A Known Conger Eel Tussles With A Meal Above Water
Well, as much as I’d like to debunk Tass’ ‘Nessie’ photo, I can’t because I’m not computer-savy enough to trace his photo back to the site in
question. I wish that, once, Tass had provided a place where I could go and check his facts/data, but, alas, I am given no origins for his sources,
and so can only provide you with a continuous stream of sources on my own…
…In regard to which I admit that I’ve favored written material over internet stuff. This may be because I work for a public library, but it’s mostly
because I’ve found the very best material in print. Speaking of works in print, here is a list of books/articles that debunk ALL of the more famous,
dinosaur-style, ‘Nessie’ photos:
Binns, Ronald. 1984. The Loch Ness Mystery Solved. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 96-100. -- . 1995. Letter to Joe Nickell, December 11.
Genoni, Tom. 1994. "After 60 Years, the Most Famous of All the `Nessie' Photos Is Revealed as a Hoax," Skeptical Inquirer 18:4 (Summer), 338-40.
Hoggart, Simon, and Mike Hutchinson. 1995. Bizarre Beliefs. London: Richard Cohen Books, pp. 196-99.
Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. Lexington, Ky.: University Press of Kentucky, 170-71.
Smith, Richard D. 1995. "The Classic Wilson Nessie Photo: Is the Hoax a Hoax?" Fate, November, 42-44.
And, while we’re at it, here’s more info on the study I said shows that Loch Ness does not have enough living matter in it to support a huge
‘Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of Zooplankton and Fish in Loch Ness, UK’ by George, DG:Winfield, I.J: Freshwater Biology 43: no 4
(2000) 557: ISSN 0046-5070
So far as accessibility goes, I found most of this info at my own library… and only had to order a few books from other libraries in the system… for
those judges who are worried about checking sources. In fact, doing a basic FirstSearch/ArticleFirst search at the library (on its database
computers) came up with dozens of PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES that said (like the one listed above) that Loch Ness has, essentially, an
ecosystem that cannot support anything above a large eel… But which CAN support a large eel.
But, going back to the issue of ‘Nessie’ photos… Notice how Tass first built his argument around stories from the 1930s, but has now moved away from
that? Notice how he’s telling you how ‘Nessie’ MIGHT look, but is wary of presenting you reports of it outside of this 1920s/30s range? Hhmm… One
wonders if he realizes that all of the dinosaur style sightings from that era have been proven to be hoaxes, while, outside of that, all other
‘Nessie’ sightings reveal an eel-like creature : )
To be frank, Tass has yet to provide us with a comprehensive list of Loch Ness sightings that support his extraordinary claims regarding a non-eel
interpretation of ‘Nessie’, while I have given you info (and photos) regarding the large species of Eel that thrive in Loch Ness and, sometimes, reach
extraordinary lengths (the one with ‘W’ is actually smaller than maximum length. I just thought the photo was funny). As such, Tass has just given
you a lesson in mythology, while I have discussed biology…
…But, as for lessons, Tass seems intent on showing off his knowledge of the Loch with you. Well, I can play that game, too. Did you know that Loch
Ness was once known as the lake of ‘floating islands’ because peat is often shed from neighboring mountains during storms and, as such, forms floating
islands of moss and peat that drift about the lake? Sounds like tales of ‘humps’ in the wonder, no? Also, did you know that… Ah… eels like to come
up to the surface to feed off of such ‘humps’ because they contain what little new nutrition is added to the lake? Forms a neat picture, eh?
I await the noble Executor of Aiur's concluding statement.