Loch Ness Monster real?

[kitakaze]

I have said it before and I will say it again...

Nessie is real.

So shut up.

Come to Scotland. And bring lots of money.

Particularly my brother in laws B&B at Drumnadrochit.

All major credit cards accepted.

Nessie needs some turtlenecks, baby.

 

[carcharodon]

Yawn.

Oh really? All 'pussycats' are they? Let me guess, zoology isn't your strong point is it? LOL.

Let's see that too.

Go find it yourself. I'm not spending ages trying to locate it on the internet only for you to say 'moggy'.

Man, are you saying there are NO large wild cats on the loose in Britain?

Never heard of Felicity the puma then?

 

[William Parcher]

Oh really? All 'pussycats' are they? Let me guess, zoology isn't your strong point is it? LOL.

Go find it yourself. I'm not spending ages trying to locate it on the internet only for you to say 'moggy'.

You reference photos of moggies and then you say that to me?

Man, are you saying there are NO large wild cats on the loose in Britain?

I'm saying there's no good evidence for them and many obvious misidentifications. There are known hoaxes as well.

Never heard of Felicity the puma then?

Yep, and she's dead. She can't be responsible for any sightings after that.

 

[carcharodon]

You reference photos of moggies and then you say that to me?

LOL, that's the smallest headed 'moggy' I've ever seen. Must have had its ears trimmed down as well. Like I said, zoology can't be your strong point.

Is this just a 'moggy' as well?

http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/fentigertext.htm

I'm saying there's no good evidence for them

What more evidence do you require than examples being caught or shot?

and many obvious misidentifications. There are known hoaxes as well.

...as well as genuine captures and shootings. I guess this shot Lynx doesn't count as evidence either then?

http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/suffolkpiccietext.htm

This leopard cat shot not far from where I live doesn't count as evidence either then?

http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/shotleopardcattext.htm

Yep, and she's dead. She can't be responsible for any sightings after that.

Ah but does that mean Felicity wasn't a large alien big cat wandering around a part of Britain wild before she was caught?

http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/felicitypiccies.htm

Sheesh, I mean there are scoftics and denialists...and then some. One bona fide capture of something like Felicity isn't enough to prove these things??? Methinks if somebody shot a sasquatch you'd say "Well that was the only one out there and now it's dead. There is no such thing as any others. Everyone else is mistaken. Grumble grumble boo hiss!"

Poo pooing is all well and good but you know, it doesn't do you any favours to poo poo everything, particulary when you are poo pooing something that really isn't all that incredible or unbelievable. Indeed, as I have shown we have 100% bona fide proof that there has been large alien cats caught and killed wandering around the British countryside. I really don't see the big deal in not accepting this. Well I guess once a scoftic then always a scoftic.

 

[Porterboy]

By your estimation. Ever heard of communal reinforcement? This explains why reports are so numerous and so similar, and something similar happens on a small scale even with as few as two people being involved; egging each other on that what they can see is unusual, or even if they can actually see what it is the other person is pointing at! Just as willing clients will urge on a psychic to get "hits" because a) they want to believe and b) failure is socially embarrassing.

Even if it is "highly unlikely", I would venture it's more likely that two people are wrong about a mutual observation that it is that creature that has remained unknown to science has been spotted.

Don't you see the parallels here to other supposed phenomena for which evidence is lacking? For example, alien abduction reports. The consistent descriptions of grey, big-headed hairless aliens with large almond shaped eyes? Does that mean that abductees are telling the truth? Or has popular culture simply reshaped conceptions of what imagined alien lifeforms would look like? Which is more likely? Now apply your conclusion to the Nessie debacle; lots of reports of vaguely similar creatures, no hard evidence.

Clearly species previously unknown to science do still get found. But it doesn't follow from that, that there is a monster in Loch Ness, or a Bigfoot in your local park. Besides; we have a dead ceolocanth; we don't so much as have a toenail clipping of Nessie's!

That's not a proper analogy. Unlike aliens etc,the big cats of Britain are probably not unkonwn to science; they are constantly identified as pumas and panthers. They are most likely escapees from zoos and safari parks, unreported to the authorities for fear of negligence suits. I think Carchanodon is right. It's not just single sightings by lots of people within the same community. They're reported by tourists from around the world too. There's also TV footage of the Beast of Bodmin from a helicopter that experts say is definitely a puma.

It's the same with Nessie. The Loch Ness Monster is more likely to be a big fish of a known species outside of its normal habitat, what Downes calls a "pseudocryptid". It could either be an eel or a sturgeon. Sturgeons have been sighted in the river Ness, the short stretch of water that drains the Loch to the sea. I think there's plenty to go on here. Enough to justify looking into the theory some more. Let the CFZ do their stuff they've had a lot of success before:

WHAT HAVE YOU ACHIEVED IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS?

Apart from having been the only fortean zoological organisation in the world to have consistently published material on all aspects of the subject, and to have conducted expeditions in search of the Naga, the Orang Pendek, the Cigau, and the chupacabra as well as a number of research projects in the United Kingdom, we have achieved the following concrete results:


Disproved the myth relating to the headless so-called sea-serpent carcass of Durgan beach in Cornwall 1975

Disproved the so-called alien dolphin mutilations of Devon 1999
Disproved the 1988 puma skull of Lustleigh Cleave

Carried out the only in-depth research ever done into the Cornish Owlman

Disproved the Puerto Rico embryo story of 1997

Made the first records of a tropical species of lamprey

Made the first records of a Thailand luminous cave gnat larva

Discovered a possible new extinct species of British mammal - The Beech Marten

Discovered possible concrete evidence in Sumatra for a new species of big cat - the cigau.

Carried out the first fortean zoological survey of Hongkong
Within the next twelve months we shall be starting work on our museum, and visitor centre. We are active in community work, and regularly do school visits. The Weird Weekend is now a truly community event, and the last event had people from all works of life between the ages of 6 and 80. The CFZ is no longer appealing purely to a niche market of hard-core forteans (although we hope that they are still as much into what we do as they ever were). Not bad for the first fifteen years eh?


Source: http://www.cfz.org.uk/index.htm

 

[sackett]

Big foot, Nessie, giant eels, Scots mountain lions, and

http://www.sudftw.com/jackcon.htm

 

[Big Les]

That's not a proper analogy. Unlike aliens etc,the big cats of Britain are probably not unkonwn to science; they are constantly identified as pumas and panthers. They are most likely escapees from zoos and safari parks, unreported to the authorities for fear of negligence suits.

It wasn't so much an analogy as a parallel; to my mind the thought processes that say "lots of stories = evidence" is the same. It is of course more reasonable to believe that big cats could have escaped at different times. But I see no evidence for a "phenomenon" as such. So many of the photos and videos either look like moggies, or could easily be moggies bearing in mind the usual lack of scale and poor image quality.

I think Carchanodon is right. It's not just single sightings by lots of people within the same community. They're reported by tourists from around the world too. There's also TV footage of the Beast of Bodmin from a helicopter that experts say is definitely a puma.

Bored locals are one thing. I'd place even less store by accounts from tourists, who are by definition in unfamiliar territory, and are going to be even more susceptible to fooling themselves that they're seeing something out of the ordinary.

It's the same with Nessie. The Loch Ness Monster is more likely to be a big fish of a known species outside of its normal habitat, what Downes calls a "pseudocryptid". It could either be an eel or a sturgeon. Sturgeons have been sighted in the river Ness, the short stretch of water that drains the Loch to the sea.

Fine. I just think you're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I think you're making logical leaps to address stories that may as well be about the tooth fairy. Sure, big (read medium!) cats are occasionally found dead. Sure, you might find a sturgeon, or even an eel. But where's the connection between that, and the anecdotes/stories you refer to? How will you know that your somewhat out-of-place but still native fish/eel was the source of all those sightings? The one may have sod all to do with the other.

I think there's plenty to go on here. Enough to justify looking into the theory some more. Let the CFZ do their stuff they've had a lot of success before:

Again, fine; no-one's stopping you. Like ghosthunting and parapsychology, there's a very small, outside chance, that you'll find something, or at least help debunk some myths.

As to the "concrete results" you mention; it's great that there are people spending their own time and money identifying new species and also debunking myths - good stuff. Some of the latter look like "no-brainers", but hey - they don't debunk themselves. However, I don't think it's too much of a mystery as to why this group..

Carried out the only in-depth research ever done into the Cornish Owlman

I mean... seriously? An owl....man?

 

[Ashles]

Carried out the only in-depth research ever done into the Cornish Owlman

Man, I can't believe there hasn't been more in-depth research into the Cornish Owlman. That certainly needs looking into.

 

[Big Les]

That's totally a different concept altogether. That is merely being party to a belief without experiencing first hand what started the belief. That's called follow the leader.

And that's what I'm suggesting is happening when someone sees a ripple, a pike, or a bloated stoat, and thinks they've seen Nessie. They see it because they're expecting and perhaps even hoping to see it.

That's different to, say, two seperate groups of witnesses each independant of each other making the same report. There is a classic report from Loch Ness where one party of two fishermen on one side of the Loch reported a very strange occurance in conjunction to a completely seperate party on the other side who reported the same thing without knowing anything about the two fisherman. If I can dig up the report I will find it.

That's a different proposition than my scenario of two or more people seeing something and coming to the same conclusion, yes. It's a stronger piece of anecdotal evidence than would be my scenario, or an individual. But there are just too many variables involved in establishing what each separate party actually thought they were seeing, whether it was the same object or just co-incidence, or even whether the parties reinforce each other's "Nessie" diagnosis after the fact. Even if all is straight and above board, and there is a "thing" that both parties definitely see at the same time, you need evidence that it wasn't just a log or something. Everyone that visits the Loch sees something that makes them double-take. Eyes deceive their owners.

That said, I'd be interested in reading the report.

What about when it is over a dozen?

Sorry, showing my ignorance here; when have there been over a dozen people sighting the same object?

Are there many many multi witness reports of alien abduction?

Not to my knowledge, for the very obvious reason that it's far easier to kid yourself that the wotsit you're all looking at is some weird creature, than it is to either lie outright about abduction (though it has happened) or to experience a mass hallucination, psychotic episode, or shared lucid dream (the latter being a common explanation for abduction experiences). The mechanisms are quite different, but the folklore/myth parallels are clear.

..on the flip side it doesn't follow that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to these reports just because conclusive 100% poof hasn't been established yet.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Quite. We can't know anything with 100% certainty. Agreed. But a total lack (in this case) of actual evidence leaves us at best at stalemate, and at worst (for the cryptos) a position where it's reasonable to assume that there's no such thing as "Nessie". If you snag some actual proof, we'll be all ears.

 

[drapier]

Man, I can't believe there hasn't been more in-depth research into the Cornish Owlman. That certainly needs looking into.

Indeed. From wyrdology.com/cryptozoology/owlman.html:

"The Cornish Owlman (sometimes "Owl Man") is one of the lesser known cryptids. Unlike many of the more famous "monsters" in the field of cryptozoology, it appeared only in one specific place for a very short period of time. There is no body of folklore surrounding it and there have been very few recent sightings. It could easily be dismissed out of hand were it not for the curious circumstances surrounding it.

What is the Owlman?
The Owlman was seen during the years 1976 - 1978 in the county of Cornwall. More specifically, it was seen in the vicinity of the Mawnan Village. Some of the sightings were reported to the well-known cryptozoologist Tony "Doc" Shiels who reportedly coined the name "Owlman".
The first sighting took place on April 17, 1976 and was reported by two girls, June and Vicky Melling. They reportedly saw a large, feathered "bird man" hovering over the Mawnan Church on Morgawr's Mile. The sighting left the two girls so frightened that the family cut short its holiday.

Similar sightings were reported over the next two years and a picture of the Owlman emerged: a partially feathered man sized owl with pointed ears and clawed feet. It was a silvery grey colour with slanting red eyes. Some people have seen similarities between the Owlman and the better known Mothman.

There were several sightings of the Owlman between 1976 and 1978, all in the vicinity of Mawnan Church, after which it seems to have disappeared. There have been one or two reports since then but not many."

 

[Ashles]

I like:

During the spring of 1976, the weather in Cornwall went through extreme shifts between heat waves and cold snaps. Animals behaved strangely - there are reports of packs of dogs, cats and birds terrorising people. In addition there was an upsurge in UFO reports. Add to all of this the fact that Mawnan Church is reportedly situated on a ley line and the whole thing becomes worthy of investigation. Something strange was happening in the area at the time.

The weather was changeable, there were reports of agressive animals, and let's randomly toss in UFOs AND ley lines. Why not stories of elves too?

To a skeptic, it suggests a possible wave of mass hysteria.

Or... nothing at all.

Of course, the irresistable connection is with the local UFO flap. Is it at all possible that the Owlman was actually an alien visitor passing through, or possibly an alien pet that had somehow escaped?

Sorry if this seems like a bit of a derail but c'mon - Loch Ness monster threads are like Crop Circle Threads - how seriously CAN you take them?

 

[mummymonkey]

They're called Eunuch eels. They're so-called because they're born with atrophied reproductive organs and so don't leave their freshwater homes for breeding out at sea. Because of their environment they grow to an enormous size, sometimes over 20 feet long. All this is explained in the film.

Inventing a mythical creature to explain another mythical creature is silly.

As for the Wels in Martin Mere, would anything count as proof for you, other than catching the fish? You can't catch a fish that size alive and I would never support killing a giant 100+ year old creature just to satisfy someone's curiosity. Downes and his team took photogropahs, sonic scans and many visual descriptions of the monster. It actually says on the back cover of the book "Yes, they do solve the mystery.

A decent photograph, in context, would be proof enough. Is there such an image in the book?
The thing is though we know wells catfish exist. We also know that some of these animals have been released into British lakes and rivers. Some have even been caught by anglers. So what's the mystery and why is it related to a non-existent giant eel in Loch Ness?

 

[William Parcher]

Carch, you cited examples of larger cats previously found in the UK. They are all dead now and can't account for additional sightings. I'm not saying that "big" cats can't survive there. I'm saying that the evidence for other reported big cats is not very good. People are taking pictures of moggies, and the big cat research websites are posting them as if they are real evidence of "panthers and pumas". That sucks.

It's worth mentioning that nearly all of the reports of big cats have the claimant saying it was a black panther or black puma. The found cats you cited weren't black.

I'm starting to get the impression that you honestly do think that this is not a black moggie....

The website is calling it a tiger! They say these are stills from a two minute video. I bet I know why they don't post the video.

 

[bruto]

Carch, you cited examples of larger cats previously found in the UK. They are all dead now and can't account for additional sightings. I'm not saying that "big" cats can't survive there. I'm saying that the evidence for other reported big cats is not very good. People are taking pictures of moggies, and the big cat research websites are posting them as if they are real evidence of "panthers and pumas". That sucks.

It's worth mentioning that nearly all of the reports of big cats have the claimant saying it was a black panther or black puma. The found cats you cited weren't black.

I'm starting to get the impression that you honestly do think that this is not a black moggie....

[qimg]http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/rooker.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/fentiger.jpg[/qimg]

The website is calling it a tiger! They say these are stills from a two minute video. I bet I know why they don't post the video.

If I were a betting man I'd bet you a virtual internet pint that its name is Boots.

 

[carcharodon]

Carch, you cited examples of larger cats previously found in the UK. They are all dead now and can't account for additional sightings.

Come on man, there are ample examples of alien cats that aren't moggies being caught and shot in Britain. Chances are there are others that haven't been caught/shot. They are being spotted by witnesses periodically.

I'm not saying that "big" cats can't survive there. I'm saying that the evidence for other reported big cats is not very good. People are taking pictures of moggies, and the big cat research websites are posting them as if they are real evidence of "panthers and pumas". That sucks.

No it doesn't because most of the pictures clearly aren't moggies. The website is in the main calling them big cat animals.

By the way, if you are next going to wrangle over the word big, you should be aware that pumas/panthers aren't exactly huge. They aren't lion or tiger size. In fact leopards (panthers) generally only stand around 2ft high at the shoulder.

It's worth mentioning that nearly all of the reports of big cats have the claimant saying it was a black panther or black puma. The found cats you cited weren't black.

So not content with the fact that even a puma has been caught you are not having it because it's not a black one? Does it matter what the colour is, when it is 100% bona fide proof that a puma was caught wandering around wild in Britain??

I'm starting to get the impression that you honestly do think that this is not a black moggie....

It doesn't look like any moggy I have ever seen.

The website is calling it a tiger!

No, the website is not calling it a tiger. They said the given name in that area is the Fen Tiger (capital letters). They themselves say it is 'almost certainly a large cat like animal'.

""""Remarkable footage of the legendary Fen Tiger. This video was taken by Mr William Rooker in Cambridgeshire in 1994. The video footage lasts approximately two minutes and shows what is almost certainly a large cat-like animal. Mr Rooker describes the animal as black in appearance with a flat face""""

I'd go along with that. It's a large cat like animal. It's not a moggy.

If you think this is just a 'moggy' well then??????????????????????????? Like I said, you need to brush up on your zoology if that is the case.

 

[carcharodon]

If I were a betting man I'd bet you a virtual internet pint that its name is Boots.

Quite possible. Pet panthers and/or pumas and other alien cats previously pets are given names as well. Remember the puma called Felicity? I wonder what her name was beforehand? Snuggles? She did seem to like a tickle.

 

[carcharodon]

I'm starting to get the impression that you honestly do think that this is not a black moggie....

What does this look more like to you?

A panther?

Or a moggy?

 

[Big Les]

Come on man, there are ample examples of alien cats that aren't moggies being caught and shot in Britain. Chances are there are others that haven't been caught/shot. They are being spotted by witnesses periodically.

No doubt, but I haven't yet seen a photo or video that couldn't easily have been a domestic cat. I don't see why there would be as many cases as you seem to think.

No it doesn't because most of the pictures clearly aren't moggies. The website is in the main calling them big cat animals.

Sez you. Have they been analysed by zoologists and photographic interpreters?

By the way, if you are next going to wrangle over the word big, you should be aware that pumas/panthers aren't exactly huge. They aren't lion or tiger size. In fact leopards (panthers) generally only stand around 2ft high at the shoulder.

That only makes it easier to get the scale all wrong; 1' tall mog vs 2' tall exotic animal; not much of a difference when you consider scale, perspective, excessive distance, foreshortening, and the general crap quality of all the images I've ever seen.

So not content with the fact that even a puma has been caught you are not having it because it's not a black one? Does it matter what the colour is, when it is 100% bona fide proof that a puma was caught wandering around wild in Britain??

Yes, "a" puma. All the sceptics are really saying is that you're blowing things out of proportion and looking for a phenomenon where none exists. Isolated escapes (and at one time, pet releases) are few. Reports and supposed filmed evidence are plentiful. We say it's because people are fallible, and want to believe that there are lots of unusual animals out there. Personally I'm satisfied with the wonderful variety of British wildlife as it stands.

It doesn't look like any moggy I have ever seen.

Argument from personal incredulity. You think it couldn't be a domestic breed, we think it could. I suspect none of us have the requisite training to call it either way, so we're just widdling in the wind, are we not?

No, the website is not calling it a tiger. They said the given name in that area is the Fen Tiger (capital letters). They themselves say it is 'almost certainly a large cat like animal'.

""""Remarkable footage of the legendary Fen Tiger. This video was taken by Mr William Rooker in Cambridgeshire in 1994. The video footage lasts approximately two minutes and shows what is almost certainly a large cat-like animal. Mr Rooker describes the animal as black in appearance with a flat face""""

I'd go along with that. It's a large cat like animal. It's not a moggy.

On what quantifiable basis do you claim this?

If you think this is just a 'moggy' well then??????????????????????????? Like I said, you need to brush up on your zoology if that is the case.

Do you sincerely think you can make a positive species ID based on that footage? How? Can you at least admit that such evidence is not conclusive?

 

[bruto]

What does this look more like to you?

[qimg]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/fenagain2.jpg[/qimg]

A panther?

[qimg]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/Chitwa_leopard.jpg[/qimg]

Or a moggy?

[qimg]http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/799047/House_cat.JPG[/qimg]

The top photo, like the previous ones, is so distant, so lacking in scale, and its boundaries so compromised by blur that it's hard to say what it is. It doesn't look much like a the well-fed tabby below, but it doesn't look much like a leopard either. I wouldn't bet my life on its even being feline. It could be anything from a panther to a domestic cat. Of course it could also be any of a number of other things, and I don't discount the possibility that some rich dude's pet ocelot got away, or that some other alien cat has gotten loose. Such things do happen. But by itself, it's a picture of anything or nothing.

The previous photos posted by W. Parcher look so much like a moggie that it seems silly to suspect it of being anything else without convincing corroborative evidence of its being something else. Perhaps if there were reliable reports, for example, that a panther with anomalously white rear legs had recently escaped from a zoo, it might be reasonable to think you'd spotted "Socks the panther." But the overwhelming likelihood that it's a moggie makes it useless as evidence of anything else. I could go out in the back yard and take a photograph of a cat that is sufficiently blurry and ill-defined to say "you can't prove it isn't a panther," but that would constitute extremely poor evidence for any kind of wild cats in the neighborhood, even though in my neighborhood, bobcats are common, lynxes confirmed, and suspected pumas anecdotally spotted by people who know their wildlife.

 

[carcharodon]

No doubt, but I haven't yet seen a photo or video that couldn't easily have been a domestic cat. I don't see why there would be as many cases as you seem to think.

I have. There are two on this page alone. If you seriously think they are both domestic cats then I might as well give up.

Sez you.

Yup sez me, and others.

Have they been analysed by zoologists and photographic interpreters?

Some pics have yes. Some video footage has been as well. Some of them have support. Some don't.

That only makes it easier to get the scale all wrong; 1' tall mog vs 2' tall exotic animal; not much of a difference when you consider scale, perspective, excessive distance, foreshortening, and the general crap quality of all the images I've ever seen.

Ah but its not all about scale and perspective though. There are also body proportions, head size, tail length, stance and posture etc etc and it's not as if all we are looking at are blobs.

Yes, "a" puma. All the sceptics are really saying is that you're blowing things out of proportion and looking for a phenomenon where none exists.

There has been alien cats wandering around Britain. Who called it a 'phenomenon' anyway? It isn't really. It isn't all that remarkable to have 'some' alien big cats wandering around parts of Britain. I never said there were lots of them. I never said all the pictures undoubtedly show alien big cats.

Isolated escapes (and at one time, pet releases) are few.

I didn't say there were many. If there are just a dozen or two roaming around, periodically they might be seen and photographed...as appears to be the case.

Do not also discount the occasional person who might still be able to illegally get hold of exotic cats and still release them whewn they have had enough of them. I don't discount this might happen on occassion. You can't flush a puma down the toilet.

Reports and supposed filmed evidence are plentiful. We say it's because people are fallible, and want to believe that there are lots of unusual animals out there.

Personally I don't know anybody who wants to believe there are unusual large cats wandering around Britain. I don't think I have ever met anyone who has ever thought "Gee, I hope there's a panther in that bush watching me!" as they are walking across the Quantocks on a Sunday afternoon.LOL.

Seriously this old chestnut that many scoftics have about people 'wanting' or needing' to believe in the unusual is sometimes too convenient an answer. It is a 'neat' little scenario to explain things they cannot comprehend.

Personally I'm satisfied with the wonderful variety of British wildlife as it stands.

Me too but I'm also satisfied that we do have 100% bona fide proof of alien cats have have been either caught or shot roaming wild here.

Argument from personal incredulity. You think it couldn't be a domestic breed, we think it could.

Yes but you are scofics. In general you are arguing and trying to poo poo the subject even AFTER there has been 100% proof that alien cats have been caught and shot in Britain. Goodness knows how one eyed you people are on, say, the subject of bigfoot. It really isn't a big deal that there are some alien cats roaming our countryside. How many I don't know nor have any idea but witness reports, photos, video footage, shot examples and captures tells us they are around.

I suspect none of us have the requisite training to call it either way, so we're just widdling in the wind, are we not?

I'm not. I've experience with domestic cats. In two of those pictures what is shown are certainly not domestic moggies in my opinion.

On what quantifiable basis do you claim this?

My mark one eyeball. Sorry if when going up against scoftics that doesn't count but I care not.

Do you sincerely think you can make a positive species ID based on that footage? How?

I didn't say I could positively identify the 'species' 100% but I am quite sure that what is seen there (the so called Fen Tiger)looks far more like a panther than it does a moggy. The long body, the small head, the tail, the size (it was quite obviously taken some way, yet I've never seen a moggy looking so prominent from a distance like that).

I've seen other footage where the only explanation is an alien big cat so I do not have any qualms about looking at the above photos and not seeing a moggy. It just doesn't look like one.

Can you at least admit that such evidence is not conclusive?

In the scheme of things it matters not because there IS conclusive proof elsewhere. Some of the photos for sure can probably be dismissed, but not all of them.