• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Its an interesting idea but unfeasible.

For a start the loch would be solid with slime is a hagfish was in it
 
:omg: they do?????

I noticed that as well. I wasn't aware that divers had claimed to see it close up but then I don't follow it closely. My inclination is to take that with a large pinch of salt but what do I know..
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...)
 
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.
 
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?
 
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/loch-ness-monster-spotted-walker-22234256
Loch Ness Monster 'spotted' by walker as new pics spark Nessie debate
If the photos are real, they could be 'some of the best ever taken'

It's not a fish because of the total lack of fins. It does not sit right in the moving water to me. But I'm bad at finding photoshopped pics.
View attachment 27483

The dubious provenance of this image has been discussed here....
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/sea-serpents-monsters.52363/page-12


And I note the Daily Record are using their Tourism Writer for these articles.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top