The Loch Ness Monster

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
24,733
Likes
29,373
Points
284
An older article--a travel journal piece--but quite fun:

Loch Ness Memoir
By Tom Bissell
PUBLISHED: March 13, 2007
[August 2006]

Char and I are waiting for Mandy out in front of the Loch Ness 2000 Exhibition Centre, which should not be confused with the Official Loch Ness 2003 Monster Exhibition Centre, also known as “the ORIGINAL the Loch Ness MONSTER Visitors Centre,” the unyielding grammar of which I cannot help but admire. All that separates the two centres is a hundred yards of highway A82, with the added diversions of a hairpin turn (the site of numerous yearly accidents), the Loch Ness Monster Booking Office (a mostly gutted office that has the look of a broken-up telemarketing racket), a Bank of Scotland (the cash machine of which is broken), and a store called Bits & Pieces (which sells large, Damoclean swords that, according to the sign on the window, can go “abroad, on a plane, AS LONG AS YOU DECLARE IT AT THE AIRPORT”).

Article Continues:
https://www.vqronline.org/web-dispatch/loch-ness-memoir
Sounds a bit like Great Yarmouth.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
This just in today:

Amateur photographer claims to have taken one of the most convincing photos of the Loch Ness Monster ever



The 58-year-old photographer said he was left stunned when he realised his photograph may be one of the only [sic] pieces of evidence proving the existence of the creature.

The whisky warehouse worker said he had been driving around the Highlands in search of red deer, also taking photos of the calm waters of the Loch Ness.

But it wasn't until the father of four got back home to Nigg in Invergordon that he looked through his photos - and realised what he might have been looking at through the camera lens.

The photograph taken by Bremner appears to show a long silver creature, at least two metres long, swimming away from the lens with its head bobbing and tail flapping.

Coming up for air, the slippery creature glistens in the sunlight, with its powerful stroke causing ripples in the calm water.

The photograph was taken close to the banks of the loch on Saturday afternoon midway between the villages of Dores and Inverfarigaig.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17905...vincing-photos-of-the-loch-ness-monster-ever/

a) That looks an awful lot like an eel. Two metres really don't make a monster...
b) Am I one of the few people left who know that "one of the only" doesn't make any sense?

 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,446
Likes
7,140
Points
294
This just in today:



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17905...vincing-photos-of-the-loch-ness-monster-ever/

a) That looks an awful lot like an eel. Two metres really don't make a monster...
b) Am I one of the few people left who know that "one of the only" doesn't make any sense?
We’ve discussed this photo before. The article is dated September 2016, updated February 2017.
At the time I said it looks like 3 seals or more outlandishly one worried seal being pursued by a giant eel.
 

Kingsize Wombat

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
950
Likes
1,142
Points
134
We’ve discussed this photo before. The article is dated September 2016, updated February 2017.
At the time I said it looks like 3 seals or more outlandishly one worried seal being pursued by a giant eel.
Eek! I guess i didn't check the date - it popped up on my news somehow...
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
388
Likes
1,059
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2018/08/tricks-of-sceptics.html

Dodgey arguments made by sceptics. Please note this is not an endorsment of their being anything living in Loch Ness full time other than some really big fish.
I'm sceptical about there being a surviving colony of plesiosaurs, or similar, in Loch Ness, and consider it possible that there is a population of large somethings in there: eels, catfish. They may be large specimens of known species, or specimens of a large previously unrecorded species. I don't consider it likely, but I consider it possible. I think of myself as a sceptic in the proper sense of wanting to challenge and test the arguments and evidence rather than wanting to prove one outcome or the other.

So, with my cards on the table and no axe to grind for or against "Nessie", I'll say that the article uses almost all of the techniques that it ascribes to the unnamed and unspecified sceptics.

Basically, it says, "The sort of idiots who disagree with me always make wild generalisations, are selective when it suits them, and use a scornful tone to add force to what they are saying," which is of course exactly what the article is doing. It's a lousy piece of writing on potentially a very interesting subject — whether the subject is the putative monster, or the way that people react to the possibility or otherwise of there being a monster.
 
Last edited:

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,939
Likes
1,329
Points
159
I consider myself a sceptic, but often find the arguments offered to be as shaky as the counter-view. This was particularly brought home to me in the discussion on the PG Film thread*. So while I found the article whingy and with the same lack of self awareness noted above, I do appreciate Lordmongrove's point in posting it.

*Just to add, not the comments on the PG thread made by posters here, but in some of the other discussions elsewhere which we cited in it.
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
388
Likes
1,059
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
I consider myself a sceptic, but often find the arguments offered to be as shaky as the counter-view. This was particularly brought home to me in the discussion on the PG Film thread*. So while I found the article whingy and with the same lack of self awareness noted above, I do appreciate Lordmongrove's point in posting it.

*Just to add, not the comments on the PG thread made by posters here, but in some of the other discussions elsewhere which we cited in it.
I agree that Lordmongrove had a good point in posting it, it was relevant and, if not enlightening, at least entertaining.

On the wider point, I also agree. A true sceptic assumes that nothing is proven until they have considered all of the evidence that is available to them and weighed it objectively. Once they have done so, they may reach:
  • A final conclusion. I feel no need to keep abreast of new developments in flat Earth theory or chemtrails, for example.
  • A provisional position. I think a colony of some large species of fish in Loch Ness is possible but unlikely. I will follow new developments with interest.
  • A tentative set of hypotheses. I think ABCs are likely to be a combination of hoaxes, misidentifications, and actual sightings of escaped or released pets or circus/zoo animals, rather than an unrecorded native species — and are definitely not interdimensional beings. I will follow new cases and evidence with interest.

A different type of sceptic seems to have an emotional investment in believing something to be untrue. They then set out to prove their point. This is fair enough — maybe even commendable — in the case of debunking fraudulent mediums, but it is questionable in something harmless like the Loch Ness phenomenon. Fraudulent mediums prey on the vulnerable and do harm. Belief in the Loch Ness monster is harmless.

In something like flat Earth theory, most of us would consider it to be "case closed" and would regard it as futile to argue with the believers. In cases such as the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, poltergeists, then there is evidence to consider and debate, and both sides may benefit from honest discussion.

Whenever the opponent of a theory resorts to ad hominem attacks, or supports definite conclusions with vague generalisations, or sets up Aunt Sallies to knock down, or relies on big words and a scornful tone, they have stopped being a sceptic and become something rather unpleasant: an evangelist for their own particular worldview, more interested in hurting their opponents than in establishing the truth.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,507
Likes
2,043
Points
154
I have been looking into plesiosaurs briefly when I discovered this unusual info in Wikipedia:

A real plesiosaur specimen found in 1987 eventually proved that plesiosaurs gave birth to live young:[114] This fossil of a pregnant Polycotylus latippinus shows that these animals gave birth to a single large juvenile and probably invested parental care in their offspring, similar to modern whales. The young was 1.5 metres (five feet) long and thus large compared to its mother of five metres (sixteen feet) length, indicating a K-strategy in reproduction.[115] Little is known about growth rates or a possible sexual dimorphism.

Cop that. A reptile that births live young. Color me surprised. :omg:

[114] O'Keefe, F.R.; Chiappe, L.M. (2011). "Viviparity and K-Selected Life History in a Mesozoic Marine Plesiosaur (Reptilia, Sauropterygia)". Science. 333 (6044): 870–873. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..870O. doi:10.1126/science.1205689

[115] Welsh, Jennifer (11 August 2011). "Pregnant Fossil Suggests Ancient 'Sea Monsters' Birthed Live Young". LiveScience. Retrieved 21 May 2012
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,939
Likes
1,329
Points
159
I have been looking into plesiosaurs briefly when I discovered this unusual info in Wikipedia:

A real plesiosaur specimen found in 1987 eventually proved that plesiosaurs gave birth to live young:[114] This fossil of a pregnant Polycotylus latippinus shows that these animals gave birth to a single large juvenile and probably invested parental care in their offspring, similar to modern whales. The young was 1.5 metres (five feet) long and thus large compared to its mother of five metres (sixteen feet) length, indicating a K-strategy in reproduction.[115] Little is known about growth rates or a possible sexual dimorphism.

Cop that. A reptile that births live young. Color me surprised. :omg:

[114] O'Keefe, F.R.; Chiappe, L.M. (2011). "Viviparity and K-Selected Life History in a Mesozoic Marine Plesiosaur (Reptilia, Sauropterygia)". Science. 333 (6044): 870–873. Bibcode:2011Sci...333..870O. doi:10.1126/science.1205689

[115] Welsh, Jennifer (11 August 2011). "Pregnant Fossil Suggests Ancient 'Sea Monsters' Birthed Live Young". LiveScience. Retrieved 21 May 2012
It's not very unusual, lots of modern reptiles do this too including our own adder. Just as some mammals lay eggs.
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
915
Likes
880
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
I not aware of many - any modern marine reptiles that give live birth. Although as pointed out by oldrover quite a few terrestrial snakes give live birth. Examples being all boa's (including the related Anaconda)as well as a handful of lizards. However all members of the long extinct family of ichthyosaurs gave live birth at sea.

The below link provides details on the earliest known marine reptile to give live birth.
https://www.livescience.com/43344-ichthyosaur-fossil-live-birth-found.html
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
915
Likes
880
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
A different type of sceptic seems to have an emotional investment in believing something to be untrue. They then set out to prove their point. This is fair enough — maybe even commendable — in the case of debunking fraudulent mediums, but it is questionable in something harmless like the Loch Ness phenomenon. Fraudulent mediums prey on the vulnerable and do harm. Belief in the Loch Ness monster is harmless.
In other words the optioned skeptic. Really a misnomer when you think about it (contradiction of terms).
 

Mikefule

Michael Wilkinson
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
388
Likes
1,059
Points
139
Location
Lincolnshire UK
Many snakes, including boas and anacondas give birth to live young as do many lizards.
Wow, you learn something new every day. I was sceptical so looked it up. Scientists have "recently discovered" that a few species of snake are fully viviparious, giving birth to live young that have been nourished through a placenta, just like mammals. The same is true of around 20% of species of lizard.

Snakes are fascinating creatures. All the different ways they can reproduce: laying eggs and leaving them to hatch; laying eggs and actively incubating them; ovoviviparous (fertilised eggs continue to develop in the mother's body and are laid at the very last moment, or the hatchlings may even be "born" inside the mother); viviparious (nourishing the young in the womb via a placenta); and even in some cases, parthenogenesis: asexual reproduction. All the different methods of locomotion they have. All the different hunting techniques. It is surprising they haven't taken over the world.
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
784
Likes
1,278
Points
134
I'm a bit surprised that this is not generating more excitment than it is. This is the first half-way decent Nessie image we've had in a long long while - and it is preceded by a sighting of somethin g sounding pretty much the same from about a week earlier:

https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2018/08/loch-ness-monster-sighting-last-week.html#comment-form

The image looks surprisngly similar to the thoroughly dicredited, but indelibly iconic, `Surgeon's photo` of the thirties - so much so that if I wasn't loathe to diss a 12 year old girl, I'd go for a hoax explanation.

The reaction to the shot from the usual suspects is a bit unpredicted too: Steve Feltham (who I thought had writtten off the whole thing as a large sturgeon) is getting palpitations, whereas the uber-believer Glagow-Boy (in his above blog) seems a little ho-hum about it.

And me: I'm a Nessie sceptic, so why am I pleased that the non-existent Nessie is back?
 

hunck

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,056
Likes
4,637
Points
159
Location
Hobbs End
As with all Nessie photos, it's distant & out of focus so there's not much to say about it apart from speculation. My first thought was possibly a seal but looking at the comments, it's been more or less ruled out.

On looking up seals in the loch, it seems they're actually quite rare - according to this study, a seal is seen in the loch on average every two years. That's one seal. So if there was one it'd be unusual & noticeable.
 

RaM

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 12, 2015
Messages
1,286
Likes
1,932
Points
154
Location
NW UK
I see quite a few seals and to me that doesn't look like one,
It looks to me like a deer or of all things a goat,
what I would really like it to be was a true nessi.
 
Top