Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Sunday, 24 February 2013

Steve Plambeck's Loch Ness Giant Salamander

The latest in Nessie fashions: Steve Plambeck's Loch Ness giant amphibian.[Via Scott Mardis]

The most current update of the theory is published at:

And I have an interest in the following and shall update the information when the final statements are to be added.
In this current version of the theory, Plambeck is basivcally updating Mackal's theory to fit the giant salamander model better.He still says (as Mackal did) that the reports of the long neck must mean the tail sticking out of the water. As in the case of Mackal's original statement, this simply will not work because the head is definitely stated to be at the end of a long neck on several occasions.

I DO still agree that giant salamanders are found in the British isles including Loch Ness at least formerly: and in fact they are sprinkled here and there at various places all over the Northern Hemisphere (Which is to say they have a Holarctic distribution, as their Miocene fossil forunners also had) However the larger creature seen at Loch Ness does have the longer neck, as explained, and using Plambeck's reconstruction while switching the "Long tail stuck up in the air" for a long neck (With a head of this specific size and shape as shown below, also covered on this blog recently)
the end result is once again remarkably like the other standard reconstructions such as Dinsdale's and Sanderson's (Including my own, with pretty much the exact same specified dimensions):

I should reiterate that I have seen at least three different eyewitness sketches showing Views-from-above that exactly match the swimming profile in the bottom reconstruction. Tim Dinsdale reproduces one in The Leviathans (Monster Hunt in the USA)
The primary criticism I would have with Plambeck's reconstruction is that it unnecessarily differs from the known giant salamanders anatomically. Plambeck does have a good number of other points worth repeating and I hope to get to them in due course.


  1. Mr. Drinnon,

    Kindly desist from lifting my original drawings and editing them for your own purposes. You are welcome to quote me, link to my blog, or even post one of my drawings in UNALTERED form, with the proper attribution, for discussion. The operative word here is UNALTERED. Changing my work is unethical to say the least. Google image searches are turning up YOUR modified versions with MY name on them. That is unacceptable.

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    Respectfully yours,
    Steven G. Plambeck

  2. All right, I am an admirer of your work ecept for the fact that it seems you have made a funadmental error of interpretation. In thgis case I have your original artwork attributed to you and plainly marked. For purposes of discussion, I have made the observation that the data could be interpreted another way which requires an alterationof your reconstruction. To illustrate the difference in interpreatation, I have amended your image BUT this is also very clearly marked AS an alteration.
    In order to show the greater cooperation, would it be better to leave your name off of my alteration altogether? that would seem to satisfy both my need for the illustration and your need to clear up any possible confusion.

  3. Dale,

    I appreciate you trying to meet me half way on this. It's still a no-win situation from my perspective because one of two things happen: either my name appears on an altered work at odds with my own REASON for having done the work in the first place, or there's a piece of work without my name on it even though 80% or so of it is my original drawing. I hope you can understand why that's vexing either way. The lesser of those two evils would be to have my name left off entirely and your name appear on the diagram rather than confuse anyone about my thoughts and theories (intellectual property) because, after all, my sketch work is not destined for The Louvre. (I see you've anticipated this and already taken my name off of your 'reconstruction' - thank you.)

    Then there is the more obvious, simple solution: why don't you draw your own drawings instead of lifting and photoshop altering the works of others?


  4. Thank you for replying. I do have my own reconstruction on this blog from a long way back and I am perfectly happy with it.

    However since the point remains that many witnesses at Loch Ness state they saw the head at the end of the periscope position, what you say is the long tail sticking up ouut of the water, the point really is to put the head (such as you have drawn) at the end of a length comparable to the tail, but in front- Keeping as close to your reconstruction as possible fror the purposes of comparison With out that much the statement becomes a good deal less compelling, as you can see as well I hope.
    The thing is, whatever I do towards making that argument will be a reworking of your drawing-as an intellectual exercise. It is rather a shame that it becomes messy in terms of intellectual property and for that reason I am going to allow you further comments on the matter.

    And incidentally, my last posting on the Loch Ness Monster involved a diffeent website by a witness who claims to have seen the head at the end of what you say is a tail, and I have recently done a demonstration using the Wilson Nessie photo as well.


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.