Television Signals and Wormholes

It is not very often that I go off-topic here, but today is one of those rare occasions. I am going to veer off-topic for this post, and pen an article that is not directly related to zoology, but, instead, physics.

In the past few months, I have been researching wormholes: those connections between different regions of spacetime that are predicted to exist according to some solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity. Wormholes have become a fixture in popular culture, with their potential use as devices for spacefaring across vast regions of space to faraway galaxies, as well as for travel between parallel universes and for time travel, having gained a firm foothold in at least some quarters of the general public. It is this last potential aspect of wormholes, travel through time (besides the normal time travel that everyone is constantly doing of going to the future at the rate of, within one particular relativistic frame of reference, one second per second), that will constitute the primary focus of this present article.

First, it shall be useful to elucidate what, exactly, a wormhole is, and how they probably come about. For this, it shall be necessary to turn to an explanation of the theory of general relativity, popularized by Albert Einstein. According to general relativity, space and time are melded together into a single entity known as spacetime, and the existence of matter, by necessity, warps and bends the spacetime it inhabits to some degree, which leads to the phenomenon of gravity. When an object is attracted by a larger object's gravitational pull, according to general relativity, it would be falling into the dip, or dent, in spacetime created by the larger object's mass. A useful analogy would be to imagine spacetime as being a blanket. If a ball were to be placed in the center of the blanket, it would cause the fabric of said blanket to dip downwards in the middle. Now imagine if something of sufficient mass was placed in the center of the blanket to cause such a large dip that the two ends of the blanket now rise up and meet, forming a connection between them.
This is how wormholes are probably formed. When something of sufficient mass exists in the fabric of spacetime, it creates such a strong gravitational force that it bends the fabric of spacetime, causing two distant regions of spacetime to come together and meet, thereby forming a connection, or a shortcut, between them. This connection is what is referred to as a wormhole.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler, about sixty years ago, was the first to hypothesize that spacetime, at the smallest scales, became a chaotic mess of wormholes, black holes, and a variety of other such phenomena, constantly popping into and out of existence. Spacetime was predicted to take on such a structure at the Planck scale, the smallest scale known to physics, far smaller than an atom. This structure is known as quantum foam, and, according to Barry R. Parker, Ph.D., the vast majority of physicists are now convinced that quantum foam exists, and that it is full of very small wormholes. It was predicted that, at such a tiny scale, the normal laws of physics would break down, causing the very structure of spacetime itself to turn into a chaotic, foamy mess. Spacetime would curve in on itself in many regions, temporarily forming connections between different regions of spacetime, i.e., wormholes.

Now that we have an explanation as to what wormholes are, how they presumably come about, and why microscopic versions of them are predicted by physicists to exist at the smallest known scales in the universe, we can now delve into the real gist, the real meat and potatoes, of this article. And that is the phenomenon of people reporting seeing television series long before they actually aired, or were even produced, commonly associated with the phenomenon known as the Mandela Effect, which has been gaining attention in recent years, and how these microscopic wormholes might offer an explanation for this phenomenon.

The Mandela Effect is a term coined by writer Fiona Broome about six years ago to describe a phenomenon she, and many others, experienced, of remembering the death of famed South African reformer, anti-apartheid activist, and politician Nelson Mandela while he was in prison in the Gregorian calendar decade of the 1980's, while, in reality, it is known that Mandela passed away on the (Gregorian calendar, base-ten) date Thursday, December 5, 2013. There are numerous other examples, perhaps one of the most widely-known being the tendency of a plethora of people to remember the title of the popular book series The Berensta/ein Bears being spelled "Berenstein", with a third "e", while the correct spelling is actually "Berenstain", with an "a" in place of that third "e".

Some cases of the Mandela Effect I could find related to people claiming to have seen programming on television, including events on the news that had not yet happened, long before they aired, ranging from the aforementioned death of Nelson Mandela, whose funeral many people claim to have seen on television in the Gregorian calendar's 1980's decade, to television coverage of the death and funeral of noted evangelical preacher Billy Graham, whom, as of this writing, is still alive, to someone who claimed to have watched Leonardo DiCaprio win an award on television a week before he actually won said award.

What really intrigued me about the Billy Graham case was this: I could find three different people saying they watched news coverage of his death and funeral on television at at least three different times. One reported seeing it around Gregorian calendar base-ten year 2009, around the time of Senator Ted Kennedy's death, while another reported seeing it a few months before the death of Ronald Reagan, which would place it circa Gregorian base-ten year 2004, while another reported seeing it in Gregorian calendar base-ten year 2000. And all three of them gave a description that was startlingly, even eerily, similar; that they saw Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presenting their condolences at Graham's funeral. It really did seem like these three different people, despite having reportedly watched this programming at different times, were describing the same television programme.

Meanwhile, on Reddit, I was able to find a post from someone stating that they remembered watching an episode titled "And Then" of a TV series titled "Medium" in Gregorian base-ten year 2003, when they stated that they were ten years old, while, in reality, that series did not premiere on television until Gregorian base-ten year 2005, and that particular episode did not premiere on television until Gregorian base-ten year 2008, when they stated that they were fifteen years old. According to the poster, they remembered they saw the episode while they were sitting on the recliner in what was, at the time, the room in their house reserved for television. The poster says that, in 2004, the room was turned into a bedroom for their mother, and, by 2008, not only was that room no longer the TV room, but the recliner in that room was long gone. Always making sure to be critical and skeptical of all claims, with there always being a possibility that someone is just making up this story and attempting to pass it off as genuine, I looked through this Reddit user's other posts to try to gauge if their pattern of posting could be indicative of deception. I did not find any indication of this. On the contrary, I even found that they had started a thread in which they intended to critically investigate common urban legends, and, in this thread, this user even wrote a post debunking one such legend, about insects, common in their area. So this person not only appears completely honest, but also appears to be in possession of a critical, skeptical mindset. Not the kind of person easily given over to either hoaxing or credulous acceptance of the extraordinary as an explication for the mundane.

I have devised a hypothesis, involving the tiny, sub-microscopic wormholes thought to exist by physics, to explain these seemingly anomalous occurrences of people reportedly seeing television series long before they officially aired. This hypothesis is that, while a television program is officially airing, and the television signal is travelling through the air and through cables to reach television sets around the world, some of the signal passes through these tiny wormholes, managing to make its way into different time periods through them. The reason why a television signal would be able to pass through these tiny wormholes, while a larger object would not, is simply due to the miniscule size of these wormholes. As they are vastly smaller than an atom, or even most subatomic particles, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for anything made of matter to pass through them. Meanwhile, a television signal is a massless wave, made up only of energy, so it would not have a problem navigating its way through these infinitesimally small rifts in spacetime.

Although I have yet to encounter anyone else devising such a hypothesis with regard to television signals, in particular, I have come across an article by British astrophysicist John Gribbin, published in the base-ten Gregorian calendar month of January 2013, in which he writes about these tiny wormholes, and speculates that, although they are far too small for any matter to go through, perhaps information, such as signals transmitted between particles conveying how they are supposed to behave according to the laws of physics, could be constantly passing through these wormholes, which could provide an explanation as to how the entire universe, all known areas of space and time, seem to follow the same laws of physics. Gribbin ends his article by musing, "And there you have the ultimate paradox. It may be that we only actually have universal laws of physics because time travel is possible. In which case, it is hardly surprising that the laws of physics permit time travel."

This is the sentiment by which I would like to conclude this foray into the realm of quantum physics and anomalous television programmes on a zoological blog -- which, in my view, constitutes an anomalous occurrence, in and of itself.

References:

Broome, Fiona. "Nelson Mandela Died in Prison?" Mandela Effect. 9 September 2010. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (http://www.mandelaeffect.com/nelson-mandela-died-in-prison/)

Gribbin, John. "How to build a time machine." John Gribbin Science. 15 January 2013. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (https://www.johngribbinscience.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/how-to-build-a-time-machine/amp/)

Parker, Barry R. (1991). "Cosmic Time Travel: A Scientific Odyssey." Plenum US/Springer Science+Media, LLC. Page 234. Print.

Broome, Fiona. "Nelson Mandela – The Memories, So Far." Mandela Effect. 11 February 2013. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (http://www.mandelaeffect.com/nelson-mandela-the-memories-so-far/)

Broome, Fiona. "Billy Graham's Funeral on TV." Mandela Effect. 25 April 2013. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (http://www.mandelaeffect.com/billy-grahams-funeral-on-tv/)

"Not_Really_A_Name". "Saw an episode of a TV show 5 years before it aired." Reddit. 13 September 2016. Web. Accessed 27 December 2016. (https://www.reddit.com/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/comments/52lbij/saw_an_episode_of_a_tv_show_5_years_before_it/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list)

Thomas Henry Huxley and the Dinosarian Affinities of Birds – A Response to Brian Switek

While browsing the paleontology blogosphere, I came across an article on Brian Switek's blog Laelaps in which he proclaimed that the view that Victorian Era naturalist Thomas Henry Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, arrived at the conclusion that birds had evolved from dinosaurs, and, therefore, are dinosaurs, is a misinterpretation of Huxley's true views. According to Switek, Huxley thought that dinosaurs closely resembled, in anatomical form and structure, to those animals which he deemed as the actual ancestors of birds, which Huxley said had yet to be discovered at the time. Curious, I subsequently read much of Huxley's writings on this topic, and, with all due respect to Mr. Switek, who I have to commend in the highest for his wonderful contributions to paleontology, I am afraid that it is Mr. Switek who has misinterpreted (or rather, more precisely, overlooked) some of Huxley's work. Huxley had used the phrase "intercalary type" to refer to an organism that approximated the form that the ancestor of another species took, but was not actually the direct ancestor, while he used the phrase "linear type" to refer to those organisms that, in his view, represented the actual ancestors of another species.

I reproduce the following excerpt from one of Huxley's works, which Brian Switek had used in his article to show that Huxley did not think that dinosaurs had actually evolved into birds (Ornithoscelida is a broader grouping encompassing the Dinosauria which Huxley utilized at the time; I have intentionally bolded one portion to add emphasis to it):

 "When I addressed you in 1862, I should have been bold indeed had I suggested that palæontology would before long show us the possibility of a direct transition from the type of the lizard to that of the ostrich. At the present we have, in the Ornithoscelida, the intercalary type, which proves that transition to be something more than a possibility; but it is very doubtful whether any of the genera of Ornithoscelida with which we are at present acquainted are the actual linear types by which the transition from the lizard to the bird was effected. These, very probably, are still hidden from us in the older formations."

In this statement, Huxley is merely saying that none of the specific genera of dinosaurs that were known at the time was the direct ancestor of birds. He is not saying, by any means, that dinosaurs in general were not the direct ancestor of birds.

In fact, another excerpt from a September 20, 1876 lecture by Huxley demonstrates that Huxley did, indeed, consider dinosaurs (again, referred to as Ornithoscelidans) to be the direct ancestors of birds (parts that are in bold, are, again, intentionally bolded by me to furnish emphasis):

"I conceive that such linear forms, constituting a series of natural gradations between the reptile and the bird, and enabling us to understand the manner in which the reptilian has been metamorphosed into the bird type, are really to be found among a group of ancient and extinct terrestrial reptiles known as the Ornithoscelida. The remains of these animals occur throughout the series of mesozoic formations, from the Trias to the chalk, and there are indications of their existence even in the later Palæozoic strata."

So Huxley did, indeed, consider dinosaurs to be directly ancestral to birds. He just thought that none of the specific genera of dinosaurs that were currently known at the time were directly ancestral to birds. And, in that respect, he was, of course, correct. It is imperative that Huxley's research and writings be recognized for their several crowning achievements, this being but one of the most notable (another was his proposal that pterosaurs were endothermic, but that's a story for another day).

The Roots of Speculative Evolution: An Addendum

I mentioned in my last article that speculative evolution dates back to 1915, when William Beebe came up with the idea of the Tetrapteryx. However, it turns out that even this was not the first creature of speculative evolution to find its way to fruition. Soon after publishing my previous article, I remembered that Antoon Cornelis Oudemans, in his 1892 book The Great Sea Serpent, devised a speculative unknown species of gigantic long-necked, long-tailed pinniped, which he christened Megophias megophias. I cannot believe I had forgotten it about it at the time. Megophias represents an example of a speculative cryptozoological creature, in the vein of such modern books as The Cryptozoologicon (2013). So not just speculative zoology, but speculative cryptozoology, at that, dates back to at least 1892.

Feathered Dinosaurs and Speculative Evolution Date Back Far, Far Earlier Than You Probably Think

This article covers three topics that may seem disparate, but are actually intertwined. These three topics are feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, the possibly non-avialan dinosaurian nature of Archaeopteryx, and speculative evolution. I will cover the early histories of all three topics, and show that all three actually date back far earlier than is commonly thought.

It is widely-known among paleontologists and paleontology aficionados that a close evolutionary relationship between birds and the, then-newly discovered, dinosaurs was proposed by English naturalist Thomas Henry Huxley (nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog" due to his tenacious support of the latter's theory of evolution by natural selection) in the mid-19th century. No doubt bolstered by the discovery of a highly unusual animal in fossil form in Germany in 1861, just two years after the publication of Darwin's scientific manifesto, outlining his views on evolution, On the Origin of Species, which was christened Archaeopteryx lithographica, Huxley began to be struck by the staggering amount of similarities that existed between the two groups. The significance of Archaeopteryx was, of course, that its fossil appeared to preserve evidence that the animal was coated by a feathery plumage in life, while the skeleton displayed copious hallmarks of close affinity with members of the taxonomic Class Reptilia. If not for the presence of impressions indicative of the existence of a feathered integumentary system in the animal's fossil, it would undoubtedly have been classified as a small predatory dinosaur upon its discovery. It is quite telling that at least one specimen of Archaeopteryx was actually misidentified as a specimen of the contemporaneous small-bodied theropod dinosaur Compsognathus for many years. It is not for want of good reason that I make mention of Compsognathus at this juncture, for I will now initiate a discussion of this diminutive dinosaur, which, indeed, will allow me to segue into discussion of what constitutes the gist of this article.

While I mentioned at the start that Huxley's proposal that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is well-known among paleontologists and paleontology aficionados, there exists another contribution by Huxley to the then-nascent study of dinosaur paleontology that is much less widely-known, but nevertheless, the implications of which for the history of dinosaur paleontology are equally as staggering, if not more so. In the 19th century, Thomas Henry Huxley speculated that the aforementioned small theropod dinosaur Compsognathus might have been feathered, and reflected that, if it was, it would be difficult to decide whether it ought to be deemed a bird-like reptile or a reptile-like bird.

Yup. That's right. Indubitably talented researchers and paleo-artists such as Robert T. Bakker, Gregory S. Paul, Mike Hallett, and Sarah Landry might have speculated about and drawn feathered non-avian dinosaurs in the 1970s and 1980s, but by no means were they the first to do so. Unless a still earlier example is found, for now, that distinction goes to Huxley, who formulated the idea of a feathered Compsognathus more than a century prior to those aforementioned paleo-artists. But it wasn't just the concept of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs that dates back to far earlier than is conventionally assumed; so, too, does the concept of four-winged arboreal feathered reptiles lying close to the origin of birds, and, by extension, the field/genre of speculative evolution.

In 1915, American naturalist William Beebe wrote an article in the scientific journal Zoologica in which he proposed the possible existence of a highly bizarre animal that he termed the Tetrapteryx, so named due to the fact that it was a creature on the cusp between reptiles and birds, much like Archaeopteryx, albeit with one exquisite twist: it found  itself in possession of, not two, but four wings composed of feathers, a pair on the hind limbs, as well as on the front limbs. If this description is ringing a bell, there's a mighty good reason for that; the discovery of the four-winged dromaeosaurid theropod dinosaur Microraptor in 2003 showed that Beebe's speculative Tetrapteryx was presciently on-the-ball, and that it had been an unwise decision by mainstream science to shun his hypothesis for so long. Not only did Beebe successfully presage the discovery of a four-winged feathered dinosaur 88 years later, he even drew a picture of his speculative beast, which was published in his 1915 paper. If Beebe intended for his Tetrapteryx to be dinosaurian, which I cannot ascertain definitively from his writing, then his drawing would hold the distinction of being the first known depiction ever drawn of a feathered non-avialan dinosaur. But it doesn't even end there. There's more.

William Beebe's Tetrapteryx is undoubtedly a product of speculative evolution, thereby invalidating the commonly-held notion among those involved in the field that Dougal Dixon "created" the field of speculative evolution in 1981 with the publication of his book After Man: A Zoology of the Future. Even without mentioning Beebe's Tetrapteryx at all, the publication of Gerolf Steiner's book The Life and Times of the Rhinogrades in 1961, in which an entire speculative order of mammals, Rhinogradentia, was envisioned is undoubtedly a work of speculative evolution, and it was published 20 years before Dixon's book. So the notion that Dougal Dixon "created" speculative evolution in 1981 is already known to be false due to the 1961 introduction of the Rhinogradentia. The 1915 introduction of the Tetrapteryx merely serves to push it further back still by 46 years. Speculative evolution, just like feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, likewise dates back to far earlier than is often assumed.

As if that wasn't enough, there's still more. Even if Huxley might have speculated about the existence of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs in the 19th century, surely, it doesn't mean anything if no fossils of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs were known, right? Well, think again. First of all, as demonstrated by the successful prediction of the eventual discovery of Microraptor by the Tetrapteryx, speculation plays an important role in paleontology. There was also another case of a speculative anomalocarid presaging the eventual discovery of the fossil of a real one that resembled it greatly, and was, in fact, therefore named after the speculative creature. Even so, if it turns out that Archaeopteryx was, in fact, a non-avialan dinosaur, rather than a bird (as some paleontologists nowadays are starting to classify it as), then the first fossil of a feathered non-avialan dinosaur would have been unearthed back in 1861. But still, it wouldn't have been recognized as non-avialan until recently, right? Wrong. Back in 1935, a scientific paper appeared, written by Lowe et al., in which it is stated that the Archaeopteryx fossil shows almost no uniquely avian autapomorphies with the exception of its feathers, and that it could very well be regarded as an example of a small feathered non-avialan dinosaur. So if Lowe's views end up being vindicated by future science, then the first feathered non-avialan dinosaur to be discovered would have been discovered in 1861, and recognized for its non-avialan nature in 1935. The discoveries of feathered dinosaurs in China in the 1990s, widely hailed at the time, would no longer be so significant.

By no means do I intend to diminish the research and work of Bakker, Paul, Hallett, Landry, et al. with regard to their research into and artistic depictions of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, and Dixon with regard to his research into and artistic depictions of speculatively-evolved animals. These people have made great strides in advancing the concept of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs and speculative evolution, respectively, and should be commended in the highest for their valiant efforts to advance these areas of science. However, it should not be forgotten that Thomas Henry Huxley proposed the possibility of feathered non-avialan dinosaurs in the mid-19th century, that William Beebe possibly drew the first depiction of a feathered dinosaur, as well as the first example of a creature of speculative evolution, in the early 20th century, and that Lowe et al. genuinely entertained the notion that Archaeopteryx was a non-avialan feathered dinosaur, also in the early 20th century. It would be wise to repeat the words of George Santayana, which ring as true for paleontology and zoology as for any other disciplines: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It is highly beneficial to the future of paleontology and zoology that Huxley, Beebe, and Lowe be given recognition for being the first to conceptualize feathered non-avialan dinosaurs, speculative evolution, and the possible non-avialan dinosaurian affinities of Archaeopteryx, respectively, the first two over a century ago, and the third over eighty years ago. Let's give these three great men their due so that we do not forget where our ideas came from, so that we can have a less nebulous idea of where to take them in the future.

From Blobsquatches to Bodies: The Dawn of a New Era

One of the quintessential aspects of cryptozoology as it is currently practiced by the majority of researchers worldwide is undoubtedly the tendency to rely on blurry, indistinct photographs and videos to provide evidence for the existence of cryptids. This tendency is so pervasive, in fact, that new words have been coined to describe it in recent years; for example, "blobsquatch" is a term used to describe an entity in an image or video that is alleged to be a Sasquatch, but is too blurry to identify properly. However, in my opinion, this confidence in photography is sadly misplaced.

I propose that, instead of spending hours attempting to get a photo or a video of a mystery animal, cryptozoologists should instead focus their efforts on locating and retrieving tangible biological evidence, such as a carcass. Please note that I am not against cryptid photography; Pictures and videos can be very intriguing, and can be useful to cryptozoological investigators in the sense that they help to provide a general idea of what a creature looks like, and can serve as a framework to help cryptozoologists find physical evidence. However, it should be emphasized that pictures or videos, on their own, are insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a new species. The only thing that can do that is a type specimen, either dead or alive.

So if cryptozoologists should not attempt to prove the existence of their elusive quarry using photographic and video evidence, then what should they be doing instead? In my opinion, they should be attempting to secure biological material (a carcass, a skeleton, a piece of tissue, a living animal, etc.) There are myriad methods of doing so, and innovative cryptozoologists can often devise their own unique methods. For example, as I mentioned in my last article, Roy Mackal devised a plan to use biopsy harpoons to obtain a tissue sample from one of the Loch Ness cryptids. While Mackal never had an opportunity to use the harpoons, they were still an important innovation in the hunt for Nessie, and I have a feeling that innovative devices such as biopsy harpoons might potentially represent the future of cryptozoology.

With modern advances in genetics that have occurred since then (the human genome having been mapped in 2003, and many other species' genomes since then), it might even be possible to obtain a tissue sample from either a living animal or a carcass, and test its DNA to attempt to determine its zoological affinities.

To reiterate, I propose that we should begin a new era in cryptozoology, where, instead of attempting to rely on blurry photographs and videos to prove the existence of cryptids, we focus on finding physical evidence, and using modern biological methods (such as DNA testing) to identify and classify them. It is the 21st century, and if we want cryptozoology to really come in from the cold (as Nature editor Henry Gee stated in 2004), then we need to start using up-to-date scientific methods in our search for cryptids. In other words, we should start thinking in terms of bodies, rather than blobsquatches. So if there are any cryptozoological researchers reading this article who still believe that blurry, indistinct photographs and videos such as blobsquatches are good evidence for the existence of cryptids, I urge you to reconsider your thoughts and begin searching for tangible biological evidence instead. From blobsquatches to bodies, a revolution is afoot, and I urge all cryptozoologists to join us.

The History of the Loch Ness Monster

This article documents the history of the world's most famous lacustrine cryptid, Nessie of Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. Nessie has a long, fascinating, and oftentimes tumultuous history dating all the way back to the 6th century and continuing right up to the present day. In this article, which is organized by decade, I will cover the sightings and evidence (including photos and videos) that have been recorded, as well as the multifarious zoological hypotheses that have been advanced over the years to account for the data.

Early sightings (pre-1930s):

Contrary to statements commonly trotted out by skeptics and journalists, there have indeed been sightings of large, unusual, unidentified creatures in and around Loch Ness prior to the rash of sightings that catapulted the beast to worldwide fame in the early 1930s. The first reported sighting was by Saint Columba in either 565 A.D. or 580 A.D. in the River Ness. A ferocious water beast reportedly attempted to eat a man, but retreated after Columba invoked the sign of the cross.

In 1696, it was reported by an English soldier stationed at Loch Ness that the local populace spoke of a "floating island" that was regularly seen in the loch. This so-called "island" was said to traverse the loch, the way a living creature would.

Several sightings were also reported in the late 19th century.

Loch Ness researcher Roland Watson has written a book about Nessie sightings prior to the 1930s titled The Water Horses of Loch Ness. For anyone seeking more detailed and comprehensive information on mysterious cryptozoological occurrences at Loch Ness in the pre-1930s era, the book can be purchased here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/books/dp/1461178193 (I am not affiliated with or connected to the book, and I am adding this link merely for informational purposes).

1930s: Nessie's Rise to Fame

The beast rose to international notoriety after a flare of sightings occurred in 1933 following the construction of a new road next to the loch. In the 1930s, naturalists speculated upon the creature's identity. Dutch zoologist Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans suggested that the monster was a landlocked version of his hypothetical sea serpent, Megophias megophias, a giant long-necked, long-tailed pinniped which he had first hypothesized in his 1892 book The Great Sea Serpent. Meanwhile, Rupert T. Gould suggested that it may be something like a long-necked newt or salamander. A newspaper account stated that the monster "bore a striking resemblance to the supposedly-extinct plesiosaur." Others have suggested that the creature may be a gigantic eel. The plesiosaur hypothesis has, by far, been the most popular, and has permeated popular culture the most, but has received harsh criticism from the majority of the scientific community. The first photograph of the cryptid was taken by Hugh Grey on November 12, 1933, and has been dubbed the Grey Photo. The photo is blurry and indistinct, and some skeptics have suggested that it merely shows a dog swimming towards the camera while carrying a stick in its mouth. Conversely, cryptozoological researcher Roland Watson has conducted an in-depth, intensive analysis of the photo, and claims that, if the photo is magnified, what appears to be a head is visible on the far right side of the photo, with the mouth open wide in a gaping expression, and what appears to be a fish-like eye. Perhaps the most famous – and infamous – photo of the creature was taken by a gynecologist from London named Robert Kenneth Wilson on April 19, 1934. Known as the Surgeon's Photo, it shows a swan-like head and neck peering above the surface of the water. The photo became the definitive photo of the monster, and firmly cemented the image in the consciousness of the general public of a plesiosaur-like animal as the most likely identity for the creature, although it would eventually be exposed as a hoax 60 years later.

1960s–1970s: The Golden Age/Nessie Renaissance

In many ways, the 1960s and 1970s (especially the latter) can be thought of as the "Golden Age" of Nessie research, or a "Nessie Renaissance" (analogous to the Dinosaur Renaissance that occurred in paleontology at around the same time). In 1960, aeronautical engineer Tim Dinsdale recorded a film of a hump moving along the surface of the water and leaving a wake behind it. Skeptics have claimed that it shows a boat, with some even claiming that a man standing on the boat is vaguely visible. However, an analysis by JARIC claimed that the object was "animate". This film, although short and not very detailed, is often trotted out as evidence by supporters of the existence of the creature. 

Numerous expeditions have been organized throughout the decades to search for the creature. One of the largest and most intriguing was the Big Expedition of 1970, in which hydrophones were planted in Urquhart Bay to monitor any sounds or movements indicative of the presence of large animals. Clicking noises reminiscent of echolocation were recorded, followed by a swishing noise possibly suggesting the tail movements of a substantially-sized aquatic animal. According to biologist Roy P. Mackal of the University of Chicago, who was present on the expedition, out of the multitude of sounds known to be produced by known species of aquatic animals, none matched the mysterious recordings from the loch that were obtained on the expedition. Mackal would eventually write a book about the monsters, titled The Monsters of Loch Ness. Published in 1976, the book documented all of the evidence (photographic, film, and sonar), that had been accumulated up to that point, and then discussed the myriad expeditions and attempts to search for the monster. It then delved into a discussion of the most plausible candidates for the creature's identity, with mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, and piscean candidates all being considered. Each candidate was assessed in a checklist that compared its physical characteristics to those of the Loch Ness cryptids as deduced from eyewitness accounts, photos, and films. In the end, Mackal arrived at the conclusion that an unknown species of long-necked amphibian, possibly related to the large predatory embolomers that existed during the Carboniferous period some 300 million years ago, was the candidate that matched the evidence from Loch Ness the most, with a gigantic eel coming in at a close second. 

Another researcher who contributed much to the search for the Loch Ness Monster was Robert H. Rines, founder of the Academy of Applied Science, who led two expeditions to the loch in 1972 and 1975. These led to two of the clearest and highest-quality – yet also highly controversial – photos ever taken of the Loch Ness Monster. One of them shows a diamond-shaped object that resembles the flipper of a large aquatic animal. This came to be known as the "Flipper Photo". Another photo shows what appears to be a gargoyle-like head with horn-like protrusions. This came to be known as the "Gargoyle Head Photograph". Another photo shows what appears to be the head, neck and torso of a large, long-necked aquatic animal that superficially resembles a plesiosaur. This came to be known as the "Neck & Body Photograph". At the same time that these photos were taken, sonar contacts concurrently suggested the presence of large animate moving objects in the water. The photos and sonar contacts from the Rines expeditions led many scientists to tentatively accept the reality of the existence of a large unknown animal in the murky depths of Loch Ness. British naturalist Sir Peter Scott even bestowed upon the elusive beast a scientific name: Nessiteras rhombopteryx, which roughly translates to "the Ness wonder with the diamond-shaped fin", referring to the rhomboid appendage photographed by Rines' team in 1972. Critics charged that the binomial given to the beast by Scott could be interpreted as an anagram for "Monster hoax by Sir Peter S." Rines countered that it could also be interpreted as "Yes, both pix arre monsters." The conversation – and the ensuing controversy – over the Rines photos was the closest that the Loch Ness cryptids ever came to gaining official scientific recognition. 

1980s: Research Continues

Meanwhile, expeditions and searches continued. In 1987, Operation Deepscan scanned the entire loch, and although some large anomalous sonar contacts were detected, the expedition did not yield spectacular results. 

1990s–present: The Modern Era

Since the 1990s or so, activity at Loch Ness regarding Nessie has somewhat quieted down compared to earlier decades, with fewer sightings reported each year. In 2009, Robert Rines speculated that Nessies may have become extinct, possibly as a result of increasing pollution. He subsequently attempted to locate a body of one of the creatures at the bottom of the loch. While some interesting objects were photographed lying at the bottom of the loch, nothing definitive was found. Rines himself died on November 1, 2009, having left behind an astounding legacy of unparalleled exploration and insight into the Loch Ness phenomenon. 

Meanwhile, research and controversy continued to surround the loch and its elusive denizen, and sightings and photos have continued to come in, showing that Rines might have been premature in declaring that Nessie has vacated the premises. There were several sightings in 2011, including a sighting by the Hargreaves on June 15 in which a head and neck were seen protruding out of the water. In August, Marcus Atkinson photographed a sonar trace that appeared to show a large, superficially serpentine object in the loch. It has been suggested that it could be a school of fish or a bloom of algae, although Roland Watson has stated that it is unlikely to be algae, as the water is too dark and murky for algae to be able to photosynthesize in water as deep as the area where the sonar trace was observed. 

The George Edwards Controversy (2011–2014):

 

In November 2011, George Edwards photographed what appeared to be a grey hump breaking the surface of the loch. In August of 2012, Edwards released his photo to the public. However, analysis by other Loch Ness researchers, including Steve Feltham and Steve Plambeck, quickly demonstrated that Edwards's photo was a hoax, and that he had really photographed a fibreglass model of Nessie that had been used in a 2011 documentary at the loch. In 2014, George Edwards filed a complaint to the Drumnadrochit Chamber of Commerce in which he stated that Nessie researchers Adrian Shine and Tony Harmsworth were harming the local tourist business, and recommended that Shine's Loch Ness Centre exhibition be shut down. Tony Harmsworth responded with a letter of his own in which he censured Edwards for his blatant hoaxes and misinformation (such as claiming that he discovered a nonexistent geological formation at the bottom of the loch called "Edwards Deep"), and said that Edwards's hoaxing was harming the reputation of the Loch Ness tourism industry by reinforcing the prevalent belief that Nessie is nothing but a scam invented to attract tourists. The Chamber of Commerce did not print Harmsworth's article, and instead printed an article about an award that Edwards had recently won. In response, Harmsworth resigned his position as Editor of the newsletter. The consternation and rivalry between Edwards and the other Nessie investigators received attention in local newspapers, with many headlines proclaiming that a war was being fought over tourism on the banks of Loch Ness. In my personal opinion, the entire Edwards affair is a sad waste of time that should never have occurred, and serious cryptozoological investigators into the Loch Ness phenomenon should just ignore it. It has done nothing but damage the reputation of serious cryptozoological research at Loch Ness even further and perpetuate the image in the general public's mind that the Loch Ness cryptid is nothing more than a marketing gimmick used to attract tourists to the loch.

The Future:

With the George Edwards controversy having recently concluded, the future of the Loch Ness cryptids is as unclear as the peat-stained waters of Loch Ness itself. I personally hope that there will be no more silly hoaxes or misleading claims in the future, and that investigators use proper scientific methodology in their search for the elusive beast. In my opinion, researchers should not attempt to take photographs or videos, as we already have dozens of those, and they have proved nothing. The only thing that will finally prove once and for all that an unknown animal really does exist in Loch Ness is tangible, physical evidence – a specimen. I personally think that Mackal's biopsy harpoons were an excellent idea, and I think it is a shame that Mackal's team never had an opportunity to use them. In the future, I think cryptozoological researchers operating at Loch Ness should attempt to use innovative tactics such as biopsy harpoons to obtain biological material (such as a carcass, a skeleton, or a tissue sample from a living animal). I sincerely hope that investigators will use rigorous scientific methodology to ensure that their findings are obtained and presented with adequate integrity. If that happens, then we have a much higher probability of obtaining a specimen. When that day finally comes, the hard work of the researchers who have painstakingly searched the dark depths of the loch for the past 80 years will not have been in vain, and one of the world's greatest and longest-enduring zoological mysteries will have been solved after being shrouded in ambiguity for nearly 1,500 years.

The Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm (PSP)

One of the most common schools of thought within cryptozoology is a hypothesis known as the Prehistoric Survivor Paradigm (PSP). The PSP asserts that extant representatives of taxa presumed extinct are likely to be responsible for cryptid sightings. Some researchers, such as Roy Mackal, Karl Shuker, and Scott Mardis, have been sympathetic to the PSP, while others, such as Darren Naish, have been very critical of it. In this article, I will explain my views on the PSP.

We will start with an overview of some of the prehistoric creatures that have been hypothesized to survive as cryptids. Various sightings of winged, superficially-reptilian flying creatures have prompted some to suggest that pterosaurs might still be alive, and are responsible for such reports. I find this hypothesis unlikely, not because I am too closed-minded to accept that large flying animals could have survived to the present without being discovered, but because the reports that we have simply do not match anything we know about pterosaur biology. Most reports are very vague, and describe generic bat or bird-like flying monsters. Pterosaurs were not flying monsters. They were highly-specialized, bizarre animals that probably did not resemble anything familiar to the average layperson. We now know that they were quadrupedal, probably had an endothermic physiology, and were covered in superficially fur-like integumentary structures known as pycnofibres. None of this matches up with the reports, and it is very suggestive that the reports seem to describe inaccurate depictions of pterosaurs -- i.e., the depictions that the average layperson seems to have in mind when they think of pterosaurs. Many of the reports also sound like either bats or birds.

Taking this into account, I hypothesize that "pterosaur" sightings most-likely consist of misidentified bats and birds. However, it is possible that some of the bats and birds could potentially be unknown species.

Another group of Mesozoic sauropsids said to have persisted discreetly into the 21st century is the sauropods. As anyone familiar with dinosaurs or cryptozoology will already know, an African cryptid known as the Mokele-Mbembe is thought by many to be a relict sauropod. I used to subscribe to this hypothesis in the past, but I have now realized that it is flawed. As with the pterosaurs, reports do not match up well with modern depictions of sauropod anatomy and behavior. Sauropods were terrestrial animals with legs held directly underneath their bodies. By contrast, Mokele-Mbembe is usually described as a semi-aquatic creature with legs on the sides of its body. This description is more reminiscent of a reptile such as a monitor lizard or a turtle, rather than a dinosaur. Therefore, if Mokele-Mbembe exists, I think it is unlikely to be a sauropod.

At this point, it probably seems like I am anti-PSP. But in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. I strongly believe that science is all about pragmatism, not dogmatism or ideology, which are the domain of politics. Therefore, I take a pragmatic approach to my cryptozoological research, and the PSP is no exception.

Case in point: Plesiosaurs.

One of the most well-known hypotheses within cryptozoology is that plesiosaurs have survived to the present-day, and are responsible for reports of unidentified long-necked animals in oceans and lakes around the world. I used to think this hypothesis was unlikely, for various reasons. However, now that I have done some more research, I have arrived at a different conclusion. I now feel that the plesiosaur hypothesis fits well with the cryptozoological data, and is actually quite a plausible hypothesis. For more information on this matter, see the article that I wrote about plesiosaurs in May: http://www.mysteriouszoology.blogspot.com/2014/05/plesiosaurs.html

In addition to plesiosaurs, several other marine prehistoric survivors have also been proposed in the cryptozoological literature, including mosasaurs and archaeocete whales. I currently do not see any good evidence for these animals' continued existence, although I remain open-minded about the whole situation.

To conclude this portion of the article, I currently find that, of all the proposed prehistoric survivors, plesiosaurs are the only ones that I think marshal a relatively compelling case. However, my opinion could very well change if further evidence comes to light in the future.

I will now discuss my stance on the general concept of the PSP. One of the greatest criticisms of the PSP is that it is unreasonable to suggest that prehistoric taxa could have survived into the modern era without leaving a conspicuous fossil record between the time of their presumed extinction and the present-day. While this argument certainly does have merit, I don't think it completely invalidates the PSP. There are numerous examples of ghost lineages; gaps in the fossil record. While the lack of an intervening fossil record is, indeed, a major stumbling block for the PSP, I don't think it can be completely ruled out.

So this is my opinion on the PSP. I believe that it can be useful, and should not be completely discarded. However, in most cases, it does not fit the available data.