Sounds kind of cryptic and non-committal to me. They then retreat to his office and discuss files of recorded sightings by the LNIB.

      Next Giorgio travels to Lake Champlain to investigate Champ. He talks about some peoples theory that Champ and Nessie may be the same creature and that there could be a vast tunnel between Lake Champlain and Loch Ness. Last but not least are the theories that quarts crystals, time travel, wormholes and portals through which creatures such as Champ and Nessisie may be coming. Ancient Astronauts even figure in some of the discussion. So there you have it, more weirdness.

      Delete
    4. Aliens and Nessie? Nah.

      As to what Adrian said about anecdotal evidence, he is referring to work done by Charles Paxton which is definitely a sceptical work.

      Delete
    5. I don't know about tunnels, but similar lake monsters have been seen in bodies of fresh water at comparable latitudes around the world, Loch Ness and Lake Champlain being just two examples...

      Delete
  15. Love it Eoin.. Thanks for sharing that...if I had a sighting like that I wud remember it clearly too for a long time...here's hoping u get another...
    On the sturgeon theory I don't think any sightings at Loch Ness resemble a sturgeon!! I personally can't believe anyone thinks a sturgeon is behind the sightings. .cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Roy,
      I agree with you, the LNM, is no Sturgeon. I was just reading about the Atlantic Sturgeon, it has a high mortality rate due to vessel strikes, in the Hudson, where there is a lot of boat traffic.Our Nessie seems to be a lot more street wise, than the Sturgeon,and very cautious in relation to boats, noise etc, and a moves a lot faster, according to some eyewitness accounts. The average swimming speed of a sturgeon is 0.96 to 1.4 mph, which is also dependent on its environment. Eoin O Faodhagain

      Delete
    2. Would fit the descriptions of the large upturned boat look on the Loch though!

      Delete
    3. see Adrian Shine, and has been a popular theory over the years!

      Delete
    4. Not really.. No dorsal fin or ridges mentioned in sightings which the sturgeon has got..plus they quite flat and not humpish! Just because Mr shine says its a sturgeon doesn't mean we have to go along with it...nice chap he is though.. Cheers

      Delete
    5. I do not buy all Nessie have been either eels or Sturgeon sightings, but some might have been!

      Delete
  16. There is so much we don't know about this creature. However, we do have one ace in the hole, hopefully. It is the Hugh Gray picture showing the head of Nessie.
    To prove this picture is legit take a look at the head and responsible witnesses who have seen size and shape of the head. I guess that the monster's head is between 12 inches and 14 inches in length.
    So what is shown in the photograph but 8 to 10 inches only, as a guess of course. For arguements sake let it be 10 inches. Next, we have what appears as a curled up neck. A 15 foot snake curled up will look like it is only 4 feet long at a rough glance due to the bending process of its body.
    OK! Now we have the size of the head so we can measure the size of the hump and the size of the tail which we can add 1 foot to it due to the fact that part of this tail section is under water.
    Now we know from many reports that the neck of this creature is not overly long and a guess of 4 feet maximum can be added to the whole size of the creature.
    With this method, one might get a 17 foot to 21 foot creature just by taking in a quality guess at the head size. Hence, if this is a dog with a stick in its mouth, then it is one hell of a mighty big dog carrying a mighty big stick!
    This makes sense to go with the most reliable reports featuring head size due to the fact that many witnesses might be inclined to err in thier questimation. And the head being close to the body represents a flexible and bendible neck that is able to curve back on itself like a snake's body.
    By taking the head size as 10 inches (where are the horns?) and going all along the creature's size and then adding 4 feet for neck lenght and throw in an extra 12 or so inches for a head to be held straight out, we get a good sized monster approximation and at least put the doggie theory to bed.
    Ahmed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look at the head, does look really like a large eel mouth!

      Delete
  17. My son bought me a copy of Patrick J Gallagher's book 'LOCH NESS: From Out of the Depths' as a Christmas present. The book contents are 'Original Newspaper Accounts of the Rise of the Loch Ness Monster 1933-1934'.


    So far there have been three descriptions of a large head, two describing a small head, two descriptions of an eel like creature. Another witness described an up and down motion and not the lateral motion of a giant eel, someone else said it is nothing more startling than a Sturgeon. Other witnesses say the length is between 20-30 feet up to 50 feet.


    And that is just the first chapter (MAY SEPTEMBER-1933). How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is basically a combination of accurate sightings, ones too far away to properly describe, multiple LNMs at different stages of development and liars.

      Delete
    2. so BOTH ells and Sturgeons have been sighted as being Nessia for quite a while it would seem!

      Delete
    3. When was the last known confirmed sighting of a Sturgeon in Loch Ness? I'm going to assume that it's rare and inconsistent. I'm aware that individuals believe the LNM to be nothing more than a large Eel but I'll ask this...

      Why would an Eel venture to the surface if it's known to be a bottom dweller? The Eel and Sturgeon theory is only plausible when eyewitnesses have reported an object like an upturned boat. How do we explain the long neck accounts? (Please don't say a Giant seal) The other issue I have is that Eels and Sturgeons aren't known for their speed both in the water or the surface so what are witnesses seeing when they've reported that the unknown object moved with tremendous speed? Why would an Eel or Sturgeon lie motionless at the surface?

      Delete
    4. I saw an eel once on the surface when I was fishing years ago!I guess all bottom dwelling creatures will pop to the surface on the occasional time for some reason or other.. Cheers

      Delete
    5. Think that a giant eel or sturgeon would account for some Nessie sightiungs, but not all, and that is why still see more then one kind of nessie in the Loch!

      Delete
    6. Think that we have to account for not just all loch ness Nessie sightings, but all of those other lake monsters sighted around the world, as think should be the same type of creatures!

      Delete
    7. "so BOTH ells and Sturgeons have been sighted as being Nessia for quite a while it would seem!"

      No sturgeon has ever been seen or caught in the loch.
      No giant eels have been seen or caught in the loch.

      You are confusing what eyewitnesses thought what they saw looked like as opposed to what they actually saw.

      Delete
    8. Thanks for confirming Roland. I've never heard of a Sturgeon being caught or seen within the Loch, hence my question and enquiries.

      Delete
    9. Yup, the reference above is people speculating in the 1930s that it was a sturgeon. Of course, one cannot discount a sturgeon getting into the loch from a purely theoretical POV.

      Delete
  18. The sturgeon is a no for me...but I agree a giant eel cus pass for a lot of sightings! People say it can't give off a hump but I disagree!, in fact I was watching a video on YouTube of an eel like creature which at the start of the video gives off a humpish look then at the end it longs out to an eel like creature...imagine a giant one?? Can't share it on here but if you go on YouTube and type in ', mystery sea creature by Kevin burton'.... See what u think... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some claim to have seen Eels as large as 25 feet in the loch shallows

      Delete
    2. @Roy - Thanks for that suggestion. Really interesting and can definitely see the similarities so that's answered a few of my questions.

      I honestly do understand why the Eel theory is so popular amongst 'believers' and skeptics as it may appear to be the most logical answer but just because it's the most logical doesn’t necessarily make it correct.

      Thanks again for pointing me towards that video on youtube. Cheers Roy.

      Delete
    3. @JesusFan - Who has seen a 25ft Eel in the shallows of the Loch? If there's a link to this claim please post and share it with us.

      Delete
    4. news/science/1182634/loch-ness-monster-sighting-proof-eel-scotland-giant-eel-monster-sightings
      https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/10/more-about-those-loch-ness-giant-eels/

      Delete
    5. Re: YT video. Unfortunately the videographer zooms out at just the wrong moment, during the big reveal. I see that and think, well that's unlucky. Or else well planned.

      Delete
    6. @JesusFan - So if I've done this correctly with copy and paste, I see nothing of a 25ft Eel being spotted in the shallows. The only reference I can see is from Mr O’Faodhagain and his 'sighting' which he claims showed an object roughly 20-25ft long via the ridiculous and extremely poor quality webcam. If I'm wrong then please point me in the right direction, I'm open for correction.

      Without trying to offend anyone I'm not at all interested in hearing or reading about these webcam sightings, no disrespect intended.

      Anyway, thanks for sharing the link.

      Delete
    7. I agree, A.R. Too much wishful thinking. I look forward to more accurate assessments of what's in the Loch in the future.

      Delete
    8. Roy, some locals think it was just a loose rubber mat from a dock...
      https://www.singularfortean.com/news/2018/9/4/mystery-sea-creature-might-have-mundane-explanation

      Delete
    9. Nice footage. I wouldnt put it at 10 meters though, nowhere near.

      Delete
    10. Jesusfan, regarding the link you posted. If I recall correctly, I think someone had mentioned that incident and GB had looked into it and had written it up here. The witness said it looked eel-like, but that doesn't necessarily mean Nessie is a giant eel. Why the fixation on giant eels? Just suppose for a moment and let our imaginations run wild, that an eel of gigantic proportion was caught and somehow it was determined that Nessie was in fact an eel all along. Can you imagine what that would do to all us Nessie fans, some who for decades have followed this mystery and who would wish and expect that it were an amazing unknown species, maybe even a link to the dinosaur age?

      Furthermore, imagine what that would do to the colorful history and folklore of this mystery and legend, not to mention the damage it would do to the tourist trade. Thousands of visitors go to Loch Ness because they believe that there is something extraordinary in those waters. Not only that, but Adrian Shine would have to closes down his Nessie Center and be out of a job, do you think he wants to write papers on smelly, slimy eels? I should think not! And Steve Feltham would have to pack up his mobile home and drive back home! And no more Nessie Blog! Who wants to come to Loch Ness and see a giant eel, ugh!

      Delete
  19. It's a strange one indeed. I've always said that eye witness accounts are far better coming from the local communities as they've spent years within that area whether it's Loch Ness or somewhere else, they know the environment, they've probably seen most natural phenomena on the waters surface and so on. I'm assuming this of course and I know I shouldn't but I can't help myself but of course there's individuals within the local community who haven't seen anything strange at all and this always returns to the idea of being in the right spot at the right time and of course, that applies to everyone and not just the locals. Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I hadn't heard of the rubber mat hypothesis before, but I can see where the idea comes from, with its movements and the glistening of water off its surface. If the cameraman hadn't zoomed out just when he did, it looked like it was going to reveal itself even more clearly. Then the video cuts out. I guess we'll never know for sure the what and why.

    There was another video taken a while back from a California(?) beach, and everyone was running around screaming giant sea snake. It certainly looked for all the world like one, a huge thing slithering around on and just under the surface, heading for the bathers. It turned out to be a big log being pushed onshore with the surf.

    Still waiting for the One Video to rule them all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. JesusFan, your repetitious style of asking the same questions over and over again as if no one had ever answered them has to stop. From now on, I will filter them out. If you have anything else to say that is relevant, it will get through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think he could be right though on the giant eel.

      Delete
    2. was there anything ever definite found or discovered on this film, as it does look like really good evidence for Nessie if true!
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-01-10-nessie-resurfaces-78-years-later-have-you-seen-this-monster/

      Delete
    3. There's certain individuals on here acting as if the Giant Eel theory is new when we all know that it's not. It's been put forward many times before over the years and for some bizarre reason the News/Media jumped on the bandwagon after Prof Neil Gemmell's DNA study and reported things like:

      'Scientists finally killed off Nessie'
      'Mystery Solved'
      'Exciting new theory'
      'Giant Eel confirmed'

      I just find the whole thing incredibly frustrating!


      Delete
    4. Frustrating too when people with only superficial knowledge of the LNM say things like: "But that DNA study showed everything in the lake and there was no monster! So case closed, right?".
      I don't have the time or energy to explain every time the limits of eDNA studies...

      Delete
    5. I was thinking giant eel long before Neil Gemmell's DNA study.I think a big eel is all that we are left with now.

      Delete
    6. It fits many of the sightings, but there also are sightings that would mean that there must be some type of creature being seen at time in Loch Ness

      To me , the most puzzling sightings to me involve nessie being seen on the land

      Delete
    7. @Jesusfan Probably very good evidence if it was ever found.

      Delete
    8. Does anyone know if the short movie was even seen at one time?

      Delete
  22. I think a large eel cud account for some of the sightings!!.. but not all.. I wish mr gemill had talked more on the 25% of the unknown Edna they got!how far up the animal chart did it go etc... Cud it of bin reptilian..amphibian..fish..we cud get a lot closer to the unknown Edna if we knew! I for one was very surprised that he didn't go into detail more on the unknown stuff cus surely that's what a lot of us are looking into... Cheeers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Roy - Yup, I agree. I actually made the effort to comment as much as I could on several YouTube channels trying to explain the Eel theory isn't new and the most interesting thing to come from that study was the 25% of DNA that couldn't be explained, damaged or unidentified.

      Delete
    2. Yeah A.R....ironic cus before the Edna testing I was really hoping for some unknown dna results coming back.. Then I found out they did but it was just brushed under the carpet.. Baffling!! I think Mr gemill just wanted to rule out plesiosaur and basically it was a big publicity stunt!the lack of Otter Edna prooved it was all unreliable...cheers

      Delete
    3. If the LNM is an apex predator there won't be a lot of them around to shed DNA (less if they're visitors), so that 25% figure looms larger than it seems at first.

      Delete
  23. Out of all the stories related here, to me the MacLean sighting comes across as the most convincing as to what the creature looks like, and he did not describe an eel. I haven't read anything yet that changes my mind, but remain open to other possibilities if that's where the evidence leads.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alright, as long as everybody is talking eels again, I might as well join in on the fun. Not that I have anything better to do, not even drunk at this point. Of all the possibilities of a credible candidate for the LNM, the eel is the worst possible contender. Sure it ticks some of the boxes, but only superficially.

    And how come none of the well known cryptozoologists never argue for the mythical giant eel? No, it's always a giant seal, turtle, catfish, amphibian or some type of whale. Even the least of all possibilities, the sturgeon gets short shrift. Forget about the giant catfish, I think were pretty much done with that idea and it's in the garbage can like a smelly carcass. Some comenters on hear are fond of saying that some sightings of large eels could account for a Nessie, surely mistaken. Or that it ticks many boxes, yes, but not all to make the case for what experiencer's have actually seen as a genuine Nessie. Sorry to burst the bubble for all the eelers here. Now I'm the bad guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lake monsters have been reported in the 40-60 latitude across the globe, usually in deep and colder lakes, so would that not support idea of them being more mammalian in nature?

      Delete
    2. We have to seek out what the best choices would be for Nessie at this time, as the only creature whose Dna was supported would be Eels, and that other % unknown at this time?

      Do think a very large and unknown amphibian would also be a very good choice for Nessie

      Delete
  25. I agree Ron its convincing and the gentleman seems quite trustworthy but i cant help thinking a giant eel would resemble his actual photograph of his sighting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I meant drawing not photograph.

      Delete
    2. I don't see it, Gezza, but I'd never say you were wrong. The impression I got from MacLean's drawings was that the creature was on the sleek, slender side, not like the bulkier plesiosaur-types of renown, though with similarities. Then again, he didn't see its full form. It was familiar, but different, if that makes sense.

      I picked MacLean because, for me, it helps to have a touchstone, a reference by which to judge everything else, which in this case involves theories that are all over the place.

      Delete
    3. I don't see it either. Comparing a large eel to what Maclean said he saw is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. How does one explain the changing undulating humps? An eel does not flex in the vertical plane to cause that appearance. Surely Maclean could have differentiated an eel from some type of otherly creature.

      Delete
    4. Yes Ron its a great sighting and a great story. I still think he could of seen a giant eel that day though.

      Delete
    5. Yes, the humps, maybe the most interesting aspect of this. Also, its gulping down food (MacLean thought) at the surface -- do eels do that? (I don't know.) The sleekness may be age or sex-related (or my impression of sleekness could be totally off-base).

      My sense is that it's an unknown species. Whether it's indigenous to the Loch or a visitor from the sea is always one of the more fascinating discussions that goes on here.

      Delete
    6. Amphibian plesiosaur..hibernates for weeks..burrows into the mud..goes on land to lay her eggs

      Delete
    7. Where around the loch on land would they lay eggs without being observed? Apparently there are no swamps adjacent to Loch Ness as there are at Lake Champlain where there are claims the animals do lay their eggs in swampy areas. This could also be turtle-like behaviour...

      Delete
    8. Just a theory..based on sunnyokanagan.com andrew bennett photos of ogopogo eggs babies and a female ogopogo traveling through the grass and flowers on a sunny day.

      Delete
  26. "Serpentine" is often used to describe what's being seen, but that doesn't always mean "eel." It does mean that nature chose that shape to be efficient for swimming around, and as it often has, spread it around to different species. Loch Ness has its own peculiar, singular family of residents, as yet unidentified and waiting for a name put to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ron,
      I am not supportive of the giant eel theory either, but Gary Campbell told me last July, that he has been told by fishermen, fishing from boats,on Loch Ness of large eels the size of their boats swimming by. Now fishermen to me are the closest contact sightings your going to get on Loch Ness, and that speaks volumes, even though you may not agree with the giant eel theory. I told Gary at the time, surely eels cannot account for eyewitness testimony, of 3 to 4 feet girth, or 4 to 5 feet high. That is where the question mark comes in? Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    2. So eels as big as fishing boats? Very interesting, if thats the case there are sure to be bigger ones in there. The plot thickens.

      Delete
    3. Quite right, mate. There may be large eels in the loch, but they are not the LNM. And you are correct, large eels do not account for what eyewitnesses have seen when they say they have seen something extraordinary, like humps, a huge back, or a head on a neck above water. That's the classic example of the creature that goes back many years. Although I have to say, head and neck sightings have been a rarity in recent years.

      Delete
    4. LOL. I thought the captive eels at the old Sea World oceanarium here in California were the most God-awful things I'd ever seen. Finding a giant one swimming next to my boat (if I had a boat) would be my Roy Scheider/"Jaws" moment x 1000.

      Delete
    5. Don't get exited Gezza, probably small two man boats, not fishing trawlers.

      Delete
    6. Someday we might see a photo of the carcasses washed up on the Loch Ness shore, of a LNM swallowing a giant eel, or vice versa. Whether it will be definitive, I don't know. But I am sure Adrian Shine will be in the shot.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for that information Eoin, now we have it first hand there are big eels in the loch. If these big eels stay in the loch for a number of years then there we have our nessie.

      Delete
    8. Ron your right. Imagine a big eel next 2 your boat it would be quite frightening i imagine.This story of the fishermen is also proof that eels do indeed come to the top of the loch.

      Delete
    9. Hi Gezza, I should have said, what John indicated, Gary was talking about 2 man small boats, but that in itself, the eels are still bigger, than what is generally known about them. Eoin.

      Delete
    10. Hi Gezza,
      Your correct to say that large eels do come to the surface and it pains me to say that giant eels would also solve the riddle of a breeding population for large unknown species in Loch Ness. The breeding population would have to be a certain number, to continue its existence, and mutant eels would go along way in solving that equation. I would love the LNM not to be a giant eel, but you still have to consider all the knowledge and facts at your disposal, and weigh up your options. Eyewitness accounts of size and proportions,and speed of movement, you would think has nothing to do with a giant eel, but there may be other biological factors to consider in relation to the eels, that we know nothing about. Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
  27. Honorable mention should go to the Loch Ness Giant Salamander. The theory has its pluses and minuses like the rest but is also unique. Hope we hear some more on this in the new year.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Don't want to come cross as negative but I sadly don't use Gary or his site for information. His website is full of pictures that are easily explained and the worst part is that he's uploading several images of the same object but from different people, angles at different times. It's blatant lies from eyewitnesses, I'm NOT saying Gary is lying but he really needs to do some digging around before posting on his site.

    The pictures based in Urquhart Bay are the best examples and I don't believe for one moment Gary didn't or wouldn't recognise that area and the object within as it's painfully obvious! Knowing that Gary uploads these ridiculous lies makes it very hard for me to trust his information, sources and Intel.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi A.R. I wasn't speaking about Gary's Website, I was writing about matters which he expressed to me in person. Have you ever met the man? I find Gary to be a kind, trustworthy individual, and who has nothing to gain from telling me what fishermen have seen on Loch Ness. Bad mouthing people really get's you know where in this life. Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
  29. Gary Campbell's site is good for latest info even though sum pics are obvs not of a creature! Talking of Gary I've noticed in recent years he has sided with the giant eel as a possibility for the monster! Gary had a sighting himself many years ago which he described as a 10-12 ft hump... so to go towards the giant eel camp he must think what he saw cud pass as a big eel!!!.. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be he operates his website as a repository of everything people think is the LNM, without too much critical discrimination and leaves it up to people to make up their own minds Some pics are definitely NOT of the LNM! The Ricky Phillips “Log Ness Monster” shot is still there. LOL

      Delete
  30. Hi Roy,
    If Gary is moving over to the giant eel camp, he obviously believes what the fishermen told him. Eoin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah maybe Eoin...and I vouch for u saying he a genuine fella.. I spoke to him on the fone years ago and he seemed a nice friendly genuine fella who indeed had a sighting!! I'm bit surprised when I sent him my foto from the summer he didn't show it plus he never got back to me when I offered my second foto and quick video my daughter took... Maybe Mr Feltham put him off when he first got suspicious bout me lol... But still..after my genuine story came out and proof I was on the hill in Loch Ness ... Still nothing!! Anyway old hat now lol. But its nice to know Gary is there for anybody who obtains a foto or sighting.. Same as Mr Feltham if ur up on that side of the loch! I'm quite sure despite our previous differences if I ever obtained a foto or video of summit strange in the loch I wud take it straight up there to show him to save any wire crossing( not that I expect to see anything again lol)... Cheers

      Delete
    2. "He obviously believes what the fishermen told him" - He also believed several accounts enough to post and share them even though it's utter nonsense. That's where my trust comes into play. I certainly don't speak for everyone on here and I would never presume to do so but Gary has left himself vulnerable and open to being sucked in by BS. If anything I'm looking out for Gary.

      You're right, perhaps Gary doesn't gain anything from all of this but because he's openly posted false information then we are well within our rights to challenge his judgement. This is coming across as being negative but I can assure you it's not.

      Delete
  31. Where have I bad mouthed Eoin?

    I don't think I'm bad mouthing Gary at all and I've even pointed out that he personally is not lying. As a fellow Nessie enthusiast like most here, I believe it's almost a duty of care for us to highlight the nonsense and thin the herd. My issue is with eyewitness accounts that are clearly BS with a picture included but yet it's still posted. There's a difference between bad mouthing someone and rightfully challenging their decision.

    Gary isn't daft, he knows the Loch and the surrounding area so I think it's fair with what I'm saying, it's a valid point. As 'keeper' of sightings surely he would do some digging before posting to ensure that he's covering all corners and protecting himself from further BS accounts that are clearly lies. Those isolated accounts do nothing but fuel the skeptic camp and that's something we do not want in my opinion.

    I haven't met Gary in person but we have had a few conversations via emails.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A riddle wrapped up in an enigma and guaranteed to keep the interest of people far and wide.
    For me I've been open to more than one unidentified species within the huge loch. Open to transient also though not a common view.
    The giant eel theory can't be dismissed when we think of land sightings and slime and certain sightings.Given the common eels ability to breathe out of water it may well have a mutant cousin.
    But they simply can't be related to what Mrs.Carey and others witnessed occasionally from their vantage point overlooking the loch. Its well worth looking at the blogs coverage of this.
    Nor can it explain the many other "upturned boat" sightings.
    The McLean sighting stands out for its detail and doesn't sound like any kind of eel. His recall many years later surely puts paid to a made up sighting. He had nothing to gain.
    Nor does the Finlays sighting.
    Here again we have a small head and a visible, protruding neck .
    Surely the answers will come soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @PhoenixMan - Yup, the McLean sighting is a cracker for sure.

      I'm continually telling myself to stop feeding into the Eel theory but my self discipline is awful. I will fully admit that an Eel is plausible but I'm certainly not sold on that idea and never have been.

      If you look at images of Eels you'll notice that they display a consistent shape and as far as I'm aware Eels do not have long necks with an abnormally small head.

      Out of curiosity I searched for Longneck Eels and discovered that they are considered 'Pelagic Fish' which means they are found within the pelagic zone which is the part of the ocean/sea/Loch not near the shore or near the bottom. Also worth pointing out that adult longneck eels are only 1-2 feet in length. If Eels prefer this Pelagic zone then why come to the surface? The Sonar a few years back showed an object near the bottom of the Loch and outwith the Pelagic zone.

      It's interesting stuff for sure!

      Delete
  33. I think any animal will move out of its comfort zone from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Gezza - It's possible. Looking back at the McLean account where it was sighted near the river normally filled with trout, why breach the surface to eat when surely it'd be easier to hunt and eat in the water rather than above it? He described the eating motion similar to birds with the head and neck flipping up and down in order to swallow. It's really bizarre. I've tried to search for clips in order to see how Eels grab their prey and eating them. I'll admit there's a small similarity but the majority I've watched don't display the same eating behaviour. It's actually been good researching Eels and their characteristics but I'm still not in the Eel camp so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Those are the questions I posed earlier that, along with MacLean's general description, make me think the creature's identity is something off the books. There's no overwhelming evidence that's been established yet to say it's one thing or another. But it remains fascinating to study the possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ron,
      It is interesting that MacLean's account of the creatures movement was like a snake and having a tail 6 feet long and a foot thick, tapering to a point, would make it very versatile and fast as it moves through the water, churning up a lot of foam, as eyewitnesses have reported over the years. Steve Feltham's own account was of an object moving through the water like a torpedo. Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    2. Eoin, it does sound like a sleeker version of the LNM than we've heard of elsewhere. It would make for a very efficient predator. It's also unusual that MacLean was able to see both head and tail. And those humps.

      Delete
  36. Nobody has ever seen a giant eel or a eunuch eel so we dont know how they would behave or what they would look like at the surface of the water. I think maybe an older fatter eel could behave sightly different to the younger quicker ones.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ever feel like we're just going around in circles? Aww well, got to love Loch Ness.

    @Roy - I'm actually delighted that no giant Eels have been sighted or caught. As Roland rightfully said, these are descriptions only and nothing official. I don't care how plausible it may seem I still don't adopt the Eel theory.

    @Ron - You're not alone. I too think it's an animal yet to be discovered and classified. I personally feel that whatever individuals are seeing belongs to the amphibian family tree.

    Like most things Nessie related, we can only speculate for the time being and you're also spot on in regards to studying and searching all possibilities, it's braw fun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think that due to the coldness of the waters in loch ness and other lakes with monsters , the creatures would have to be either a fish, mammal, or else an amphibian.

      Would the Nessies be land locked in the Loch, or can they be coming in and out from the sea?

      Delete
    2. An amphibian, but not as bulky as the Loch Ness Giant Salamander theory posits. An interesting thought, one that I hope we discuss more here.

      Delete
    3. @Ron - For sure! I know most turn to the Giant Salamander when mentioning Amphibians within the Loch and I understand why but I personally think it's an Amphibian yet to be classified. That's just me and my outlook.

      Delete
    4. Well, here's my two cents and just my opinion, what do I know. If it is an amphibian, I don't think it's a Giant Salamander. Kudos to Steve Plambeck for thinking outside the box with such a novel idea., but It just does not conform to what people have been seeing for years. What do I think a Nessie is? Beats the hell out of me. In the heyday of LNM investigations of the 60s and 70s the popular belief was the plesiosaur. Now we all know that a plesiosaur is just not tenable. Past eyewitness observations have hinted at plesiosaur morphology. I tend to think in terms of an unknown species that through convergent evolution gives the impression of a plesiosaur type creature.

      Delete
    5. I agree that the shape is likely similar, streamlined perhaps. Amphibian, mammal or reptile: unknown. Assuming it's an apex predator, and some large eels are as well, we've never seen them fight it out for king of the loch.

      Delete
    6. @John - I'm sure most of us would love to find a plesiosaur in Loch Ness but as you've said, it's extremely unlikely and wishful thinking.

      I'll back you up with the Giant Salamander theory, it's an interesting thought and it's a great read. The only reason I say amphibian is to connect those rare land sightings. If this creature does breathe air and if there's more than one I feel sightings would occur more often but I do acknowledge that a 23 mile Loch is difficult to cover, it's a daunting task.

      Delete
    7. If the thing is gulping down food at the surface, or spending time cruising the Loch with head and neck above the waves, that shows some air-breathing ability, doesn't it? I'm the first to admit I don't know how it processes oxygen or if it's holding its breath.

      Delete
  38. A..R..I dont think nessie is an eel.. I just said a big eel cud pass for some of the sightings...gordon Holmes for one! The 5 or 6 best bits of evidence in my humble all involve wakes.. I doubt a fish or a big eel cud leave wakes like that on Loch Ness.... Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what about the idea that nessie and other lake monsters could be surviving whales, that were real snake like in appearance

      Delete
    2. @Roy - I know what you were meaning mate, my apologies if I wasn't clear.

      The Holmes footage is really interesting, I believe it does show a living creature and it's certainly not a windrow suggested by Dick Raynor. Do you mean 5-6 seconds within the Holme footage or 5-6 separate accounts?

      Delete
    3. Its about - ft long it looks to me, so would be well within range of something if not an eel

      Delete
    4. A..R..soz I meant 5 or 6 sightings in the history of the mystery.. The ones that convince me summit big in there and odd looking... They all involve a wake and some multiple sightings...there are lots of maybe's but the 5 or 6 are best for me!.. Cheers

      Delete
    5. @Roy - Aww mate, don't leave me hanging. What are your top sightings? No doubt we'll share at least one or two accounts. It's OK if you don't want to share that of course, just having a friendly chat with you.

      Delete
    6. @Jesusfan. Well that's what Roy Mackal thought at one time, among other things. He was thinking maybe a Basilosaurus, a type of ancient whale. Recently a well known cryptozoologist also revived that theory. Meh...I don't think so.

      Delete
    7. I agree, the witness reports don't resemble a Basilosaurus at all! Which btw couldn't go on land. Besides, "living fossils" are less likely imo...

      Delete
    8. A..R...always up for a chat bout the mystery lol.. There are loads of good sightings but most fotos and vids clearly are not large creatures... The 6 sightings I'm referring too include a foto or a video and most have multiple witnesses which always strengthens the sightings.. Three from the 60's..one from 96 and two around 2000 .. Cheers

      Delete
    9. @Roy - I'd agree in regards to those accounts where several people observed the same object but they themselves were at different locations when the sighting occurred. I'd say that those accounts are harder to explain or debunk even from a skeptics point of view. We all know the usual suspects who like to tell us what we've seen even though they themselves were not present at the time. Telling a single eyewitness what they seen is one thing but to tell a group is just insulting.

      There's one video that I'd love to see for myself but to my knowledge it's been completely removed from the public domain or it simply remains at home with the owner, Bobbie Pollock (BP).

      I've only watched a very brief clip of this footage and that was many years ago, I remember reading that an individual or a research group from the Scottish Sea Life Sanctuary had studied the video, so I turned to Google for some help and found this...

      ''Sometimes it looked like a seal, sometimes it did not look anything like a seal. It was moving quickly - it was pretty quick - I felt too quick for a seal.''

      That analysis is important especially the part about its speed. BP had also said "It started moving off towards Fort Augustus at quite a pace"

      Enter Dick Raynor. Raynor also studied the footage and he believed that BP has most likely filmed a person going for a swim as Raynor claims he could see a hint of arm movement. Raynor arrived at this conclusion based on seeing two kayaks/canoes which were positioned on the shore. Really? This is suggesting that Raynor believes a human can move faster than a seal in the water.

      It's an interesting account but I'm puzzled to why the footage is no longer available. The footage belongs to BP so he's free to do whatever he wants with it or did he remove it because it showed nothing more than a person swimming in the Loch? The mystery continues...

      Delete
    10. A..R..I was told years ago bout the pollock video and how it was brilliant and defo animate..but to my despair I cudnt find it anywhere! One day I was in drummnadrochit visitor centre.. the original one and I paid to see the film and to my excitement a clip of this video is shown! I admit I was a bit disappointed when I saw it.. the object is far away and video is shaky and Mr raynor is right there does look like canoe's close by on the shore! Cud it of bin a person splashing about in a black wetsuit?? Im not sure... But I've seen better evidence than this video... Cheers

      Delete
    11. @ROY - Yeah I've read and heard that it was on display for a while. I spent a long time searching for it but the clip I watched recently was from one of these documentaries covering the LNM.

      I understand why Raynor thought that but they certainly don't look like canoes to me. If we have footage close to the shore and a car is parked near by and within frame are we going to assume its a driver going for a swim? Do you see where I'm coming from?

      We also have analysis from an individual who is based at The Scottish Sea Life Sanctuary who would know if this was a seal or a swimmer. If they say that the object was too quick in the water to be a seal then surely a human couldn't cover that speed too?

      Delete
    12. A.. R. .like I said its a long time since I saw it but I remember bin disappointed after the video was hailed as best ever and defo animate! It's poor quality and I can't remember thinking the speed of it was that impressive!Maybe cus it was built up so much I was disappointed in the actual footage! There is better out there in my humble.. Cheers

      Delete
  39. Roland, do you know anything about this photo from Italy that has showed up on Facebook? Fake? Apologies for leaving Loch Ness for the moment.

    https://www.facebook.com/Lake-Monsters-537100722991730/photos/pcb.4968991183135973/4968990613136030/

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hmmm... No disturbance in the water from something so big? Fake?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, lots of things about it look off. It just popped up on Facebook and I'm hoping Roland knows more about where this came from. And again I apologize to all for the detour.

      Delete
    2. The picture looks to be taken with a radiator and zoomed in, so its hard to see if there is or isnt any water disturbance clearly. If it is genuine, whatever it is (it looks like it has plesiosaur vibes about it) may be motionless, hence the apparent lack of disturbance. Though as I said, picture quality is terrible.

      Delete
    3. Maybe this is supposed to be "Bennie," the monster of Lake Garda. In any event, there's been no follow up, just silence, which probably tells us all we need to know. I'm real sorry I brought it up.

      Delete
  41. Not sure which book it's in, Holiday's, Dinsdale or Witchell, but it mentions
    Irish fishermen [ poachers ? ] travelling to the loch to catch [ again, legally or not ] the big eels that are reputed to live in the depths.
    It's mentioned in passing, but no real evidence, just heresay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This tale about Loch Ness sounds vaguely familiar, and there's a somewhat similar story about fisherman, Irish lakes, and their reputed horse eels.

      Delete
  42. I would like to contribute the following, from page 28 of Karl Shuker's fine updated tome "Still in Search of Prehistoric Survivors"...

    "The chances of something becoming a fossil are very, very small indeed.... It has been estimated that for every 10,000 species of animals or plants that have lived on Earth, only one single type has managed to become a fossil. It has also been estimated that for those animals that live on land, only about one bone in a billion ever survives the restless churning of the Earth to become a fossil."

    I hypothesize that Nessie and similar entities are merely a type of creature that are not found in the fossil record as we know it today. They seem similar to elasmasaurids, but maybe they hail from a different genus, or even subfamily of animals. That's what I am leaning towards now.

    The creatures exist, they have long necks, and locomote well in water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably very true when you consider prehistoric life living the length of time before the mass extinctions. Who knows of the true variety and diversity of life that abounded all those thousands and millions of years ago. Every now and then you learn of some new type of fossilized plant, new species of dinosaur, or post dinosaur life discovered. Prehistoric life could have been as plentiful and diverse as the insects are today.

      Delete
    2. Some plesiosaurs were uncannily similar to descriptions of the LNM (65 million years of evolution later?)... Here a species from NZ discovered just a few years ago:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiwhekea

      Delete
    3. @Anonymous - That was fascinating to read so thanks for sharing that with everyone! After reading your comment it actually inspired me to dig deeper and to learn more on the subject, so far it's been very insightful. Cheers.

      Delete
    4. @Ken - After opening the link and seeing that first picture, it really reminded me of the head and mouth from the Hugh Gray photograph.

      Delete