Sunday 7 August 2016

A Review of Darren Naish's "Hunting Monsters"




It appears that the latter end of this year will have more than its fair share of book reviews as several books on the Loch Ness Monster make their way to the publishers. In that light, I thought I would get one review out of the way that has lain in the form of written notes for some months now.

I refer to Darren Naish's "Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths" which was published in Kindle format back in January this year. As you can guess from the title, the mode is very much debunking the "myth" and presenting the sceptical view of "reality".

Darren's ebook comes after a similar publication from 2012 entitled "Abominable Science!" by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero. That book was praised to the skies by the sceptics but when a closer look was taken by those who did not have a vested interest in the book, things began to fall apart. My review of that book can be found here.

Is this book any better? I would say it is, though the presented "reality" against the "myth" of the Loch Ness Monster is again far from conclusive. Compared to "Abominable Science!", there is more attempts to be original in the thinking behind sceptical interpretations of Nessie cases. However, it has to be said, that a lot of that thinking seemed to originate from sources other than Darren. 

The book begins with an assertion that the diversity of creatures described points more to human imagination than actual animals awaiting discovery. The book seems to present us with an either/or choice here, but it is not as simple as that. My alternative opinion is that differences in monsters described is down to various factors.

Firstly, witnesses do not always get the details right. Even though they may have seen something large and alive, the finer the detail described, the greater the room for error. This is especially so at greater distances and other conditions which disturb a clear view. Also, it is clear that some of the 1800 or so accounts will be tall tales. If you have someone fabricating their account, then they could describe almost anything that muddies the waters and corrupts the database. 

Roy Mackal, in his book, "The Monsters of Loch Ness", took the position that 90% of all sightings were fake or misinterpretation. I do not personally think the percentage is that high, but if it was that close, it is no surprise that non-monster accounts contribute to an unclear picture.

Again, the King Kong film is raised as an influence. I covered this in my review of "Abominable Science!". Suffice to say it is not a convincing theory. Some mistakes began to surface as I read through the book. For example, in "showing how things were afoot at the loch at the time" before the famous Spicer report, Darren mentions the 1932 Fordyce land sighting. However, that story was not made public until 1990 and had nothing to do with the mood "at the time".

The aforementioned Spicer story is examined and I wish to point out an example of exaggerated narrative from Darren. Of this sighting he says:

Over the years, the description became increasingly sensational. It started out as 2– 2.5 m in length but gradually increased to 9m.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of subliminal language that implants the wrong kind of impression into the mind of the reader. Darren appears to be trying to demonstrate that monster stories grow with the telling. However, he is completely wrong. The first account from the 4th August 1933 does indeed state the size of the creature as being 6 to 8 feet. However, the "gradual" part is not true.

The truth rather lies in Rupert T. Gould's book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others", published about 10 months after the Spicer event. Gould quotes a letter to him from George Spicer which states:

After having ascertained the width of the road, and giving the matter mature thought in every way, I afterwards came to the conclusion that the creature I saw must have been at least 25 feet in length.

It's as simple as that. George Spicer re-evaluated based on the width of the "ruler" the monster had been seen crossing over - the road. Why Darren Naish omitted this detail is not clear. After all, he quotes Gould in regard to this case. In the context of such inaccuracies, I noticed one withering reviewer of this book on Amazon declare this:

"Anyone who actually believes in the Loch Ness monster ... should read this - it would help them to grow up.

Now I don't know if this reviewer could even find Loch Ness on a map, but one gets the impression that such reviewers have a picture of "believers" running to their caves in fear of such cutting sceptical books exposing their so-called psychological deficiencies. The truth is that a lot of these reviewers know little about Loch Ness and its Monster and assume these like-minded authors speak with unerring accuracy on Loch Ness matters. They don't. Period.

Whereas Loxton and Prothero seemed to not go beyond 1994 in sceptical Nessie thinking, Darren presents more modern interpretations - such as the famous Hugh Gray and Peter O'Connor photographs. He suggests Hugh Gray photographed a swan and Peter O'Connor used his canoe to fake the well known hump picture. 

Well, I looked at the Gray and O'Connor theories and put a bullet through them here and here. Advocates of a large, exotic species in Loch Ness need have no fear of such theorising by sceptics. In fact, I enjoy dismantling their weak theories and this book was no exception.

Now I mentioned that Darren was not the actual source of these swan and canoe theories. That honour goes to long time Nessie sceptic, Dick Raynor. How much of Darren's treatise on the Loch Ness Monster is actually his own or others such as Dick Raynor is hard to ascertain, but these easily challenged theories were known to me well before Darren's book.

Another place where Naish relies on Raynor is the aforementioned Fordyce land sighting. We are told that, in fact, what Mr. Fordyce saw that day was a donkey carrying a dead deer bagged by some hunting party. Here is a picture of a horse carrying a bagged stag compared to the animal that Lt. Cmd. Fordyce claimed to have seen.





 
Yes, I can see what they are driving at here ... not. Some of the interpretations of the sceptic baffle me. I admit the Fordyce creature is strange - even by Loch Ness Monster standards. But, even allowing for memory lapses on the part of Fordyce, nobody should accept such a weak explanation. Better to say nothing and take a neutral position.

I could go on with the problems with this Nessie section of Darren's book. His handling of the folklore of the Loch Ness Water Horse is unsatisfactory. You can read my introduction to this theme here. His dismissal of pre-1933 accounts is, of course, vital to the framework of the sceptical theory since it relies on Nessie being a creation of the Great Depression years.

Moreover, his description of Richard Franck's 17th century "floating island" at Loch Ness, as a man-made raft runs completely counter to what even Franck theorised about this strange object from 1658.

A thought did cross my mind as to whether Dick was grooming Darren as his successor. After all, Dick is now moving into his late sixties, as is Adrian Shine. Despite our best intentions, old age will eventually put a stop to any argument or debate one may wish to engage in and the question of succession seems to be a serious question for Loch Ness sceptics.

As I survey the online and published domains, I see no clear and worthy successors. Perhaps Darren is seen as "The One", but in my view, once Dick and Adrian get out their slippers and pipe, Loch Ness scepticism will go down the plug hole.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com








60 comments:

  1. Until we have a healthy pile of worthy, unimpeachable evidence that anything strange is alive and living in Loch Ness [ 80 years and not much of a haul really ] then scepticism is a reasonable frame of mind for us fence-sitters.

    My patience is wearing thin, we need hard evidence, where is it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apart from a piece of Nessie flesh, you'll never get that unimpeachable evidence. They'll always be rejected as CGI, etc.

      I am not even sure about the Nessie flesh scenario either.

      Delete
    2. The absence of clear images and tissue samples cannot be dismissed with the argument that people would still reject such evidence if it existed. If the mystery really were due to an animal existing in the water, the evidence would have come in by now. Yes it would be debated, but it would actually exist in order to be debated. The fact is we don't have anything that even fits into the category of "highly detailed but open to debate". We just have lots of vagueness. This is out of step with a real animal being the source of reports, but it's in step with the mystery being caused by numerous misidentifications and pranks.

      Delete
    3. Are you Steve Feltham?

      Anyway, my "not even sure about the Nessie flesh scenario" was more directed at a situation where a sizeable catfish or sturgeon carcass turned up on the shoreline. Woud that be the real deal or would it be a hoax?

      The "absence of clear images" would be subject to the usual CGI accusations - no doubt about it. Sure, lots of people might be convinced, but I doubt a reputable zoologist would come out and put their reputation on the line.

      The idea that decisive evidence should have come in by now is pretty much a subjective assessment. You can't quantify that statement.

      I don't agree with your last sentence. The idea behind Darren's book is not so much "where is the evidence" but more trying to explain what people are seeing. The explanations offered for various photos and sightings are just not very convincing.

      Delete
    4. Hi Roland. I'm fine with nearly all of the "standard" explanations given so far. And if they don't stack up, then simple lying is the next most likely scenario.

      I'm not sure if you missed my point, but what I was trying to say is that if these things really exist, we'd have that kind of recording which would lead to CGI accusations, but we don't. I'm feeling that your answer to the question "Why is there no strong recorded evidence?" has become "Because sceptics wouldn't believe it anyway.". As an argument that makes no sense at all. Where are the very films people such as your fence-sitter above are demanding? They've never arrived.

      I've read elsewhere on this website a number of strange "explanations" for how an animal can at times so brazenly display itself (eg Dinsdale film, Greta Finley, Spicers) but during 83 years of camera-holding interest at the loch, the beast has never presented itself properly for a really good photo or film? The two sides of the equation do not match, and it appears that more people are having problems with that as time goes on.

      So perhaps there's your answer regarding the future of scientific monster scepticism... it is becoming less and less necessary, because the lack of positive evidence screams louder each passing year, without the need for any assistance.

      Delete
    5. I see you're stuck in a loop of circular reasoning. If its not a hoax, its misidentifaction and if its not misidentification, its a hoax. No report can escape that loop!

      You may not be surprised to know that I disagree with your contentment regarding so called explanations. They are weak and unsatisfactory. They rely, in my opinion, on the goodwill of a sceptical majority and the illogical axiom that any explanation is acceptable since it is more believeable than a monster one.

      Sorry, strong evidence is already being dismissed as CGI. I refer to the Roy Jonson pictures dismissed as cgi and rejected on the most circumstantial of "evidence". Whatever it takes to plant doubt in the minds of potential "believers". You ask for "strong" evidence, but every presented so far is rejected on the flimsiest grounds. Sorry, the whole subject is working against deep prejudice.

      Again, I do not buy this "the strong evidence" should already be here argument. That depends entirely on what one postulates the creature to be. Take the sceptical catfish theory? Do you have a problem with that? After all, where's the "strong" evidence? Other sceptics do not seem so bound by this matter.


      Delete
    6. Tell me Roland, in all honesty do you actually think Roy Johnson's photos show a Loch Ness animal? Seriously?

      I am not using circular reasoning regarding misidentification and lying. The lack of any conclusive images after 83 years points to that fact loud and clear. When people are holding up images like Roy Johnson's as evidence, it's obvious the Nessie goose is cooked.

      When it comes to logic, reason etc, how do you justify the stance you take, which is "If they said they saw Nessie they probably did." ? Where does that approach sit in terms of objective, scientific research?

      Delete
    7. I would turn it the other way round. What makes you think it is not a photo of something unusual in Loch Ness? I have seen the hatchet job applied to this series of photos and if your stance is based on an uncritical acceptance of such an "analysis", I can only say your bias and prejudice is getting in the way. After all, what have you done personally to evaluate such photos? Do you just swallow whole whatever you're told?

      This leads to your second denial concerning circular reasoning. Sadly, you appear to be conditioned to reject all such photos. You play it safe by accepting flimsy arguments about canoes (O'Connor), swans (Gray) and CGI (Johnson). I don't see how anything could move you.

      So to apply the words "logic" and "reason" having touted these half baked sceptical explanations is a bit rich to me. When it comes to objective, scientific research on the sceptic side, I see more in the way of speculation and unwarranted assumptions.

      Delete
    8. To my eye, the Johnson photos look like nothing more than a fairly amusing practical joke. If you take them seriously, then you must think Nessie has a stick-thin neck like an anorexic snake. That also mean you must reject the vast majority of eyewitness reports, and that crazy Gray photo. You should pick the photo you believe in, then from that you'll be required to reject the ones which contradict it, by a process of elimination.

      Or could it be that you don't feel able to reject any of them, as they're all your "babies"?

      When we view the numerous contradictory images, we have a choice. We either accept that the vast majority of them must be fake, or we can invent a shape-shifting monster which can extend and retract a long neck inside its body, and change the shape of its back by inflating and deflating humps.

      Which of the above two choices would you say is more befitting of a university-educated man in his early 50s, Roland?

      Delete
    9. "to my eye" ... subjective opinion.

      How on earth does that lead to a rejection of the vast majority of reports?!?! You clearly do not have a sense of the sightings database! The majority of reports do NOT involve a long neck and hence are immune to your "reasoning". You now see wy I don't fear sceptical "logic", "reasoning" and "science"?

      Your comments are also ill informed, you seem to think I accept all photos, all films and all accounts as genuine monsters.

      How can I answer questions which are just based on wrong assumptions?

      Mass of contradictory sightings? I explained that in the main article.

      Delete
    10. Here's some logic for you. We keep hearing that there must be a monster because so many people report seeing one. Yet Mackal believes 90% are misidentifications. But he can't say which are the 10% correct reports. You say much the same, but refer to not thinking it's as high as 90% but without coming up with an actual figure.

      So what you're both saying is that literally hundreds, if not thousands of eyewitnesses were wrong. In Mackal's case he thinks that being wrong is about 9 times more likely than having actually seen something. So, if "wrongness" about what's seen on the loch is so prevalent, how are you able to say with certainty that it doesn't account for all reports?

      Delete
    11. Mackal presents the 200+ cases that pass his filtering tests. You can find them in his book.

      I don't attempt to assign a percentage. It's obvious some cases are misidentification and hoax, but I would consider it presumptuous to sit in judgment on the 2000+ witnesses we know about. I just know our inbuilt bias for/against the phenomemon would skew the numbers.

      What I would say it that the degree of certainty of a sighting is in relation to a number of factors such as distance, conditions, duration, witness profile and so on. That mandates a case by case assessment rather than some blunderbuss approach.

      Delete
    12. Paradoxically exactly the same conditions apply to the likelihood of being able to obtain a detailed photo or phone video. The less chance an eyewitness could be mistaken, the less excuse they have of walking away with no image to corroborate their story. I notice that the very close up and long-lasting sightings of the early and mid parts of the last century no longer seem to happen. Nessie doesn't follow yachts like Finola at close range for several minutes like she used to, nor does she cross the road with an animal in her mouth. She doesn't seem to do what Greta Finlay witnessed either. Nor the Dinsdale "hump" swimming for an extended time on the top of the water in broad daylight.

      Is this due to recent human activity and noise on the loch? I'd suggest not. Activity on the loch hasn't really increased since the mid 20th century. I'd be so bold as to say that reports of such behaviour are directly related to how easy it would be to capture images. During this modern era when pretty much every visitor has a mobile phone, there's no excuse to not get a good image if Nessie is close up, or even medium distance. Coincidentally the reports of this type have dried up.

      Delete
    13. I covered this issue last year. Perhaps you weren't around.

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-sightings-problem.html

      Delete
  2. I added this review to amazon.co.uk and amazon.com (see https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Monsters-Cryptozoology-Reality-Behind-ebook/dp/B01B867JTO/ref=cm_rdp_product#navbar)

    I gave it two stars instead of the one I gave "Abominable Science!" because I thought it was a better book. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have always admired the Fordyce drawing, I think it's a fine piece of work. Speaking of Sceptics, we had 94 of them filing through the Loch Ness Exhibition and Nessie Shop in Drumnadrochit (where I work) led by Adrian Shine just a couple of weeks ago...members of The Skeptics (with a 'K') Society from America, but nonetheless they bought their fair share of soft toys, or 'stuffed animals' as Americans insist on calling them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did they all have one raised eyebrow?

      Delete
    2. By the way, I was co-leading that group (with Don Prothero).

      Delete
  4. Who knows? They were on a whirlwind tour and had already visited Stonehenge...I asked Adrian whether they were sceptical about that too, which did make him laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the King Kong theory is old hat myself. I just wonder why people bother writing these books. For money, no doubt, but there's maybe more to it than that. I can understand full well why someone would want to push a positive view of this branch if science, since it doesn't get much help in the mainstream media. However, to try to disprove something that hasn't been conclusively proven, as Nessie unfortunately has not, calls into question a person's motives to me. Or state of mind. If it's not there, and it's not bothering people, why try to disprove it? Like I say, I can understand why someone would seek to prove the existence on an undiscovered animal / branch of science, but not why someone would seek to disprove it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do they see to disprove? Most of them used to be believers, perhaps its a form of catharsis and closure.

      Delete
    2. You hit the nail on the head there I think.

      Most sceptics are former believers who retain a real interest in the subject. You can be a sceptic and still find the subject really interesting - I do.

      There's good and bad writing aplenty on both the sceptical and believer side of the Loch Ness mystery. The best sceptical-based books seek to explain rather than just pour cold water on everything.

      I liked 'A monstrous commotion' mainly because I thought it was well written and very nostalgic, albeit it was pretty clear to me the author was not a believer per se, despite the inside cover blurb.

      Delete
    3. I find the subject fascinating but I don't believe. Don't think I ever did, to be honest. But man, a big monster in a Scottish loch, what's not to be interested in? But that doesn't make it real. And the fact it's not real doesn't make it any less interesting for me.

      I'm of sound mind, have all my faculties. The argument that disbelievers should stay out of it makes no sense to me. Like a right-winger shouldn't be allowed to debate socialism because he//she doesn't believe in it.

      If we're going to question people's motives, I'd have to ask what's the reason why someone would feel the need to argue up the flimsy evidence, and take every opportunity to back any person's eyewitness testimony. How is that a rational stance? Just my observation that plenty of people do that.

      Delete
    4. I'm seeing it now. Like a born again non smoker. Or any born again, as long as you seek to prove how distant your former self is?

      Delete
    5. I am not arguing up the "flimsy evidence", I am arguing down the flimsy arguments against them.

      And no one I know backs any persons's eyewitness testimony. That's another sceptic straw man. We just like to concentrate on the best ones.

      Delete
    6. So you've never backed Greta Finlay's eyewitness testimony then? You've never said she couldn't have mistaken a deer for a monster?

      Delete
    7. "any person's eyewitness testimony" - i.e. any person that cares to come forward with a story. Not happened - ever.

      Delete
  6. Haveyouseenityet?, you say that the evidence doesn't add up to an animal in the water, yet, the primary skeptical researchers (Shine; Raynor; Harmsworth) all allow for the possibility of some sort of large fish accounting for some of the eyewitness reports. In this regard they seem to recognize that some of the sightings can't be explained by natural phenomenon or mistaken identification of conventional wildlife. Usually it's the upturned boat shape/elephant back type of sightings that are connected to the big fish theory. So, do you disagree with these researchers? If not, then how is it that the big fish has managed to avoid photography? Or does that criticism only apply to plesiosaurs, long-necked seals, giant amphibians?
    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe a giant fish is in the loch, no. I don't take my leads from Adrian Shine. I think for myself.

      Delete
    2. I think anything can avoid photography. I've hardly ever seen a fish surface, and I had lived near the sea for many years. And it was over so quickly, I'd never have had the chance to capture it on camera.
      I think it would be prudent to look at the pieces of information that are positive in our search for this creature. The sceptical view is a waste of energy as far as I can see. It's much more likely that there is something to find, really. Several thousand people haven't all got it wrong.

      Delete
    3. That's what people have been saying for decades, but sadly it's very easy indeed for several thousand people to make mistakes or lie. That's the fact of it, Martin. In times gone by, thousands upon thousands believed in the powers of witchcraft, many still do. But science has since proven that it's a purely psychological phenomenon. Sheer numbers of people "seeing things" on the surface of Loch Ness do not make the monster a fact. The only measurable thing we can go by is hard evidence, ie images or specimens. And 83 years of searching has produced nothing of note in that respect. So the FACTS (not the conjecture) point to there being no Nessie.

      Delete
    4. I still believe to establish if a large creature inhabits the loch is to use advanced sonar searches.

      Witness sightings cannot prove anything unless (video) someone is on the loch shore and the creature attempts to bite their ass.

      Sonar coupled with torpedo camera drones which lock on to the sonar 'hit' and move toward the target while sending real time video to the above boat.

      Hi tech is the way to go, hunt nessie, not hoping nessie to come to you.

      Delete
    5. And you know what involves?

      Cash. Lots of it!

      Delete
    6. The quality of 'sightings' thus far this year don't help the case.

      They've been dire. All of them. But Gary Campbell will be along towards the back end of the year to tell us how it's been a vintage year for sightings.

      No-ones going to fund detailed research of the kind being talked about here until some data appears to validate that kind of expense. We're just not getting that at the moment.

      As for the sceptical researchers and the idea of some sort of large fish? Well, I'm not sure Dick Raynor subscribes to that, and the other 2 both have vested interests in keeping some sort of myth alive.

      Delete
    7. RP, Dick Raynor's site does have a rather intriguing section that theorizes about Wels catfish being introduced into highland estate lochs in the late 19th century and finding their way into Loch Ness (and other lochs). While his current stance seems to be that much of the mystery can be explained by physics, the Wels catfish theory does bear out what I wrote earlier that Raynor and his fellow skeptical researchers seem to recognize that some sightings can't be adequately explained by natural artifacts.
      Incidentally folks, making the rounds in yesterday's news was a report that scientists have determined that Greenland Sharks may live up to 400 years! Recall that on the Loch Ness episode of River Monsters the Greenland Shark was Jeremy Wade's preferred Nessie candidate.
      Paddy

      Delete
    8. GB..... "And you know what involves?

      Cash. Lots of it!"

      True, alternatives could be sponsorship/crowd funding and training exercises c/o our Royal Navy.

      Failing that, I might get my cheque book out as VERY last resort. It requires savy people to get the 'ball rolling'

      From my limited knowledge of sonar I would suggest two boats could achieve coverage of the loch technically superseding the days of Deep Scan.

      Delete
    9. Paddy I think Roland has covered the River Monsters thing on his blog elsewhere, but suffice to say I thought it was a pretty lame piece of reasoning. The whole programme seemed geared towards a pre-determined conclusion which allowed Jeremy to go to Scandinavia and catch a Greenland shark.

      Erm, why did he not try to catch one in Loch Ness then?

      I'm afraid I don't accept the theory. The flow of River Ness is too strong for a Greenland shark to navigate.

      Delete
    10. RP, while I enjoyed the River Monsters Loch Ness show overall, I too was a bit disappointed. The big flaw: if Nessie is a Greenland Shark and you can catch one in a Norwegian fiord you should be able to catch one in Loch Ness. On the other hand, at least Wade seemed to come away from his research thinking that a large fish best explained some of the sightings. Which ties in to what I've written about the skeptical researchers. I don't think the Greenland shark theory is any better or worse than any of the other theories. Regarding Morar, I would like to see research resume there given its clear water (compared to Ness).
      Paddy

      Delete
    11. Hmm, Wade needed to have something tangible to 'catch' at the end of the show. In my view that was the entire driving force behind his Greenland Shark theory.

      The way he came to the idea was pretty lame to say the least. Picked 2 sightings, ignored hundreds of others, completely sidestepped long necks and multiple humps as they didn't fit the route he was trying to go down.

      Delete
    12. As part of his research Wade consulted with Adrian Shine, who's become the local contact or 'front man' for all things Nessie. So it's likely that Wade's sidestepping of long neck and multiple hump sightings was at least partially influenced by Shine's perspective.

      Delete
    13. Failing that, I might get my cheque book out as VERY last resort. It requires savy people to get the 'ball rolling'

      Prof ... don't forget hunters looking for a Flir TS32 Pro. :)

      Delete
    14. Result would be nothing conclusive. A number of excuses would be made, followed by the inevitable "Hunt goes on" statements.

      Delete
  7. Last week this blog had fallen off the first page of Google results, this week it's back on the first page. I think you'll find that's called "The open debate with sceptics effect". The more sceptical responses, the closer this blog gets to the top of the Google search list.

    Optimisation by scepticism!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm,the web hits couunters don't look different. Unless google is counting link ins.

      Delete
  8. Haveyouseenityet, as far as I can gather, there is a large body of sightings from Ness and Morar to name but two, that simply do not conform to mass hysteria, and do conform to an anomaly. Many of the people concerned have been seen to be first class observers, and many of the sightings cannot be anything other than lies or the truth, as they are too specific. I'm not talking about standing waves here, but sightings from folks who want little to do with publicity, but have seen something that is extraordinary. In the case of Morar, there was even a legend of a ghost barge towing two smaller boats. This entity was seen many times, and witnessed moving in a fashion that indicated animation. In Ness, some witnesses reported a large creature at close quarters that was unlike anything they had ever seen, and terrified them. Many of these people were very familiar with the Loch and it's ways. What were they seeing? Or were they all lying? The witchcraft analogy is not relevant as one could say the very same about religion. Most people have not seen Jesus appear before them though.
    It is highly possible that the these animals lie way outside our current understanding, so we would need to start somewhere. I recommend you read 'The Search for Morag' if you can get hold of it. It's a highly scientific and researched work, and might make a cynic think again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you post a link to the YouTube video of the ghost barge towing the two smaller boats please? Or could it be that people are never able to record these things? I wonder why?

      Delete
  9. That's it then, you've nailed it. Mass hallucination it is, with the odd hoax thrown in for good measure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep - mass misidentification plus hoaxes. That covers it all. Sad but true.

      Delete
  10. I spent many hours on Morar a couple of weeks ago bobbing around in a small boat. It's a very atmospheric place - almost completely remote along its shore once you get about a third of the way along it. And seriously deep water too going by the soundings on the boats sonar.

    Never saw Morag but bobbing around at 5am at the far end with a light mist on the water and absolutely nothing else around definitely made it feel like dragon country. Some place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Momster hunting or just tourism?

      Delete
    2. I was doing the support team for my friend who swam the length of Morar in 13 hours.....in preparation for swimming the length of Ness in 18 hours which she did 2 weeks later!

      You may have seen the story on Steve
      Felthams Facebook page. Hardcore!!

      Delete
  11. Hi Roland, a couple of people have contacted me to ask if i am posting on here as "have you seen it yet", i also now notice that who ever is posting chose to ignore you when you asked if they are me.
    They are not, if ever i post i always have enough confidence in what i want to say to use my own name not an alias.
    Anyway, keep up the good work, i am glad you are here creating debate.
    See you soon,
    Steve feltham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's okay, Steve. I didn't think it was you!

      Delete
    2. My bad, I genuinely thought it was a rhetorical question. No I'm not SF.

      Delete
    3. Should I block you for impersonation?

      Delete
    4. I'm not trying to impersonate Steve or anyone else. What's led to this accusation?

      Delete
    5. Because haveyouseenityet.com was Steve's website.

      Delete
    6. Apologies then. I had heard the phrase in relation to the monster, but didn't realise it was specifically associated with Steve Feltham. Should I change my name on here? Don't want to cause further misunderstanding.

      Delete
  12. I think whatever is is in the Loch lives in there and does not travel back and forth, so a greenland shark for me is out of the question.

    ReplyDelete