tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post5198311316761885488..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: What Is Nessie? The Long Neck ProblemGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-51615072920646709102013-07-09T08:10:40.805-07:002013-07-09T08:10:40.805-07:00Grammar corrected, thanks.
Grammar corrected, thanks.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-59559744144265569562013-07-09T07:52:38.805-07:002013-07-09T07:52:38.805-07:00This comment is not intended to be published but t...This comment is not intended to be published but to point out a grammatical error on the page at paragraph 16:<br />"So in Holiday's account, a NECK sprouted from the NECK and in this account the opposite happens as the head-neck retracts into the body."<br />Obviously, one of those necks is supposed to be a head. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16828976097325176031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-68996248988573729752013-04-12T03:23:43.714-07:002013-04-12T03:23:43.714-07:00Steve,
I am still not convinced the head-neck is ...Steve,<br /><br />I am still not convinced the head-neck is a real head-neck especially when pole-like objects are reported with barely much to speak of head wise.<br /><br />Is it a tail? That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28552787211958273792013-04-12T01:14:27.726-07:002013-04-12T01:14:27.726-07:00It's a bit late to come back to this thread, b...It's a bit late to come back to this thread, but then my full article on the neck and tail issue wasn't finished and out until Feb 28, shortly after the previous comments here.<br /><br />GB - I do correct (refine?) my earlier quote of Mackal's stats that appeared here. Going back to his tables I recounted the surface sightings that mention a long neck, or any neck unless it was explicitly stated to be short. Also excluded from my tally were any sightings where the witness actually called it a tail. Included were those that mentioned a small head, or no visible head on the end of the "neck". In the final count, only 38 of the 251 surface sightings (15%) fall unequivocally into long neck reports. Another 3.3% of the sighting descriptions were too fuzzy to say one way or the other whether they belonged in the long neck category or not. So the real frequency (for this sample) falls between 15 and 18% -- far fewer long neck sightings than I imagine most people assumed, and leaving a mere 38 cases to be reinterpreted as tail sightings. And several of those 38 were made at extreme range, which was Mackal's given reason for not wanting to call them necks in the first place.<br /><br />To Chris L: I'm not proposing the tail is held up in a giraffe or swan-like posture when it's seen above water. Rather that the tail is still parallel to the long axis of the body, but that the whole body is pitched downwards at an angle. Also what's showing above water is rarely if ever the ENTIRE tail, just the last few feet of it. I think we're talking about a truly massive animal at the other end of the 1 to 6 feet of tail tip visible in these cases, which is plenty of anchor for the part showing.<br /><br />And to Laurence C: It's not absolutely impossible there are two distinct unidentified species in the loch, but the odds against that are simply astronomical. It's far more likely to be a single species, the morphology and behavior of which has been unexpected enough to confound and confuse us fallible humans.<br />Steve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-75758782299926073552013-02-06T11:04:18.501-08:002013-02-06T11:04:18.501-08:00It seems more likely that Rupert Gould was correct...It seems more likely that Rupert Gould was correct. He thought the creatures occasionally enter the loch from the sea.Laurence Clark Crossennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-60362348241072250482013-02-06T01:07:46.580-08:002013-02-06T01:07:46.580-08:00Another thought I posted elsewhere:
"Yes, I ...Another thought I posted elsewhere:<br /><br />"Yes, I think the varying lengths of Nessie necks (or whatever it is) points to retractability. I am also of the mind that Nessie is an opportunistic predator that lies camoflagued waiting for fish to pass and just shoot out the head/neck to grab them. This is more efficient than constantly swimming around for food. Being placed some feet down on the shoreline grabbing the salmon and trout as they do their runs is one particular mode of hunting I am thinking of."Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-6519947914678698812013-02-02T13:12:12.378-08:002013-02-02T13:12:12.378-08:00I admit I accept the Surgeon's photo was a fak...I admit I accept the Surgeon's photo was a fake. Among other considerations it is necessary to take into account the fact that surgeon's were at the height of their fame as scientists par excellence. They were likely to have a strong conceit that a belief in the monster was something for yokels.<br /><br />I think the correct explanation is there are two creatures, one long necked and one short necked, a lacustrine plesiosaur and a basilosaur descendant.Laurence Clark Crossennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-75953846538711321322013-02-02T05:45:19.412-08:002013-02-02T05:45:19.412-08:00Thanks a lot!Thanks a lot!Chris Lydeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18023136670555383518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-88173692187843298232013-01-31T05:16:59.372-08:002013-01-31T05:16:59.372-08:00Chris,
Yes, I will do the squid thing at some poi...Chris,<br /><br />Yes, I will do the squid thing at some point. This blog's long term aim is to cover all the bases in the Loch Ness Mystery.<br /><br />There are two main sources for Shiels' squid theory. He covers it in his own book "Monstrum!" and he wrote an article for Fortean Times way back in the 1980s I think. I have a copy so will look up the reference.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-90326486574276077202013-01-31T05:04:13.689-08:002013-01-31T05:04:13.689-08:00Some of them salamanders do have remarkably long t...Some of them salamanders do have remarkably long tails, but you hardly find them holding it up like a giraffe-like neck. And given its possible weight on a specimen as large as Steve suggests, I have hard time believing that it could kept in erect position throughout a say, one minute long neck & head sighting.<br /><br />Nevertheless, interesting posts from both of you.<br /><br />A slightly off-topic question: can you give me some information about Doc Shiels' infamous high-concept "elephant squid" theory? Is a detailed publication available about it online? And will this blog discuss it in the future?Chris Lydeckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18023136670555383518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-69350465384462052642013-01-31T01:41:42.771-08:002013-01-31T01:41:42.771-08:00A minor mis-quote on my part, actually Dinsdale sa...A minor mis-quote on my part, actually Dinsdale said 43%, not 45% of accounts mentioned the head-neck. Or more properly I think we should be saying "head AND/OR neck OR headless appendage that might or might not be a neck".<br /><br />Not sure that's a correction worth posting. He did however say separately that he counted people saying they saw a "tail" in 11% of sightings.Steve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-1904540918273892162013-01-30T02:25:23.438-08:002013-01-30T02:25:23.438-08:00Hi GB!
Recently re-reading Tim Dinsdale in prepar...Hi GB!<br /><br />Recently re-reading Tim Dinsdale in preparation for the article, I was having a hard look for where he came up with his 45% estimate (45% of all sightings may be classified as head-neck). Unfortunately he didn't include a table as Mackal did in his own book later. I think Tim may have come up with that by counting anything other than a hump sighting as head-neck (meaning he counted sightings that mentioned a neck but no head, a head but no neck, and any long appendage that could be taken for neck or tail). In his sightings accounts he covers heads seen protruding from the water, and heads reported connected to short necks too. I think ALL of the above factored into that 45%. Also he was working with a smallish sample of 100, so any stats would be more subject to skewing.<br /><br />With Mackal's tables there's a similar problem in that any head, neck, head+neck, and possible tails are also in one single column, but the cell contents and the remarks to all can be read to sort it out. The only sightings that are counter to my theory are of course those where a small head is reported atop a long neck. These are amazingly infrequent (recall how many report a "neck" with no visible head!)<br /><br />I tallied THESE sightings to be on the order of just about 5% of all sightings. Now I've gone and misplaced the tally sheet, so the whole number count eludes me. But it's there in the table for anyone to figure out. I'm not up to rereading the remarks to 251 sightings just at the moment.<br /><br />In any event, part 2 of my article tackles the headless neck head on, and disdains any conscious cherry-picking. Text and diagrams done, but badly in need of some more edits :) Unfortunately I may be kept away from working on it for several days.<br /><br />Steve PlambeckSteve Plambeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09651489411808346005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-61297200468230695112013-01-28T14:13:11.689-08:002013-01-28T14:13:11.689-08:00GB, I presume you've read a piece on Nessie th...GB, I presume you've read a piece on Nessie that was published in Fortean Times during the late seventies which was called 'Mother Natures Jumbo Jet'<br />It was written none other by Tony 'Doc' Shiels, the man responsible for the 1977 'Loch Ness Muppet' photo. The article proposed that Nessie could be an, as yet, undiscovered species of freshwater squid/cuttlefish. jimmy_sher72https://www.blogger.com/profile/16123798050799717911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-80691514239099648972013-01-28T11:02:00.636-08:002013-01-28T11:02:00.636-08:00If I remember correctly Ted Holiday suggested this...If I remember correctly Ted Holiday suggested this as a possibility in his book The Great Orm of Loch Ness. One of his ideas was that the creature was a giant variety of the garden slug and that such creatures were once 'quite common' in the UK and gave rise to many accounts of Dragons.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-73367648316385231952013-01-28T01:15:43.418-08:002013-01-28T01:15:43.418-08:00The descriptions here put me very much in mind of ...The descriptions here put me very much in mind of the way a slug or snail retracts and extends is various features, and I have to say that such a process does describe the movements of the unidentified object I captured images of from a webcam – which were submitted to this website for discussion.Ednoreply@blogger.com