Well, after significant time away from Mysterious Universe, it's time to get back to it. I figured that for my first article in a while I would focus on something that provokes endless arguments and even rage. I'm talking about belief systems. In this case, one belief system in particular. Namely, the idea that the strange creatures of Loch Ness, Scotland are surviving examples of long-extinct plesiosaurs; marine reptiles that became extinct millions of years ago. Give me a break: Loch Ness is not teeming with plesiosaurs. Not even one. The plesiosaur theory is filled with holes that are simply too big to ever be successfully plugged. They were, after all, reptiles - meaning they surfaced to take in oxygen.
If the Nessies are plesiosaurs, then let’s say that at any given time there are around twenty of them in the loch, ranging from (a) young and small to (b) large and old. That would be a reasonable figure to ensure the continuation of a healthy herd. Let’s also say they, like crocodiles, can stay submerged, and without taking in oxygen, for a considerable amount of time. This means that in any one-day, each plesiosaur would have to surface around - let us say - twelve times. Twenty plesiosaurs, surfacing twelve times a day (at a minimum, I should stress), would equate to 240 surfacing events every single twenty-four-hour-long period. Multiply that by a week and the figure is elevated to 1,680. Then, multiply that by fifty-two weeks in a year and the figure becomes a massive 87,360 surfacing events annually.
That the number of sightings per year is actually extremely low suggests strongly that they are not plesiosaurs. If they are, we should be seeing them much more than we do. It really is that simple. There is a specific reason why I mention all of this: I have a new book out right now titled Nessie: Exploring the Supernatural Origins of the Loch Ness Monster. As the title of the book demonstrates, the theories presented in its pages to explain the Nessies are far removed from the likes of plesiosaurs and giant eels. We're talking about the Aleister Crowley connection, shape-shifters, odd synchronicities, UFOs, Men in Black, portals, and much more that either intrigues or infuriates people. There is very little middle ground. In fact, as I see it, there is none at all.
But, what really interests me is not just the nature of the Nessies: it's the way in which certain characters allow their stress levels to reach "danger zone" levels when dealing with the subject. Something which has certainly happened since the book was published earlier this month. As interested as I am in the Nessie controversy, and although I engage in more than a few very argumentative and heated debates online, it's not like we're talking about finding the cure for cancer, or trying my best to help ensure that the Democratic Party stays in power. Those are very important issues. Nessie? Very interesting, yes, but hardly world-changing. Maybe it's just me, but practically hyperventilating, merely because someone suggests Nessie may not be what you think it is, is very, very stupid. And pointless, because it achieves absolutely nothing. But I have seen it time and again. I actually saw it (or, rather, heard it) earlier today!
I have also seen the same thing with Bigfoot and Roswell. As anyone who has read my articles and books will know, I am far from convinced that the Bigfoot phenomenon revolves around nothing but unknown, unclassified apes. There is, as I see it, something much weirder to Bigfoot than meets the eye. But, again, when I start talking about Tulpas, portals, and multi-dimensions - all in relation to Bigfoot - it's not just eyebrows that raise significantly. It's blood-pressures, too. The same thing happens when I admit I am far from convinced that ET crashed at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.
If the Bigfoot creatures and the Nessies are, one day, proven to exist, then it will be an amazing day. Just the same as if Roswell is conclusively shown to have been an extraterrestrial event. Anf if certain people spent more time and energy investigating, rather than upholding personal belief systems, then maybe we would get somewhere. But, as I see it, upholding a belief system at all costs - probably because the person in question has invested so much time, money and effort in promoting that specific belief - is a case of crossing the line.
If the Nessies are shown to be giant eels, if Bigfoot is found to be a primitive type of human, and if it is proved that the Roswell aliens were actually crash-test dummies, after all, we should be pleased. Not because certain, personal beliefs were vindicated (or were not), but because the mystery was solved. Indeed, when it come to each and every aspect of what I scientifically refer to as "weird shit," solving is far more important than believing ever could be.