Nice trick. The skeptic is the believer. The believer is the skeptic. (Reminds me of “scientific creationism” land, where religion is science and science is religion). Up is down, too.

Your matter of fact “Nessie’s been around for centuries” is, well, no matter of fact. It is more accurate to conclude that “Nessie” as a phenomena originated in the early 1930’s, and the year 1933 is usually attributed as the founding year of the “monster” myth. Once the story appeared in the local paper (perhaps planted) concerning an large animal seen in the loch (perhaps a PR event), people began seeing the monster on land and in the loch, and even a couple of (now considered dubious) photos were taken. The fact is that more sightings of “Nessie” occurred in 1933 than any year since may suggest we are dealing with imaginations excited by rumors and current events, not long standing knowledge, centuries old, of a lake monster.

Nessie advocates themselves have recognized this issue as a potential problem. They offer this scenario: the loch was a forlorn, remote place until a loch side road was created in the early 1930’s which allowed more people than before to see the loch. Problems with this scenario have been noted. First, the loch was a tourist destination in the 1800’s. It even had large boat trips for those who could afford them. Second, survey maps show that the loch side road had been there prior to the 1930’s.

That there are “monster” sighters before the 1930’s is equally problematic. First, many of the alleged accounts came to light AFTER the “flap” of 1933. One could plausibly make the case that the “flap” was the cause of “the twice-told tales”.
For instance, amid the 1933 excitement, a letter appeared in a Scottish paper claiming a large fish had been seen in the loch in 1520, 1771, and 1885. No evidence was given for the claim

If it was known that Ness harbored a “monster” for centuries, we would expect a cultural influence in music and story through the ages in the Highlands. We do not, unless you want to conflate water horses and kelpies (Highland supernatural boogies that kept children away from the lochs) with a flesh and blood animal.

The St. Columbia event is found in a folkloric book that was full of fabulous stories. I honestly don’t know how advocates can use this “evidence” with a straight face.

Of course the Ness story is more complex than a planted story. I wouldn’t suggest otherwise. I make the point of a possible PR event as the IMPETUS that got the whole story going. The excitement of belief moved it along, putting doubt to the side.

You speak of “alternatives” to the “evidence” that must be proposed by skeptics. As usual, I think you put the cart in front of the (water)horse. Give me a credible piece of evidence for a large, unknown animal in Ness. Then we can talk about “alternatives”.

Kind Host,

I have read a couple of your books and have found them entertaining. I did not read your co-authored book on lake monsters. I probably shouldn’t put my neck out like this, but I vaguely recall a source that suggested the sighting reported in 1930 in a paper was written by Alex Campbell. It was suggested that Campbell had tried to float the “monster” in Ness story then, and it was stillborn. He tried three years later (perhaps set up by the PR man who found out about Campbell’s “monster” beliefs), and, this time, a legend was born. Campbell definitely believed the loch had a “monster”, it is unclear if his belief was based on the superstition of the “water horse” or not.

Kind host, does my memory serve me well?

Nessie’s been around for centuries. Trying to explain the whole thing away with one incident in the 1930s strikes me as, well, pretty credulous. (Ogopogo post-dates Nessie by centuries. Everyone knows that, at least so I thought.)

A skeptical mindset comes up with an alternative explanation for ALL the Nessie evidence. Or it really isn’t skeptical, just negatively cross-fingers-and-toes hopeful.

This 1930 sighting would seem to undermine any notion that the Loch Ness Monster was a publicity stunt promoted by a British Columbian arriving lochside in 1933.

I’m surprised that advocates and skeptics alike have largely ignored what I take to be a major revelation: a monster in Ness was a PR stunt!

In Bauer’s “Enigma” book, he recounts a reference he ran across concerning a transplanted public relations officer. The fellow was from British Columbia transplanted to England. The officer stated in his memoirs that, hired to boost tourism at Ness, he had created a monster in Ness based on his remembrance of stories of a lake monster in B.C. (“Ogopogo” anyone?) He had planted the original story of “something big” in the loch (and remember, the original news report came from a married couple who were Ness inn owners!) Bauer did not discount this story (although he didn’t think it important).

If the story is true, we have an explanation for the sudden appearance of a “monster” in the loch in the 1930’s. And by extension, we could suggest that ensuing events at Ness were part enchanted imaginations, part-hoax, and a demonstration of the lovely human will to (yes) BELIEVE.

1. The Ness land sightings are generally problematic and cannot be reduced to simple “data”. Many sightings are much more akin to “twice-told tales” than field reports. Such stories lack fundamental information, such as names and dates, confirming evidence, personal information about the sighters, etc. Also, most of the sightings are recorded by advocates who are not too interested in contradicting the accounts.

2. The sightings are largely inconsistent. (See DWA’s pointed post above to this effect.)

3. Even the best sightings are altered and embellished in their retelling. For instance, in our kind host’s account of the Arthur Grant sighting, Grant saw an animal cross the road with “four seemingly legs ending in flippers.” Yet, I recall reading Grant’s earliest account and he pointedly stated he did not see legs, feet, or any other mode of transportation concerning the animal he saw. The earliest sketch of Grant’s creature did not show legs or flippers.

4. Most land sightings seemed to be bunched around the founding events of the early 1930’s. This may imply that such sightings were influenced by sudden and new accounts of a “monster” in the loch (suggestibility and imagination at play).

5. As noted in the original post above, it is suspicious that so few land sightings have been noted. Either Nessie travels across land or not. If she does, more sightings and evidence of it should have been accumulated by now.

No suggestion that they have an indeterminate growth pattern that would allow ‘em to grow to enormous size, but then again so little is known, and other eel like vertebrates can bet pretty big with one suggestion that they represent a particular morph of species of eelpout in which sexually precocious and possibly hermaphroditic individuals leave the mainstream and expand the species range by entering promising freshwater sources in search of the muddy habitat they require. Lots of speculation, to be sure, but when it comes to the abyssal plain there’s lots of room for speculation and nature still surprises us.

That they are confused with other more common animals is understandable as is the eccentric periodicity of their appearance since it might be in sync with some natural cycle that’s so far gone unnoticed in the environmental record. Not too hard to believe considering how scatter-shot and relatively short-term some of the understanding of nature’s complex patterns have been to date.

Might this also explain how a sparse population would survive and sustain itself without a regular exploitable kind of behavior that researchers could detect in surveying the lake with the methods they’ve been using.

This always makes me wish I had a cow carcass, an anchor and a boat and an underwater camera with a long time lapse function….hmmm, might be tough to get on the airplane too.