• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
SmirnoffMule said:
Without wish to be contentious, I'm afraid I make of it that his pictures are semi-convincing self-serving hoaxes. If he's a personal friend of yours, I apologise :lol:

Personally, I still think Pikachu did it.

Oh yes, I suspect they were 'art work' rather than exact photographs, but as doc would say 'it's all part of THE CASE'. Doc is a great artist, salvadore dali once said he was the best young surrealist artist around or something similar.

I don't personaly know Doc but he is a friend of a friend as my house mate, jon downes, is a friend of his. Doc is an interesting and entertaining caractor and a very important caractor in the history of the paranormal and forteania.
 
Perfect case of simulacra , but here's an interesting photo :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4886648.stm

This link takes you to the main page , you then have to navigate to page 3.

For archival purposes, photo has been salvaged and attached ...

_41534290_nessie416.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok guys. I've tried the links posted earlier in this topic for the underwater webcam, but they are long dead. I have the website for the webcams overlooking the Loch, but would love a WORKING link to the underwater cam. Does anyone have one?

Just became interested in Cryptozoology over the past month ( normally interested in UFO's ), and can't seem to get enough! Mind you, I think that the monster does not exist as a dinosaur. I think that it could be a hitherto undiscovered giant Eel, or even a giant Squid. Maybe even a creature that doesn't belong to any species but it's own.

But would love to see conclusive proof, as I'm sure most of you would.

Anyway, hope someone can provide that link for me. :D
 
SmirnoffMule said:
Kirsanov said:
I don't know about his theory. he seems to casually diregard everything prior to 1933 which would be a little odd even if there didn't seem to be a large amount of it - Aren't there even land sightings from earlier dates than this? exactly how common were touring zoos? I grew up in the highlands and never even saw one.. :(

And how often did the owners of these touring zoos allow their very valuable trained elephants to go swimming unattended in 23 miles worth of Loch?

Quite, especially a loch filled with giant Eels/Plesiosaurs/Aquatic elephant eating monkeys.

Must have been a bugger getting them insured.

Anyway, Dr. Neil did the trick and deflected the media from the trouble that was brewing at work, which was a shame. I was looking forward to the excitement.
 
I'm not sure if it's been posted here before, but has anyone read the book "The Loch Ness Mystery - Solved" by a man named Ronald Binns?

To my knowledge it's the only study that actually looks at the data behind the oft-proclaimed 'facts' in the case, and he comes to some surprising conclusions.


1. Binns says that the entire legend of a Loch Ness Monster, including most of the ancient 'back story', can be traced no further back than 1933, when Alex Campbell, a water-bailiff, published an account of several recent sightings of a monster in the loch. Campbell's article included most of the details of ancient sources for the monster that are now routinely quoted. However (says Binns), close analysis reveals that no source for the 'old' stories can actually be found any older than Campbell's article. In fact he seems to have made the entire thing up.


2. Binns says it was only after Campbell's article was published and reprinted quite widely that other people began to see things in the loch. (if true this is very interesting and VERY fortean!!)

3. Binns further says that almost all of the strangest supposed sightings can be explained by the many oddnesses in the geography of the loch. For example its tendency to produce mirage images of objects that are actually over the horizon and invisible, such images being frequently distorted, elongated or greatly magnified.

4. Binns points out the apparent physical impossibility of any breeding population of large-bodied animals being able to find enough food in the relatively sterile waters of Loch Ness in order to survive (this I have read elsewhere and it does seem a good point).


Seems to me Binns' book -- if reliable -- presents what amounts to a death-blow to the entire concept of the Loch Ness monster, not simply as a reality but also as an ancient myth. If he's right then Nessie amounts to little more than a modern meme! Still interesting and potentially very revealing, but in quite a different way

So, is it reliable? or is Binns himself merely selling another kind of myth?

Any thoughts? Or extra information?
AA
 
I read this some years ago and found it more persuasive than most absolute debunkings. The pictures of cormorants and otters pretending to be Nessie were particularly convincing. Under mirage-like conditions, says the birdwatcher, a willing mind can confabulate all sorts of stuff - and consider the proportion of citybred tourists to locals in the reports.

What the book lacked is a foundation in the interaction between folklore and perception, the fairy phenomenon, and the motives we have for fooling ourselves. But you can't have everything in one book.

My own opinion is that many people believe in Nessie as a defense against recognizing the wonderful in the mundane. People look at the loch, and see wonderful things. They assume that ordinary nature is not wonderful and that their sense record objective reality. Neither is true. So in looking for Nessie, they miss seeing the otters.
 
What about St Columba's encounter with Nessie in 565 AD?

See here:
lochnessguide.com/html/nessie.html
Link dead; no archived version found.


Was that a story made up during the 1930s?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The St. Columba story is not a modern invention, but neither is it significantly different from other water monster/kelpie stories and hero/saint monster vanquishings. The huge folkloric gap between this legend and modern times makes it a poor prop to support a cryptozoological interpretation of the Nessie data; it is, in fact, a striking argument against Nessie's existence as a biological entity. Prior to 1933, Loch Ness was not a hotbed of water monster stories, although kelpies and access to the fairy lands via large bodies of water are common Scottish motifs. It would be properly Fortean and twisted if the most famous Loch monster turned out to be imaginary, while lesser-known lochs are filled with real cryptids!

Folklore in cryptozoology tends to be mined for data supporting one's own theory rather than examined for its own sake, and it's a pity. An in-depth analysis of the relationship between pre-modern kelpie traditions and modern lake monster stories, preferably conducted by someone who is agnostic on the subject of any particular cryptid's existence, would be well worthwhile and AFAIK has never been undertaken. If someone can direct me to one I would be grateful.
 
Don't know if this will give you a starting point, but a general overview can be found at jacobite.co.uk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, that's exactly the same overview you always get (not surprisingly, since it's a tourist site) - St. Columba, a vague reference to "stories through the years" with no dates, and then boom, 20th century. Where's the ballads, the stained glass windows, the 19th century vicar/antiquarian interviewing gamekeepers, crofters, fishermen, and lonely widows?

Don't get me wrong, I want Nessie to be real as much as anybody. But if there's a folkloric basis for a monster in Loch Ness I've never seen it.
 
gncxx said:
What about St Columba's encounter with Nessie in 565 AD?

Was that a story made up during the 1930s?

No, I think there may be some earlyish documentation of the Columba episode, but being the 'life of a saint' it has perhaps not very much credibility as an objective record. Note that this site supports the notion that , aside from the old Columba story, there was no active legend of a beast in the loch prior to 1933. Isn't it interesting that after someone invented a long tradition of sightings, people apparently began actually 'seeing' things in the water. Did their belief in the legend make them think they were seeing a monster when it was really a mirage or a cormorant or a bit of tree? or did their belief conjure something from the water? Thought-forms, or whatever?
The former has to be far more probable, but some of the experiences seem to challenge such a simple dismissal.

One thing I think we can be reasonably sure of is that the likelihood of an unknown large-bodied animal living in the loch is vanishingly small. The loch is comparatively sterile and even large fish have to scratch a living. What would a breeding population of giant otters/ Great Orms/ plesiosaurs/ hippos/ long-necked seals or anything else eat? I think the claim of Nessie to be regarded as potentially real probably founders on that if nothing else

AA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it's always optimistic to think we understand the conditions under which life can thrive. I think it's safer to say that, if a real cryptid lives in this particular lake, the odds are stacked against it being anything as relatively comprehensible and mundane as a plesiosaur or long-necked seal. "Great Orm" is a sufficiently vague term that it can't be absolutely written off as applicable to something. The great thing about nature is, it can always surprise you.

Even if we wash out a biological entity, there could still be a "fairy creature," by which I mean "some real phenomenon that involves an objective entity that follows natural laws we don't understand which we therefore don't perceive very well." At least that's how I'm expressing the concept right now. I believe in fairies, I just don't know what they are.

No, no, I find fences very comfortable, thank you.
 
Just to show you how much I like ambiguity: I am convinced that the account of the hoaxing of the Surgeon's Photograph is itself a hoax; however, an attempt within the last couple of years to uncover the article that convinced me among my magazines at home (it must've been FT or Fate, mustn't it?) was fruitless.

So when you examine my beliefs, there probably isn't a cryptid in this lake; and the surgeon's photograph is genuine.
 
PeniG - Karl Shuker in In Search of Prehistoric Survivors puts forward the suggestion that the hoaxing of the Surgeon's photo may have been a hoax - maybe you're thinking of that? I'm inclined to agree with you to a certain extent - deathbed confessions are always a little bit suspect if you ask me, but at the same time I don't think the picture is genuine. It's just never looked like anything convincingly alive to me.

The Columba incident is a genuine early encounter, but Binns makes much of the fact that it's original setting is actually the River Ness, not Loch Ness, and also that the "Nessie" incident is only one of many fantastical encounters which all make much of the power of the saint's voice.

I think it is not strictly true that the waters of Loch Ness are "relatively sterile"; most of the surveys I recall reading suggest it has an abundant fish population. Additionally, it's impossible to say anything conclusive about food supply when you're talking about an animal whose size, weight, species, lifestyle and diet all remain entirely unknown. But of course, just because Loch Ness could support large predators, doesn't mean it does.
[/i]
 
Doesn't mean it doesn't either. ;)

(not trying to argue, actually, just trying to subscribe to the thread as the "watch this topic" button doesn't seem to work. i'll scold myself for going off topic now. "BAD Rainy!" *slaps hand*)
 
Re: the Binns book. I am positive I had another book that contained a section that quite strongly refuted his work. It cited various sightings that were both from reliable eye witnesses ( pre 1933 - many in the later 19th century,) and, err, less specific accounts such as Military engineers seeing strange things in the loch during the contruction of General Wades road in the 18th century.

I remember it mainly because the writer had talked to Binns and had been rather shocked that Binns had decided to discount any accounts that did not back up his own theory (or non theory given it was aimed at debunking a 'myth' rather than backing up - or at very least giving equal credence to - a biological/ psychic possibility of there being 'something' in the loch.) The impression created was that Binns was very much a professional sceptic who would not countenance any theory that was fantastical.

Unfortunately I cannot remember what the book was. I have a feeling it was the one by Nick Witchel which came out in the late eighties (i think,) I'll let you know if I can find it and verify it. I lost a few Crypto books during a move years ago.
 
Kirsanov said:
Re: the Binns book. I am positive I had another book that contained a section that quite strongly refuted his work. It cited various sightings that were both from reliable eye witnesses ( pre 1933 - many in the later 19th century,) and, err, less specific accounts such as Military engineers seeing strange things in the loch during the contruction of General Wades road in the 18th century.

I remember it mainly because the writer had talked to Binns and had been rather shocked that Binns had decided to discount any accounts that did not back up his own theory (or non theory given it was aimed at debunking a 'myth' rather than backing up - or at very least giving equal credence to - a biological/ psychic possibility of there being 'something' in the loch.) The impression created was that Binns was very much a professional sceptic who would not countenance any theory that was fantastical.

Unfortunately I cannot remember what the book was. I have a feeling it was the one by Nick Witchel which came out in the late eighties (i think,) I'll let you know if I can find it and verify it. I lost a few Crypto books during a move years ago.


I hope you manage to track it down Kirsanov, as I don't know of any good refutation of Binns' claims. I'd be so interested.

AA
 
I'm positive it is the Witchel one published only a year or two after Binns own book came out (which I think was in the late 70's but republished and updated a couple of times during the 80's.)

It's either hidden somewhere at my mums in which case I *should* be able to find it agan or I lost it moving house in 1996 or so.

I will find it, though, Oh yes!
 
FT's recent report of the Nessie-is-elephant theory had a sideline about some recent head-neck pics taken by a local campsite owner... anyone know anything about these?
 
Gentlemen, for answer to the riddle of how an ancient monster can stay alive and hidden from man in the murky depths of Lock Ness, one has to look else where. Think outside of the Loch. Britain is an ancient land crisscrossed in a matrix of lay lines and healing sources. Some are man made and some are natural. The secret of loch ness's power can actually be linked to yes , Stonehenge .. and I will be revealing this connection in a later post. Stay tuned.
;)
 
SmirnoffMule said:
FT's recent report of the Nessie-is-elephant theory had a sideline about some recent head-neck pics taken by a local campsite owner... anyone know anything about these?

Yes, I emailed him at the time on behalf of the CFZ (as I head the aquatic monster study group) but never recived a reply. I'm tempted to think it was a publicity stunt for the campsite with faked photos in that case, otherwhise he'd have happilly passed on copys or at least spoke about his sighting to the worlds largest mystery animal research group. The non reply sugests he might have been afraid of being rumbled in my opinion...
 
A LOCH Ness Monster theory which suggests the creature is a living dinosaur has been dealt a blow by scientists.

Many believe that Nessie is a plesiosaur, a long-necked marine reptile which sought refuge in Scotland's second-largest freshwater loch when most of the species died out 160 million years ago.

But Dr Leslie Noe, a palaeontologist at Cambridge University's Sedgwick Museum, discovered that the plesiosaur would have been unable to lift its head up, swan-like, out of the water.

Most scientists believe the creatures became extinct with the other dinosaurs, but some insist it is possible that after the last Ice Age, some plesiosaurs may have been stranded in the 23-mile-long loch, which was connected to the sea.

The plesiosaur has a prominent small head on a long neck and a round body, and is the most popular explanation for mythical Nessie.

Dr Noe, whose findings are reported in this month's New Scientist, told experts at a meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology in Canada, that plesiosaurs used their long necks to reach down and feed on soft-bodied animals living on the sea floor. By examining fossils of a plesiosaur, Muraenosaurus, and by calculating the articulation of the neck bones, Dr Noe concluded the neck was flexible and could move most easily when pointing down.

Dr Noe said: "The neck was a feeding tube, collecting soft-bodied prey. The osteology of the neck makes it certain the plesiosaur could not lift its head up, swan-like, out of the water."

However, the findings did not surprise George Edwards, one of the world's foremost authorities on the monster, who took a photograph of a unknown "creature" with a black hump he spotted on the loch in June 1986.

Mr Edwards, from Drumnadrochit, who runs Loch Ness cruises on his boat, the Nessie Hunter, said: "Most people don't support the dinosaur theory. The creature is some entirely new species. When you consider that every year in the open seas thousands of new species are discovered, this is the most likely explanation. But there's no doubt that a creature, one with a single hump, which most people report, does exist."

Monstrous tale is centuries old
THE earliest reference to Nessie was in the life story of St Columba who, in August 565, apparently fought off a monster from Loch Ness that was attacking a Pict.

The first modern sighting was on 2 May, 1933, when the Inverness Courier reported a couple seeing "an enormous animal rolling and plunging on the surface". The London newspapers sent reporters to Scotland and a circus offered a £20,000 reward for the capture of the monster.

Http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1620002006
 
I meant to put this down ages ago but couldn't be bothered to find the Nessie thread so I'll dump it here.
That famous picture of Nessie looks exactly like a seal swimming sideways.
Don't laugh. They showed one on TV a while ago and it came to me. "Hey that looks exactly like the loch ness monster picture". Tried to find any pictures of sideways swimming seals on the net...to no avail ;o(

Sorry, don't mind me...keep going with the thread... :oops:
 
Perhaps some of the sightings of Nessie are seals doing synchronized swimming. :D

Which one do you mean, the surgeon´s picture or the one that is supposed to be a labrador?
 
An interesting observation & theory.

Are Seal fins proportioned like that, long & thin?
Would the tip of the fin actually bend over like the photo seems to show?
Though this might allow the said image to be captured, to any observer present wouldn't this be clearly unmistakable for the neck and head of some large beast due to the movements it would go through?


Or is this going to turn into the Nessie equivalent of the pelican theory?
 
Well, I'd never thought of this theory until I actually saw a sideways swimming seal on TV and believe me, it looked almost identical, with the bendy fin and everything. Of course it is probably NOT a SSS [sideways swimming seal] because I don't know the size of the thing in the picture. However the SSS I saw looked like this photo.
 
Back
Top