0
I'm no cryptozoologist, but as you've seen, I tried my hand at it [academically] twice, and enjoyed the ride both times. A bit surprising to me, I didn't end up with an "All-The-Way-Fool" in either case. Both of my "solutions" were what I viewed as "tinkering" with the status quo, and others probably thought were too "liberal" to credit but not spoken with enough conviction to run me out of the profession of college professorship. No one [probably] really cared about Set anyway, and the Wasgo, well I was probably thought a lunatic for believing that a sea monster could physically exist, but since it never threatens to come for dinner, we could let that go too. Inevitably, one gets drawn in to a wider interest in these things. And when one suddenly becomes friends with a world expert on one of them, you just can't resist. Such it has been for me and the Loch Ness Monster, courtesy in part to Henry Bauer, one of my favorite persons on the planet. My study of the beast [such as it is] has led me back into history and romance [that's just me]. There I found as do all Nessie students, the tale of St. Columba taming the great serpent [sort of a one-shot Patrick getting the snakes out of Ireland] and by gum that was a good start for me. The Drumbuie Stone with its olde carving of a great beast was another winner as far as I was concerned. But, regrettably, "science" always kicks in and I had to go looking for modern evidence. As a UFOlogist, I had certain [I believe time-tested and appropriate] biases. I am impressed by credible witness testimony, particularly of "close encounters" with high strangeness, and I'm not very impressed with film [unless something REALLY extraordinary was true about it]. So, I, counter-intuitively to Nessie researchers, was more impressed by Tim Dinsdale's encounter incidents than his famous film. And, I was even more impressed by close encounters by water-bailiff, Alex Campbell's, and Benedictine prior, Father Carruth's [the brother of the Father Carruth who wrote the Loch Ness pamphlet] near incidents than anything. Witness testimony: it's actually there.
But can a really big animal be there? People say that the Loch is a really impressive body of water and very deep, and in a way all that's true. But from the beginning this line of conversation didn't ring true. Lots of drawings exist of the Monster, and a fair number of [even] possibly legitimate pictures. The stories point to a very large "thing". I went to the Loch [nice museum] and it's a joyful natural environment just to be in. The idea that Nessie might surface at any moment gives it that extra spice. But you get a bit nervous about the rationalizations in support of the biological monsters quickly, at least I did. At Inverness, the two feet of water running in connection to the sea, was pretty inadequate for Nessie to slosh into the Loch seasonally looking for salmon. In fact one learns that the Loch has been essentially sealed off from the sea for a very long time as far as monster traffic would be concerned. So, you're stuck with the Loch itself, unaided by the ocean, as a home for the monster. And it can't be just one, on almost any reasonable line of biological argument. I've looked at [and listened to] ecologists estimate the "carrying capacity" of the Loch, and the numbers just don't add up to a sustaining reproductive population of , say, 30 to 60 monsters. Supporters of Nessie really try to squeeze these numbers, but their behavior just makes me more nervous. Some supporters abandon the big mammal or reptile hypothesis for a lower form of life which might be vegetarian or otherwise live further down the food chain--that alone proves that even enthusiasts are worried. And it is a non-starter for me. The lower life form thing totally violates the witness testimony of the beast's characteristics. This has caused some supporters [including my buddy Henry] to just leave the monster's diet to the realm of mystery and fall back on the evidence that no matter how puzzling the "side issues", Nessie exists.
Source
