Nessie as an Eel
Posted by: Nick Redfern on May 24th, 2012
Well, my recent post at Mysterious Universe – where I commented on the idea that the creatures of Loch Ness, Scotland might actually be giant eels – certainly provoked the arrival of some intriguing emails at my In-Box. If I get permission to post them, I’ll do so right here, as they contain some interesting nuggets of data on this particular scenario (both for and against).
But, in the meantime, check out this link, to an article at the Loch Ness Mystery blog which provides a very good, balanced look at the “Nessie is an eel” theory and which presents both sides of the argument in solid fashion.
About Nick Redfern
Punk music fan, Tennents Super and Carlsberg Special Brew beer fan, horror film fan, chocolate fan, like to wear black clothes, like to stay up late. Work as a writer.
This is my favorite Nessie theory.
Nah, I don’t buy the eel theory for all of the reasons mentioned in the article. The biggest is the head and neck sightings (which of the accounts I’ve read, they’re just as credible as any of the other sightings). Same for the upturned boat: eels don’t have the mass for the upturned boat–unless there’s some new species we don’t know about that has a beer belly.
And the land sightings are another arena where I definitely don’t buy the eel theory. In a lot of those land accounts, flippers or legs were visible.
So still not convinced.
Speculation about Nessie is harmless fun, but when people propose a specific species as her identity they frequently reveal their lack of familiarity with established data and well-known experts. On European freshwater eels, Anguilla anguilla I suggest they Google the names Christopher Moriarty, or Guido van den Thillart, and read their publications. If big words are a hindrance, then look at the various eel fishing forums or the UK’s National Anguilla Club. There is no evidence that “giant eels” exist, and so to suggest that Nessie is a Giant Eel is about as useful as identifying The Snark as a Boojum; it is just another futile example of describing one unknown in terms of another.
The largest A.a. recorded was 6 feet long and weighed 11 lbs, much larger than any ever reported from Loch Ness, and this is because eels grow bigger in warm waters with plentiful food supplies.
Read “The Loch” by Steven Alten, it’s based on that exact theory.
how about a giant unknown species of salamander ?
is there any living or fossil evidence of a long necked salamander ?
@schultzsquatch Great book, Alten is one of my favorite authors
My friend and her sister were at the bottom of her garden (on the loch shore at Dores) and saw what they both described as a large horse headed animal so close they could see the animals eyes, it took my friend a long time to trust me enough to tell me the story due to fear of ridicule so whatever it is it is not an eel.
It’s certainly not any nuttier than the notion that it’s a dinosaur.
SHJ actually points up my major problem with Nessie: sightings are all over the place as to what is being seen.
There does seem to be something anomalous in Loch Ness. But what is the positive evidence that it is an eel?
I guess one can’t rule out that there could be more than one anomalous thing in Loch Ness.
You know what, DW my man: I’m glad you bring this to the table, because even though UFOlogists don’t have a problem considering that UFOs may have more than one explanation, that kind of rationale doesn’t seem to wash in Cryptozoology circles very often*.
Why couldn’t there be more than one kind of weird animal whose sightings amalgamated over time & folklore into the Loch Ness monster, indeed?
(*): With some exceptions of course, like Loren’s true giant theories. 🙂
red_pill: exactly. So let me be a tad less diffident.
One of the most frustrating proponent points of view I hear about the sasquatch and yeti is that there is only one species of each. Praytell, how do we know that? Evidence – shoot, geographical distribution alone – seems to indicate that more than one species is very likely. Everywhere there is an ape there is more than one, pretty much. Why not here? We have three species of bear in North America; two species of wolf; several species of cervid….why do we accept only one possible species of ape? I think this is yet another wrongheaded take on the “no one is seeing these” theme: how could they be unconfirmed if there is more than one species?
Um, that’s, um, so easy, people, that I’m embarrassed to have to say it here.
Wait for it:
ANYBODY SEES ANYTHING LOOKS LIKE AN APE HERE THEY’S CRAAAAAAZY!
There.
There could be six – look how many ape species there are in Africa – and science wouldn’t know for all the looking at evidence they do.
The evidence says – to me in extraordinarily clear terms – that if you’re looking for one anomalous thing in Loch Ness, better expect more than one.
i have immensely more faith in bigfoot being proven to exist than nessie . comparing the skunk ape prints to the typical patty type there are definitely differences in their biology , or maybe deformities from in-breeding due to their rarity ??? but i’d really like to see just one confirmed to exist to the world before we start designating sub-species . LOL . nessie ……… the older i get the more i think the sightings are just miss-identification , people being victims of hoaxes and of course some are just out and out liers .
Good points as always 🙂