Tuesday, 25 March 2014

The Carcass Problem (Part 1)

Is there a Loch Ness Monster? Does anything swim in the dark depths of that Scottish lake? The proofs offered range from controversial photographs and films to close up sightings by various people of varying observational skills. However, the gold standard that will finally convince the majority is a piece of the monster itself. 

Once you deliver that pound of flesh to the laboratory of science, it is no longer a case of "if" but "what".  To be fair to scientists, that has been pretty much the stance of zoologists since this mystery came to the public's attention 80 years ago. Admittedly though, some have departed from this strict methodology. Dr. Maurice Burton, who worked at the Natural History Museum, was one of the early advocates of some large creature in Loch Ness. As we know, he eventually retracted such views.

There was also Dr. George Zug, curator of Reptiles and Amphibians at the renowned Smithsonian Institute in Washington. Having examined the 1975 underwater photographs of the Academy of Applied Sciences, he said: "I believe these data indicate the presence of large animals in Loch Ness, but are insufficient to identify them."

But, in general, zoological scientists demand a live specimen or a verifiable sample of a dead animal. From these, morphological and genetic analysis leads to the creature being classified and taking its place in the "official" tree of life. Clearly, the Loch Ness Monster still swims outside of that system, despite premature names such as Nessiteras Rhomboteryx.

Visit a few cryptozoological forums and it won't take long to find skeptics deriding any talk of large, unknown creatures in lakes, forests or mountains which do not provide the body. The Loch Ness Monster is no different and the question has to be asked, why has no physical evidence for this creature turned up after eighty years of searching?

The critics say it is because there is no Loch Ness Monster. This blog takes a different answer to that question. But for part one of this subject, I look back at some claimed carcass finds in decades past. To this end, I recommend Glen Vaudrey's "Sea Serpent Carcasses: Scotland: from the Stronsa Monster to Loch Ness".




Glen's focus is on the various bodies that have washed ashore on Scotland's coasts over centuries past such as the Stronsay Monster of 1808 and the strange Gourock beast of 1942. Most of these have or will turn out to be the ubiquitous Basking Shark carcass, others may live on in mystery.

Firstly, in terms of folklore, we have a few tales of Kelpies being killed or captured. Those captured were press ganged into forced labour and one tale of a dead one describes it as assuming a jelly like form by the morning. None of these tales centre on Loch Ness.

But carcass stories from around Loch Ness take up about a tenth of the book and range from whole bodies to bits and pieces. The oldest one is surprisingly from 1868 when a strange looking body was found washed up at the top end of the loch. I covered this one in a previous article and it may surprise people that such a stunt was pulled  65 years before the Nessie story began in 1933. But monster tales have been around longer than that and evidently some waggish boat crew took advantage of this.

So a monster hoax presumes a monster tradition, and that carried on through to 1933 when Marmaduke Wetherell found his fabricated tracks on the loch side. This is not strictly carcass material, but residual traces of monsters such as tracks or faeces could, in theory, provide DNA material. I mused on this subject in this article.

The most well known Nessie "carcass" is the one which was supposedly found at Loch Ness on April 1st 1972 and was apprehended by the police by the Forth Road Bridge as its owners headed south. An examination proved it to be nothing more than a dead elephant bull seal with some cosmetic alterations. The date also gave away the motives of the perpetrators.




There are other stories you can consult in the book such as the dead conger eels found in 2001, the plesiosaur fossil vertebrae of 2003 and the alleged tooth of 2005. But there are two stories not mentioned in Dale's book which I cover here. 

The first is the alleged carcass spotted by Robert Rines' team in 2001 as they sent a ROV down into the mouth of Urquhart Bay (below). It was found at a depth of about 330 feet. Now it has been speculated that it has a morphological resemblance to the Loch Ness Monster and that is conceded. 

I myself think it is nothing more than tree debris. A lot of logs and branches make their way down from the rivers Enrick and Coiltie into the bay. Moreover, the size of the object is not stated and as far as I know, no attempt has been made to recover it.


The second concerns the object in the postcard below.




Now the story of this foot was certainly doing the rounds in the late 1950s and into the 1960s and was presented as proof of the Loch Ness Monster. Tim Dinsdale recounts looking at it during his second expedition to the loch in July 1960. You can read his fuller account in his book "Loch Ness Monster". However, he found it at a house in Drumnadrochit and the owner allowed him to examine it. The foot was well preserved and measured thirteen by seven inches.

It was apparently found by Urquhart Castle, but Tim was in little doubt it was the foot of an alligator or crocodile. He speculated it may have been from the Gharial species, of which we have a picture below to compare feet. Also note the long snout which Tim speculated could be mistaken for a long necked monster!




But Tim (like myself) speculated this may actually have been a genuine carcass find at Loch Ness. Dinsdale refers to the story related by Rupert T. Gould in his 1934 book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others" (page 140). Gould tells of a story from a Mrs. J. S. Fraser who was told to watch out for the crocodile by the shore of Dores in 1888. This was apparently due to a South African who had settled in a house between Dores and Foyers and had brought three young crocodiles. When they became too big to look after, he arranged for them to go to a zoo, only for one to escape into the loch.

A different slant on this story is given in a letter by David Murray Rose to The Scotsman newspaper of 30th November 1934. He tells of how three young crocodiles were presented to the Scientific Institute at Inverness by a John Fraser of Charlestown, Carolina in 1827. Two of them died and the other was placed in Loch Ness  at some unspecified time. Rose speculates whether the longevity of crocodiles saw this one survive to that present day.

In fact, one crocodile was definitely seen in Loch Ness in 1938 as this article from the Scotsman shows!



Gould also makes mention of a crocodile like skull that was found in the waters of the River Shiel in Loch Moidart some years before 1933. This is a long way from Loch Ness but interestingly feeds into that other Water Horse body of water - Loch Shiel. Perhaps one loch monster has a carcass to speak of?

Such is the story, but one must wonder how long a crocodile would survive in Loch Ness? The aforementioned foot seems to have been found in 1937 in the waters of Urquhart Bay, according to an article I found from the Aberdeen Press and Journal of May 8th 1958 (below). Could this have been the foot of this escaped crocodile? Perhaps, perhaps not. I leave it to the reader to form their own opinion. It may yet turn out to be nothing more than a trophy foot brought in from a foreign trader.



In conclusion, Loch Ness has its fair share of carcass stories, but all are hoaxes with the possible exception of our crocodile foot. I am not suggesting Nessie is a crocodile, but two independent sources suggest a crocodile may have once inhabited Loch Ness for some period of time. One wonders where this foot is now? It makes for a great story and a nice exhibit for one of the exhibition centres at Loch Ness!

Part two of this article gets down to the nitty gritty question. Why has no Loch Ness Monster carcass been found? There are three possible answers to this, I concentrate on one of them next time.




105 comments:

  1. I heard the rines team went back to try and get whatever they found but couldnt find it again. Basically it had gone !

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a cutting from the Mail on Sunday [shoot me now] of 24 Apr 2005. It claims that there were "two decaying carcasses about 12ft in length" at a depth of 400 feet. The photo is identical to the one in the blog but has the time-stamp "03:59:10 22/05/01".
    John Chatterton, diver and host of Deep Sea Detectives, "speaking exclusively" to the MoS said "I have seen carcasses in the water before and I spent 20 years working as a hard-hat diver, yet I have never seen anything quite like these. They are extremely unusual."

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Anonymous, 26 March, 0948: If you can find the uncropped Rines "carcass" image you will see the tube framework of the minisub at the right hand side. Raynors website has a photo of the sub and you can see the tube is 2 inch diameter max, so the carcass is not 12 feet, but maybe 12 inches long, like dead fish size. @ Jake - If the Rines team couldn't find something it was only that they weren't looking in the right place. Don't trust the Deep Sea Defectives anymore than the Fail on Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here’s a good documentary regarding this very topic on YouTube "MonsterQuest Season 3: Episode 1 - Death of Loch Ness":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmLDFz68p70

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dont watch deep sea detectives !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never have. Maybe I should. They say that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
  6. I'd have thought Rhines would have learned his lesson from his gargoyle-head misadventure in the 70s. I think with the 'death of Nessie' hypothesis he once again decided on his narrative in advance and then set out to find imagery he could shoehorn to fit that narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 12 inches long. Hmmm i dint think so

    ReplyDelete
  8. Geordie Sceptic26 March 2014 14:56

    That's what she said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The alleged tooth can definitely and summarily be dismissed. As it turns out, it was a hoax perpetrated to promote a horror novel by Steve Alten titled The Loch and the “tooth” was exposed as being the antler of a muntjac. Spoiler alert! For those who have not read the book, suffice it to say that the tooth belonged to the star of the story, a vicious, murderous, giant mutant eel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That crocodile foot - of which strangely little has been said since, perhaps because most Nessie hunters are wary of being mocked for clutching at straws - looks very suspicious indeed. It's perfectly preserved on the outside, yet completely hollow on the inside. No animal body-part lying around outdoors, especially in a lake, would look like this after the soft tissues had rotted away naturally. On the other hand, it looks exactly like a piece ripped off a long-dead crocodile stuffed by an expert taxidermist! The precise species is irrelevant if it lived and died thousands of miles away.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't know if you'll look into this in your follow up piece but to me the lack of a carcass is not a huge problem, or at least not a deal breaker. (I think it's a bigger problem for alleged land animals such as Bigfoot or surviving woolly mammoths).
    There is the possibility that Nessies are invertebrates for one thing. That I find doubtful but who knows.
    More to the point, one of the things you keep hearing about Loch Ness is (to put it rather melodramatically) that 'it does not give up its dead - the bodies of the drowned are not recovered.' I think this is something to do with how the water temperature and acidity affect decomposition, slowing the release of gas which usually sends corpses floating to the surface. Considering people and sheep who drown in Loch Ness are never found, I don't see that we should expect to find Nessie carcasses either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic8 April 2014 13:33

      I'd like to know where you discovered that people who drown in Loch Ness are never found. Never heard that one before.

      Delete
  12. After a 4 day break in loch ness on a boat i realise more than ever how impossible it was for anyone to search the loch bed in a matter of weeks ! Impossible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic7 April 2014 11:19

      Take a look at the sonar method Rhines used. As the boat went along it scanned far more than just the loch bed directly beneath the boat. Your experience on Loch Ness was not the same as the method Rhines used. Nothing was found, as always.

      Delete
    2. I think you place too much faith in sonar.

      Delete
  13. No mine wasnt the same method obviously geordie lol but no way can the whole of the loch bed be searched in a couple of weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic19 April 2014 06:54

      How do you know how much area can be covered by Rhines' method per week? Just a hunch?

      Delete
  14. Just obvious when you go there and see the size of it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic20 April 2014 13:31

      Obviously not if the sonar beam can sweep a large enough area of the loch floor. You would obviously need to know the area mapped by the sonar on each sweep of the loch to have any authoritative viewpoint beyond a simple guess.
      I've been there several times, I know the size of the loch.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic20 April 2014 23:47

      I have no idea how wide the sonar beam went, but if he covered the length of the loch in 4 hours, with a sonar sweep 50 metres wide then he'd be able to cover the loch in 2 weeks. To me it seems achievable.

      Delete
  15. As you say....u have no idea how wide the sonar beam went!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 11:48

      Correct, but it's ridiculous to just dismiss it as a possibility without having any facts or figures to say either way.

      Delete
  16. Could a carcass not be buried under silt which then would not show up.on sonar? While these animals are meant to be 30ft long they would not be so high in feet.If the silt is thick then its possible they would get buried. Does anybody know if the silt is thick enough for this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 09:07

      Of course, however, silt deposits are extremely slow, so for a population to exist there would have to be carcasses not buried at any given point in time.
      Have to say you're clutching at straws trying to hide these carcasses in any way you can think of. Why not just accept the very obvious answer?

      Delete
  17. U seem an expert on every issue m8 ??? Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 14:07

      Ha ha, sorry for coming across as a know all. The reason I reply to lots of comments on here is that I've had a strong interest in Loch Ness since the early 70s, gradually changing from a firm believer to a fairly firm sceptic. Over the years I read a lot about it and watched every documentary I could, and came to the opposite conclusion Glasgow Boy reached.

      So when I see weak pro-Nessie arguments I feel I have to respond, and GB adds my comments which I think shows he's a decent man, even though our opinions are opposite. I am convinced that sites like this one need to present both sides of the argument.

      I am aware I must be annoying to people who really WANT to believe, rather than those who want to weigh up the arguments.

      Delete
  18. Just as ridiculous to suggest it can be done without any facts or figures geordie !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 14:59

      Precisely the point I was making. You've got it now.

      Delete
  19. But could a carcass not sink into the silt? I have been told it is quite deep in parts but don't know 4 sure and that is why i am asking. You seem 2 avoid the question Mr Sceptic. Maybe Roland can help me on this one .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 23:05

      Roland is a carcass-hider, you'll get the answer you want from him.

      Delete
    2. Don't need to hide anything, just let nature take its course.

      Delete
  20. In answer to geordies theory i must say if there is any creatures in loch ness there cant be that many so when bob rines did his sonar search for a skeletal remains it cud of bin years before that the last one died so therefore cud be in the silt!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 15:03

      So you think mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters have been inbreeding for centuries? Do you know how quickly that would render the Nessie gene pool unviable? Or is Nessie also immune to that biological rule too?

      Delete
  21. Geordie Sceptic23 April 2014 14:58

    John, no. Ok?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Were the side walls covered on this sonar search? Creatures are known 2 go into cover when they are about 2 die. 44 miles of side walls with overhangs and possible caverns, were these covered ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 09:43

      I think there's an underwater cupboard in which they hide the corpses, along with the technology they use to ensure they only put on spectacular surface displays when people are watching but don't have any cameras.

      Delete
  23. Mothers brothers ????? Lol geordie . What about small groups of animals that have lived and bred for thousands of years together ? What about small groups nearing extinction? They have managed it so why not a water creature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 12:14

      Can you point me to the small groups of animals that have remained isolated for thousands of years and inbred during that time and thrived? See if you can answer without a "lol". And I assume you are referring to a really small population at Loch Ness to justify the total lack of corpses ever found. What, 8 to 12 individuals alive at any one time? Or fewer?

      http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154633/ Take a look, there are definitely minimum viable populations. In safari parks the rangers have to regularly bring in external animals to stop genetic problems developing due to inbreeding. This is another subject worth looking at in relation to Loch Ness.

      Delete
    2. Well, I thought of Komodo dragons, isolated on islands, some populations barely make it to 100. That's off the top of my head, I am sure more digging can produce other examples.


      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 12:50

      100.

      Delete
  24. The 20 odd terrapins intoduced to my local pond be immune to the biological rule geordie because they are living and breeding very well since the mid 80's.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mr sceptic you say you used to be a big believer, so are these questions your putting on here the same questions that were put 2 you by sceptics that you couldnt answer ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 11:58

      Of course you can find daft excuses for no corpses ever being found. Likewise, daft excuses for no good videos ever. But of course you know in your hearts that if Nessie wasn't a figment of the imagination you'd have both animal tissue and excellent video by now. I like the new one though - no sudden nessie deaths, so the dying animals always get to hide in corners before they die, thus ensuring their corpses are never detected. I love your creative thinking on that one.

      Delete
    2. Hmmm, you seem pretty sure of yourself, GS. For example, you have assured yourself that a corpse must have been found by now. Others may have a different opinion, such as myself. I am preparing for my next trip, so busy just now. I will get onto my second article in one or two weeks.

      Delete
  26. It makes sense geordie lol and i will use lol because i dont want this to become so serious. You have your your beliefs i have mine and im not a serious person so no harm in a lol in the debate

    ReplyDelete
  27. And as i said! 20 or so terrapins breeding in my local park pond. Explain that one against your theories geordie? And a young one captured by fisherman last year was very healthy and perfectly formed :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 14:20

      Read the internet sir. The issue is not a small population over a few years, the issue is a very small population inbreeding over THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Got it?

      Delete
    2. You need to set your parameters more precisely. How smalla population? Also, I am not entirely convinced they are as isolated as you make out. You are basically saying these creatures have been trapped in the loch for thousands of years. What warrants such an assumption? You preclude any possibility that LNMs have ventured up the river ness in centuries past to breed outside. How often would this sea-bound breeding have to happen to ensure some kind of genetic diversity? Once a decade, once a century? If you don't know, there is no point in proceeding.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 14:40

      I didn't know you thought nessies live in the sea too, and travel in and out of Loch Ness and the sea, that's a new one to me. What is that theory based on, GB?

      Delete
    4. Based on the premise that it is possible to do it. There have been a few reports of Nessie been seen heading out to sea.

      http://www.strangemag.com/roguenessie.html

      Delete
  28. Komodo dragon interesting GB. What about the 1 in chester zoo that gave birth with no partner. What about the biological rule there Mr Sceptic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 14:26

      Asexual reproduction occasionally is a mechanism which works for some animals, however, any understanding of genetics and reproduction would enable you to understand that this mechanism cannot work for a complex animal for thousands of years, without sexual reproduction being involved too, in order to introduce varied genes.

      Delete
  29. GS your argument is invalid. Yes this might happen in humans but animals are totally different. Fish , insects, reptiles and amphibians have bn interbreeding throughout history and always will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 14:16

      Again I ask you to point me to a very small population of fish, insects, reptiles and amphibians which has remained isolated and inbred in very small numbers successfully over thousands of years. If you can come up with an example, your argument will be valid. Currently it isn't. Empty words with no basis in fact.

      Delete
  30. I think Mr Sceptic is trying to find the answers he could not answer the sceptics when he was a believer. In fact deep down if he gets the answers he could not answer he will be a believer again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 14:35

      Ha ha, yes. And I think it's a giant dinosaur wearing a tam o shanter ;-)

      Delete
  31. But you dont know how long these creatures have been in loch ness geordie. Who is guessing now?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mountain gorillas ?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is that what you used to believe mr sceptic ? Haha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 22:52

      Strange how "John" and "Jake" both call me mr sceptic, and both keep firing single sentence replies riddled with typos.

      Cheers for the *researched* reply about gene pools GB. I guess the number proposed is the main question, along with the question of migration to and from the sea. I assume the river would still allow free transit of 30+ foot animals? Is there any evidence pointing to this activity, or is it something thought up to answer the gene pool problem?

      Delete
    2. Not all Nessies are 30 foot long, some are smaller.
      The only evidence is sightings (which naturally you reject), one was mentioned in the article.

      Delete
  34. Funny how geordie dont like me lol ' n but likes to haha himself lol

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thousands of years ? Hundreds? Wer do u draw ur line geordie????

    ReplyDelete
  36. So explain mr sceptic why it takes thousands of years. And dont say look on the internet because that just prooves you dont know the answers so you dont understand what your preaching .

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did some research. Three factors mitigate against genetic non-diversity.

    1. Environmental change. Not so much an issue at Loch Ness, since the environment has barely changed.
    2. New diseases. This is a threat, but where would it come from if the LNMs are isolated from ocean pathogen carriers? Brought in by salmon or trout?
    3. Inbreeding or expressing deleterious genes. Always a possibility but it seems predators may have developed coping mechanisms (e.g. cheetahs have low genetic diversity and the issue of prides of lions). Predators are by natures less in number than their prey, hence more susceptible, it seems some mechanisms are in play to increase genetic diversity.

    And, again, we may be overstating the problem if these are in place or other factors (sea access).

    ReplyDelete
  38. African cheetahs

    ReplyDelete
  39. Scottish wildcats

    ReplyDelete
  40. Fish in small ancient pools

    ReplyDelete
  41. Geordie Sceptic24 April 2014 22:40

    All examples which number too high for the Nessie argument. Just shouting out names of animals won't cut it. You need to reference examples of small isolated populations which have survived that way for thousands of years if you want to add meaningfully to this debate, John/Jake/anonymous (is this one person?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In terms of problems of genetic diversity, the numbers are not as important as all groups would face them and have similar solutions.

      Again, not sure about the thousands of years bit, everyone assumes the scenario that a bunch of Nessies got cut off when the land rose after glacation receded, but the fact is that a creature can get back to the sea via the River Ness.

      Delete
  42. There are lots of endangered species who have lived in small groups for years upon years. And some are still to this day.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Just the one me old pal thats why i sign off with my name!!!! But these groups bin shouted off have bin isolsted in small groups! The kamodo dragon in particular.there are crocodiles and alligators that have lived in small groups in the same place for years.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anyway we seemed to have drifted off the topic of this forum on carcasses!!!!! lol

    ReplyDelete
  45. And i remember watching a programme with bob rines talking bout his carcass search in which he said they wer covering areas ' most likely' for carcass's to be. Prooving to me it was impossible to search the whole loch in a couple of weeks. Now areas which they most likely to be is a baffling one lol but it says the whole area wasnt getting covered!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic25 April 2014 04:34

      I'll watch it again on YouTube. I can't imagine how one could identify a "most likely" area for a Nessie corpse, unless you scanned between a hunter's ears :-)

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic27 April 2014 06:05

      OK here's a big "LOL" for you. I found the Rhines documentary on YouTube:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-BJ_8YtbVY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      When you get to 3:10 listen carefully, it is stated that the entire loch floor was scanned. Even worse for the believers, it is stated that no water column sonar contacts were found. Bear in mind this was conducted by Robert Rhines - a firm believer in Nessie.

      Delete
  46. Interesting because i think most creatures would die in the side walls but i am not sure if Rines and his team did a sonar search in there. I should imagine it 2 be very difficult.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic28 April 2014 13:16

      This theory that monsters die at the side of the loch seems to come from nothing more than a desire to explain why no corpses have been found.

      Delete
  47. Is this the same Rines you have bin slating in previous posts? Lol. Well my opinion is still that the whole bed could not be searched in a couple of weeks and i saw a documentry with rines saying most likely areas. And i still think best chance of a carcass is im the side walls plus i agree with the silt theory that they could be buried. Lol

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mr Sceptic is it not true people have died in Loch Ness and their bodies have never been recovered ? If Mr Rines covered the whole Loch Floor then how did he not find the bodies?

    ReplyDelete
  49. As much as i admire bob rines i think he was bit too enthusiastic! If he covered the whole loch floor with high tech sonar ( something i know nothing about i may say) then i fail to see how he didnt find the remains of a 5ft mrs hambro who drowned near fort augustus in the 1930's and her body never found!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic29 April 2014 02:40

      A clue in the "1930s" bit maybe? You see no difference between a 5ft corpse from 80 years ago and a fairly recent 30ft corpse?
      The excuses keep coming but they sound weaker each time.

      Delete
  50. But according to you it takes years and years for silt to cover a body. Your argument is getting weaker geordie . And like i said before, we dont know how long ago a creature died. There wont be many of them and they could live to a ripe old age like a tortoise .so there might not be any bkdies from recent years.

    ReplyDelete
  51. What about these underwater currents i keep hearing about. I have read there is underwater storms deep down in the loch. Could these move skeletons about ? could they drive them in to the loch walls ? Maybe Glasgow boy could fill us in on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic29 April 2014 05:23

      Could the currents conversely move the corpses out to the open areas? I feel this might all be nonsense when you consider the gap in years between the gargoyle head photo and the time the tree debris was found in the same place. Unless of course the debris was moved elsewhere by currents in the intervening years, and then moved back in time for the search for it. :-) After all, it is *possible*, isn't it?

      Delete
  52. Geordie Sceptic29 April 2014 04:20

    Could be an interesting experiment to put something like a shark carcass into LN, and if you could get it to stay on the bottom see how long it takes to disappear. Shark skeletons are cartilage rather than bone, so the carcass would realistically be no more resistant to decay than a Nessie.

    I guess too expensive and not environmentally friendly though.

    This year so far we've learned that Nessie can avoid camera phones while still being seen clearly, is almost immortal, can thrive with a tiny gene pool, and never leaves a corpse anywhere. Must be related to the Sasquatch, because apparently that beast has the same magical abilities (apart from the tiny gene pool) according to the forums.

    ReplyDelete
  53. So what are you implying geordie??? Mrs hambros body has bin covered in silt after 80 years??

    ReplyDelete
  54. I agree with you Jake. I doubt Mr Rines on his little boat could cover the whole area. And if he did why didnt he find anything else such as deer skeletons or mountain goats or other wildlife that must fall in to the Loch? Or even bigger fish.

    ReplyDelete
  55. John i was there on a boating trip few years ago when bob rines was on the loch! His boat didnt leave urquhart bay for two days! And thats a fraction on the loch!!! And while i like like and respect his work and personality i think his carcass search was a bit of a farce! How does sonar distinquish a tree from a carcass?????? The loch floor must be full of objects!and to say he covered the whole bottom in two weeks to me is just plain ridiculous!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic29 April 2014 23:21

      The youtube video proved you wrong, so the latest post is claiming you personally saw Rines not doing his work properly. Ho hum. Why not also post that you spoke to Rines and he told you he found 5 corpses but he didn't want anyone knowing about them?

      The desperation is palpable.

      Delete
  56. Nothing has prooved me wrong lol. Diffrent documentry i saw with rines. And yes i did see him for two days in urqhuart bay few years ago why dont you ask someone else because everyone saw him there lol. And you still didnt answer my question... ..hence the last post to get away lol

    ReplyDelete
  57. Strange how you claimed earlier that silt couldnt cover a body yet we know about mrs hambros body that still hasnt bin found. Your the one saying rines covered every inch of the loch floor so really ur the one saying he didnt do his job properly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic30 April 2014 03:48

      Human bodies eventually float and drift, have you considered her body might have drifted out of Loch Ness?

      Delete
  58. Geordie i stand corrected. I have just spoke to my good friend in loch ness over phone ( who knew bob rines) and he told me the time i was up on loch and saw bob rines in urquhart bay was when he came back to find the carcass in the bay not the initial search. He said yes he was in the bay for a couple of days so i was right just mistaken bout the time!! We all make mistakes !!! Lol

    ReplyDelete
  59. Geordie i think someone would of noticed a body drifting down a loch 20 odd miles long then down a river!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic30 April 2014 06:47

      Ever heard of night time and darkness?

      Ever heard of drifting debris getting caught in underwater debris?

      The idea that one lady drowning 80 years ago and not being found is justification for year after year a family of 30 foot monsters never resulting in a corpse is just laughable. Seriously can't be bothered with this level of nonsense anymore and will just wait for more Glasgow Boy articles.

      Delete
  60. The only nonsense is coming from you geordie !!! A corpse drifting 30 miles to sea without anyone seeing it lol yeah ok

    ReplyDelete
  61. Can any1 tell me why Mr Rines did not find any remains of deer or mountain goats that fall into the loch and die ? Or why he did not pick up any shipwrecks or even the sherlock holmes nessie that sank? Or why even not the remains of a big fish ? There are some big Ferox and big pike in the big Lochs of scotland including Loch Ness. Mr Sceptic can you explain this ?

    ReplyDelete
  62. I used 2 live in Loch Ness and used 2 fish it all the time. I have seen big fish jumping in there including a huge pike in the fort augustus area that i saw regulary 4 two years. Also when i fished in borlum bay there was remains of deer and goats washed up all the time. Now im led 2 think that an animal sinking or drifting depends on how it dies, drowning or the cold water killing it, or even dying before it lands in the Loch. Im not sure on this but i have bn told if it sinks in deep water it wont surface again because of the icy tempetatures and the pressure of the great depth. If this is true then surely there are animal remains on the bottom of Loch Ness. I might be wrong, im no expert but i find it difficult 2 see why Mr Rines did not pick these up on his adventure.

    ReplyDelete
  63. And my other question that went unanswered was the question of strong underwater currents and storms. I read once that a submarine used in the hunt for nessie was turned right round when it was just a few feet off the bottom of deep water and the submarine was very heavy. Now again im no expert on this but is it not possible that remains could be shifted about then end up in the sides of the Loch? Or even swept away with the currents towards the river ness side. Did Mr Rines search Loch Douchfour ? I agree that its not likely Mr Rines searched the whole loch bottom, we saw in 1987 how difficult it was 4 operation deepscan 2 search the whole Loch, in fact only 70 % of the Loch was searched and they used 20 boats . How many boats did Mr Rines use ? My guess is 1. The problem deepscan had was they did not sonar the sides which surely is the same problem Mr Rines would of had, therefore any remains in the sides would not be picked up. I have 2 agree with the fact that Mr Rines did not cover the whole Loch , in fact i doubt if be went over half of it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Yeah john bit of a farce i reckon!! The sides of the ness slope up so how bob rines could get close enuf up to search the walls is beyond me!!! And interestin u say bout things moving cus rines went back again to find the thing he found in urquhart bay and it had gone !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. And the thing he found in the bay to me resembled a tree trunk !!!! How can u tell with sonar the diffrence between a tree stump and a carcass ?????? And there must be loads of tree trunks in the loch????? Did he find them ???? Farce

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh and geordie i called u mr sceptic cus i thought it sounded good off john lol but ill keep tongeordie from now on . And interestingly the cheetah was down to a small number thousands of years ago and they ok lol and the elephant seal was hunted down to 20 in 1890 but now over 3 thousand of them. Will they be extinct in thousand years cus of the gene pool...........hmmmm i dont think so. Lol

    ReplyDelete