tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6884213256224722576..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: Paranatural Documentary on Lake MonstersGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-91142294200237559422014-12-26T03:37:08.948-08:002014-12-26T03:37:08.948-08:00That was a head and neck report. A plesiosaur typ...That was a head and neck report. A plesiosaur type report needs to include a big body too.Bellicosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-56802354548062954622014-12-24T16:56:28.653-08:002014-12-24T16:56:28.653-08:00Paddy - thank you for the list.Paddy - thank you for the list.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-39277035886634816162014-12-24T02:55:14.700-08:002014-12-24T02:55:14.700-08:00Indeed, a Merry Christmas to one and all.
Indeed, a Merry Christmas to one and all.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-26837108812581572062014-12-23T19:03:33.875-08:002014-12-23T19:03:33.875-08:00Since this has been a busy thread with lots of par...Since this has been a busy thread with lots of participants I'd like to take advantage of the thread's popularity in order to wish everyone a Merry Christmas! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-28397748826746571822014-12-22T10:54:39.690-08:002014-12-22T10:54:39.690-08:00Who was hunting the coelacanth Jake? Would that b...Who was hunting the coelacanth Jake? Would that be the same people who go on triceratops hunts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-23398701645444826932014-12-22T01:44:00.853-08:002014-12-22T01:44:00.853-08:00Thats why i stated some weeks ago that DR was the ...Thats why i stated some weeks ago that DR was the only sceptic i wud take much notice of!!! Some drivel written!!!Jakenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-92664890821988912014-12-21T22:22:43.314-08:002014-12-21T22:22:43.314-08:00Paddy, I am not evading the fossil record issue at...Paddy, I am not evading the fossil record issue at all. I acknowledge it. What I'm saying is that there are enough crucial differences between the story of the coelacanth and what people are claiming at Loch Ness for the comparison to be worthless. <br /><br />As for my belief that some Nessie sightings could be down to sturgeon - I only think it's *possible*, not proven. And if it has happened then of course it would have been rare. <br /><br />But for me at least, the concept of the occasional visit from known animals like sturgeon and seals is a proposition many factors more likely than the idea of some permanent colony of huge animals roughly the shape of plesiosaurs evading all detection techniques while at the same time putting on the odd spectacular display to enable no doubt among the eyewitnesses. Does not compute!<br /><br />My contention regarding your last paragraph is that the total absence of even one good video after all this time proves the very thing we all find so hard to accept - that even the most seasoned observers can and do make big mistakes when seeing confusing things on the loch. I've experienced this myself and I spent years fishing as a child. My view is that perception and memory are far more fallible than most of us realise, and the absence of an image capture during a sighting can lead to a memory of something far more spectacular becoming entrenched and solidified in the mind. A person who has seen something can go to their grave utterly convinced it was a huge monster as long as there is no challenging video or photo available to question their perception and memory. Geordie Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-47080827124072419732014-12-21T20:43:31.510-08:002014-12-21T20:43:31.510-08:00I agree with many of your points, Paddy, and I...I agree with many of your points, Paddy, and I'd like to reiterate that I'm not a stone cold skeptic - I'm merely skeptical of a bulk of the evidence collected and presented so far, and often find the rationale behind acceptance of more mundane explanations odd.<br />I understand that odd, unknown creatures are out there waiting to be discovered, and ones thought extinct to many may still exist. My problem with the plesiosaur theory is that logic dictates such a large creature would have certainly been discovered, seen, photographed and recorded clearly, with remains found or live animals captured. They were not bottom dwellers or freshwater creatures as far as I know. Large, surface dwellers would not remain hidden. As for sturgeon, well they are prehistoric but are known to exist by science and irrefutable proof. So are sharks and crocodiles.<br />It certainly could be another creature, such as an eel, something amphibious as you said, with logic pointing towards a more mundane creature such as that.Burton Caruthersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-85045195754899566022014-12-21T09:21:45.490-08:002014-12-21T09:21:45.490-08:00The dodo is still alive. Its just nobody has looke...The dodo is still alive. Its just nobody has looked hard enough lmao pmplAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-31939468975984919412014-12-21T08:15:09.963-08:002014-12-21T08:15:09.963-08:00Your short comments add nothing here. Very obvious...Your short comments add nothing here. Very obviously no westerner was searching for a fish they thought extinct. Why would they? Please show any references you can find which suggest coelacanths were being hunted by westerners during the times they were considered extinct.<br /><br />The comments section would benefit greatly from a little more insight and intelligence from certain quarters. Particularly this person who keeps blurting out statements which clearly do not have any facts to go with them.<br /><br />T. McCloskeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-86992186536341696382014-12-21T07:57:13.719-08:002014-12-21T07:57:13.719-08:00Geordie, you keep side-stepping the issue that the...Geordie, you keep side-stepping the issue that the coelacanth was missing from the fossil record for 65,000,000 years. As for being caught, you're presumably ok with the idea of some Nessie sightings being caused by some type of large fish, yet no one has managed to pull a sturgeon or Greenland shark out of the Loch as of yet. Lastly, until one was caught there was no record of the megamouth shark's existence.<br /><br />As for evidence being "totally lacking," there is some evidence, or at least data, but the problem is that it's inconclusive. But Geordie I agree with you on what you referred to a while back as "the elephant in the room" - the lack of decent film evidence after all these years. That is what caused me to become a Nessie agnostic! So your reference to me as a "diehard" is erroneous. I just object to the double standards in the treatment of the eyewitness testimony and the theory of an unknown animal getting in from the sea as opposed to a known animal. <br /><br />I just happen to think that if a trained observer claims to have seen a 25-30 foot animal with a head-neck at a range of 250 yards through X6 binoculars (which would be the equivalent of roughly 42 yards) we don't say they saw a seal, or driftwood! <br />PaddyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-89056607072277054722014-12-21T05:46:14.299-08:002014-12-21T05:46:14.299-08:00Well, thanks for wrapping up the mystery, GS. Once...Well, thanks for wrapping up the mystery, GS. Once again, I can close down the blog and pursue other more nobler interests such as collecting priceless sceptical comments.<br /><br />But, once again, I don't think I will close down the blog. Mainly, because you (once again) beam down from the USS Critical Thinking with your pointy ears to us benighted primitives and make your dogmatic pronouncements.<br /><br />Perhaps you're in violation of the Prime Directive and should naDevvo' yIghoS as they say on Kronos?<br /><br />Perhaps others have noticed in your diatribe against anecdotal evidence that you also make an anecdotal statement in evidence against them? Can your Spock logic guess what it is? (that's the only question you should consider replying to I suggest).<br /><br />The point is, your theories are weak as the ones you fulminate against. In fact, some of them are laughable and unworthy of critical thinking. I have covered these in other areas, if you're shaping up for a thousand comment thread on "why the Loch Ness Monster does not exist" to keep you busy over Christmas and show us all how clever you are, then you can forget it.<br /><br />If you have any comments against my observations on so called sceptical arguments, find the appropriate article and submit the appropriate comment. If you're going to just repeat what others have said and clog up comment space, I would counsel you not to bother submitting.<br /><br /><br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-33195882021805269192014-12-21T05:32:24.614-08:002014-12-21T05:32:24.614-08:00You didn't write "travelling nessie"...You didn't write "travelling nessie" originally - you wrote "giant imaginary dinosaur". Do stand by your own choice of wordsJenny Hanivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-18822055443831550762014-12-21T02:37:07.225-08:002014-12-21T02:37:07.225-08:00Nobody was actually looking for the coelacanth ? ...Nobody was actually looking for the coelacanth ? Lmao that is the daftest statement i have read in all of these blogs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-72655166612362702512014-12-20T12:20:35.170-08:002014-12-20T12:20:35.170-08:00Here's a few: Kathleen MacDonald 1934. 3 humps...Here's a few: Kathleen MacDonald 1934. 3 humps and head/neck from 40 yards. Witnessed the humps changing shape from a single hump to 3. <br /><br />Brother Richard Horan 1934. Head/neck. Estimated length: 3-1/2 feet. Range: 30 yards. Independently witnessed by 3 other people from a different location. <br /><br />Marjorie Moir 1936. 3 humps and head/neck. Witnessed this with 4 or 5 other people. Estimated length: 30 feet. Sighting lasted 14 minutes.<br /><br />John MacLean 1938. 2 humps, head/neck and tail. Range: 20 yards. Estimated length: 18-20 feet. <br /><br />C.B. Farrell 1943. Member of Royal Observer Corp. Head/neck body observed at range of 250 yards with binoculars. Estimated size: 25-30 feet.<br /><br />J. Harper-Smith OBE 1951. Head/neck. Estimated length 5 feet. Width 1 foot. Range: Several hundred yards. Son also witnessed.<br /><br />Hamish MacKintosh 1959. AAA patrolman. Head/neck and broad, very big humped body. Estimated length of head/neck: 8 feet. Was joined by a small group of other people. All witnessed the animal sink vertically. Estimated range: a few hundred yards.<br /><br />Dan MacIntosh and James Cameron 1963. Head/neck and small hump. Estimated length of head/neck: 4-5 feet. Range: 20-30 yards.<br /><br />Paddy<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-66278785086562975882014-12-20T12:03:36.074-08:002014-12-20T12:03:36.074-08:00Paddy, take a look at what I wrote - the coelacant...Paddy, take a look at what I wrote - the coelacanth was NOT extinct as far as the people fishing the area were concerned. They had been catching and eating coelacanths for as long as they could remember! And unless you can buy Nessie steaks in Dores I think we have a glaring difference here.<br /><br />Science has no discomfort whatsoever about Loch Ness as far as I can see. They probably did have back in the 60s and early 70s but not now. They tend to be a boring lot and rely on that old-fashioned thing called "evidence", which I'm sure even a diehard such as yourself would agree is totally lacking outside the realm of anecdotes.Geordie Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-37529792195277560192014-12-20T10:42:58.097-08:002014-12-20T10:42:58.097-08:00Geordie, nice try at attempting to nullify the coe...Geordie, nice try at attempting to nullify the coelacanth precedent, but no cigar. The basic point, that they lived on despite the fossil record indicating that they went extinct 65,000,000 years ago, still holds. <br /><br />You wrote: "No one who thought it didn't exist was actually looking for it. And the oceans are vast." I concur! The oceans are vast. Many scientists say that it's not only possible, but highly likely that there are undiscovered species existing in those vast oceans. And it's possible that members of an undiscovered species occasionally make their way into bodies of water such as Loch Ness. Sceptics grant this possibility to known species such as sturgeon or Greenland sharks, but if an undiscovered species with some unusual physical traits is proposed as doing the same thing then suddenly all bets are off! It's at this point that Occam's Razor (or rather a misuse of it) gets invoked as an argument against the undiscovered species with unusual physical traits. But when you get right down to it it's not so much the idea of an undiscovered species that's the sticking point as it is those unusual physical traits. Because those physical traits call to mind extinct aquatic reptiles - and that is the crux of the matter regarding the Nessie mystery. Yet, when we look at the existing animal kingdom, we see animals that have some of those very traits. Elephant seals have big torsos and (2) flippers. Some turtles have very long necks and 4 flipper -like appendages. But if a species is proposed that has a relatively big torso, flippers and an elongated neck it's met with skepticism. This despite the fact that at one time aquatic animals with these very traits did exist! But that's the sticking point. The proposed species looks too much like the extinct species for science's comfort level - the uncomfortable implication being that the exinct species may not in fact be extinct!<br /><br />Paddy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-66577762218073582362014-12-20T08:42:12.209-08:002014-12-20T08:42:12.209-08:00Paddy, could you give us a few examples of the sig...Paddy, could you give us a few examples of the sightings referred to in your last paragraph please? Thanks. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-16811556114051479262014-12-20T06:28:39.929-08:002014-12-20T06:28:39.929-08:00The travelling Nessie theory is not my invention, ...The travelling Nessie theory is not my invention, so no not laughing at my own joke.Geordie Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71222623608329619232014-12-20T05:51:06.543-08:002014-12-20T05:51:06.543-08:00Paddy, the believer's insurmountable problem i...Paddy, the believer's insurmountable problem is that the eyewitness reports are quite literally backed by nothing whatsoever. In 80 years we have not even one good photo or video, and not even a fragment of a carcass. In a lake this simply does not add up. People can fog the issue with theories of shock and awe, try to say the stats are against an image being captured, but it just doesn't cut it anymore. The sceptical stance is that it is quite simply impossible for a lake only a mile wide to harbour such animals for so many decades and for this zero evidence situation to continue. Hence for those of us who use our heads over our hearts we have to conclude that there have been, and will continue to be, a multitude of natural phenomena causing these misperceptions. The longer this situation persists, the more people such as yourself will - albeit reluctantly - arrive at the same conclusion. Geordie Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-70706456795849789732014-12-19T19:05:10.453-08:002014-12-19T19:05:10.453-08:00Burton, I never said to anybody to prove multi-hum...Burton, I never said to anybody to prove multi-humped, long-necked animals don't exist. I would never say that for the simple reason that the burden of proof doesn't lie with the sceptic, but rather with the believer. And of course you can't prove a negative, so the sceptic is off the hook in that regard. I'm inclined to think you'd agree with that.<br /><br />I don't scoff at sightings of seals, otters and what have you as probable explanations for some Nessie sightings. Just the opposite. (As for the sturgeon, there are no sturgeon or sturgeon-like sightings in the historical record). What I take issue with is when these are oh-so-conveniently trotted out as explanations for sightings when the details of the eyewitness testimony simply doesn't support it. To reiterate the point of my previous post, sceptics seem to want to have it both ways. You accept eyewitness testimony when it can be fit into the big fish box or seal box, but the minute a long neck and hump or humps is mentioned, the eyewitnesses are visually impaired and the elongated neck is a cormorant or log and the hump or humps are logs or wake effects. This despite the fact that the eyewitness saw the animal at close distances or looked at it through binoculars. That's the double standard I object to Burton. And I say that as a Nessie agnostic. <br /><br />As for lack of evidence in the fossil record, there was no record of the Megamouth shark until one was finally caught. Granted that's an ocean dwelling fish, but my current viewpoint is that Nessies, if they exist, are also ocean dwellers that only occasionally get into the Loch. Sceptics don't have a problem with the idea of an occasional sturgeon or even a Greenland shark getting into the Loch, getting big and being responsible for some sightings and sonar contacts, but the possibility of an undiscovered species (or possibly an evolutionary descendent of an ancient species) doing the very same thing is rejected. Another double standard.<br /><br />Burton, you yourself have said that the conventional explanations can't explain all the strange phenomenon. That's my basic point! Believe me, if I could put this mystery down to a combination of an out of place, but known animal/fish combined with physics and, perhaps, a little bit of psychology, I gladly would! But the thing is, there are a number of sightings in the historical record that simply defy that sort of explanation. Given this, I have to remain open-minded to the possibility of the existence of an animal/fish that, in both size and general physical traits, bears at least a superficial resemblance to extinct aquatic reptiles due to convergence evolution. Or that a descendent of those extinct aquatic reptiles exists. Personally, if one of these two options is the truth, I'd bet on the former.<br /><br />PaddyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-61769104121763981512014-12-19T15:28:05.169-08:002014-12-19T15:28:05.169-08:00Geordie Sceptic, you find your own jokes hilarious...Geordie Sceptic, you find your own jokes hilarious? As far as I'm aware, no believers in unrecognised, rogue ocean dwellers believe in "giant imaginary dinosaurs". If you're going to criticise ideas, why not criticise ones that people hold rather than your own satirical inventions?Jenny Hanivernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-29188596679361068532014-12-19T15:20:21.243-08:002014-12-19T15:20:21.243-08:00Well, I don't rely on the coelacanth here, but...Well, I don't rely on the coelacanth here, but you knew that. Plenty more stuff to use. <br /><br />BTW, who is saying Loch Ness has a "unique species"?<br /><br />Dinosaur? Who are you addressing with that interpretation? <br /><br />I would regard the LNM as more amphibious than a sturgeon.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-87818744026380026762014-12-19T15:14:23.890-08:002014-12-19T15:14:23.890-08:00I don't deny sturgeons could have got into Loc...I don't deny sturgeons could have got into Loch Ness over the centuries. The point is none have ever been conclusively found, So, it's a bit like Nessie, spoken of but never caught.<br /><br />What you need to come back with is an estimate of frequency of visits to Loch Ness. Once a year, decade, century?<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-65811272806105950492014-12-19T10:43:08.069-08:002014-12-19T10:43:08.069-08:00Oh the coelacanth. The dear old coelacanth. To use...Oh the coelacanth. The dear old coelacanth. To use a favourite GB phrase, this one gets "trotted out" every now and then.<br /><br />I think it's a completely useless weapon in the believers' meagre arsenal. It's no more relevant to Loch Ness than the fact that new insects are still being discovered in rainforests. Let me explain. ..<br /><br />The coelacanth was known to exist before the great western "discovery" you are talking about. The fishermen in the area it was caught had caught this species before. It was a known fish by the people of those waters. It is only a relatively "new discovery" in the eyes of western textbooks. No one who thought it didn't exist was actually looking for it. And the oceans are vast...<br /><br />The differnces between this and the Loch Ness situation should be obvious. Loch Ness is tiny in comparison to the oceans. Loch Ness is in a populated area and it is surrounded by roads. People are looking for a monster which they believe to be as much as 30 feet long - huge in comparison to the coelacanth. Finally, Loch Ness was solid ice until 12,000 years ago! All life in the loch travelled there since then. There is no Loch Ness unique species, it makes no sense for there to be one.<br /><br />I find the travelling Nessie theory hilarious by the way. Apparently a giant imaginary dinosaur can move around the rivers but a real big fish can't! !Geordie Scepticnoreply@blogger.com