The Loch Ness Monster

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,982
Reaction score
8,270
Points
294

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
6,086
Reaction score
1,087
Points
234
Its an interesting idea but unfeasible.

For a start the loch would be solid with slime is a hagfish was in it
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
6,086
Reaction score
1,087
Points
234
Ive heard it is black with peat so maybe they had a close encounter with a log.

Or were just spooked by nothing in particular
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
6,140
Reaction score
8,467
Points
294
There's a review of Tony 'Doc' Shiels book, Monstrum over on the Wyrd Britain Blog (Friday 8th May 2020). Accompanying the blog entry is this reproduction of the front page of the Daily Mirror for Thursday 9th of June 1977, showing his most famous Nessie photo along with four smaller ones dated '64, '69, '75 and '76 - none of which I've seen before.
Or maybe I have, the 1976 one is almost identical to an illustration of a Brontosaurus I remember from one of my dinosaur books I owned as a child. Click to enlarge.

Screen Shot 2020-05-16 at 11.34.01jpeg.jpg


And doesn't the 1975 picture look a lot like the Ricky Phillips 'Glove Puppet' shot from a couple of years ago? Not to mention the similarity between 1969 and the Surgeon's Photo.


Screen Shot 2020-05-16 at 11.46.56jpeg.jpg
 

gordonrutter

There must be a set character limit to this opt...
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,020
Reaction score
4,067
Points
184
There's a review of Tony 'Doc' Shiels book, Monstrum over on the Wyrd Britain Blog (Friday 8th May 2020). Accompanying the blog entry is this reproduction of the front page of the Daily Mirror for Thursday 9th of June 1977, showing his most famous Nessie photo along with four smaller ones dated '64, '69, '75 and '76 - none of which I've seen before.
Or maybe I have, the 1976 one is almost identical to an illustration of a Brontosaurus I remember from one of my dinosaur books I owned as a child. Click to enlarge.

View attachment 26301


And doesn't the 1975 picture look a lot like the Ricky Phillips 'Glove Puppet' shot from a couple of years ago? Not to mention the similarity between 1969 and the Surgeon's Photo.


View attachment 26302
The second one is the Surgeons pic the ripples match perfectly. And the brontosaurus one is exactly that, it’s a fake by Frank Searle.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
9,982
Reaction score
8,270
Points
294
I think what is interesting about the Loch Ness Monster thing is how the same discredited and admitted fake photos are still routinely trotted out as evidence.

I believe Jeremy Wade speculated that the creature could be a sturgeon in an earlier investigation. If this is a new show, maybe he’s referring to the eel DNA found in the Loch recently.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
6,086
Reaction score
1,087
Points
234
See the Matching bow ties.

Anyhow, its well known that the LMN is a Daily Mail reader...this we have a lot of evidence for.

(When not subscribing to the Inverness Courier...)
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,038
Reaction score
2,592
Points
169
I think what is interesting about the Loch Ness Monster thing is how the same discredited and admitted fake photos are still routinely trotted out as evidence.

I believe Jeremy Wade speculated that the creature could be a sturgeon in an earlier investigation. If this is a new show, maybe he’s referring to the eel DNA found in the Loch recently.
He speculated it could be a Greenland shark but they don't inhabit freshwater. This is a new show.
 

Mikefule

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
1,264
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
I think what is interesting about the Loch Ness Monster thing is how the same discredited and admitted fake photos are still routinely trotted out as evidence.
I agree, but it's not just a Loch Ness Monster thing. One doctor makes a bogus link between MMR vaccine and autism and long after he's discredited, people still believe in the link. The Cottingley Fairy photos were an admitted hoax, but there are still those who want to believe that one of them (or a small subset) may be genuine. There are grammar Nazi's who promote rules of grammar that are demonstrably false. Some people wrongly insist that the Union Jack should only be called the Union Flag unless it's flown from the jack staff of a Royal Navy ship, but they can't remember who first told them. It's far easier to start a false rumour than to end one. Indeed, any attempt to end it can be reinterpreted as an attempt to "suppress the truth".

I have a theory that people file away information int heir minds according to how they perceived the reliability of the source of the information at the time. So if you see a photo in a trusted news source, or your dad tells you something is true when you're a kid, or a favourite teacher tells you something, or even if all your mates say something is true, you file the information away as "true". Years later, you may have forgotten the source, but that information will still be flagged as "true".

It takes a lot of new evidence and a degree of self-reflection to overcome that — doubly so if it's something you'd prefer to believe.

And who wouldn't prefer to believe that there is "something" in Loch Ness, however much we try to be rational about unknown species of eels?
 
Top