Thursday 19 July 2012

The Collecting of Loch Ness Monster Sightings

I am not long back from my holiday and have some things to post but I thought a quick look at the year so far is in order.

As of the current date, there is only one claimed sighting from April which we covered here. Some put this down to a boat merely doing a circular turn but my own investigations suggest this is not a good explanation as I shall post later. My PC is actually not powering up properly just now, so certain posts have to be held back until that is resolved.

One sighting may not seem much but I am convinced the vast majority of sightings do not make it to the public media. Indeed, one researcher I correspond with suggests from his own contacts that dozens of sightings are plain ignored and discarded each year. That this should happen in the current environment is no surprise.

In the past, witnesses would relate their experiences in several ways.

1. Local and roving monster hunters such as the Dinsdales and Whytes would investigate and publish sightings.

2. There was also the more "official" approach with larger organised groups and this is in particular reference to the now defunct Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. This group would be approached by witnesses at their HQ at Achnahannet and they would fill in sighting reports. These would then be analysed and summarised in their annual report and made generally available to researchers. 

3. In other cases, witnesses would go straight to local newspapers such as the Inverness Courier or more national papers if they thought they had evidence of a more substantial nature.

It was also the case that these groups would approach witnesses on a "tip off" if the witness was reticent or slow to come forward.

But what is the situation now? The Dinsdales and Whytes are gone and have been replaced by a more sceptical set of investigators. This modern genre do not accept the idea of an exotic species in Loch Ness and so what is their motivation to collect claimed sightings of a monster let alone make them publicly available?

There are the two exhibition centres in Drumnadrochit and so one may presume that witnesses may approach the people there but I have no idea how that scenario has panned out over the years. However, if the witnesses take in the sceptically-oriented multimedia displays at the Loch Ness Centre, they may not be so motivated afterwards!

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems likely that if the witness goes to a sceptical representative, their story is unlikely to go much further after the representative has decided it was a deer, log, otter or birds.

In fact, options 1 and 2 above now seem forlorn hopes and it is down to witnesses to approach the local media who still like to run these stories for human interest (after all, Nessie stories still attract readers).

To this we can add the increased reticence of witnesses to speak up in an environment where they may be regarded as fools. I will admit the Loch Ness Monster has always had plenty of doubters in society as a whole but today witnesses do not have the firewall of a publicly recognised figure such as Tim Dinsdale to stand by them and back them up.

Such is the modern environment that Loch Ness Monster witnesses find themselves in. The majority of sightings never go public but undoubtedly they are there.


  1. Excellent blog. Great work on bringing the evidence of the LN monster to light. :)

  2. "This modern genre do not accept the idea of an exotic species in Loch Ness and so what is their motivation to collect claimed sightings of a monster let alone make them publicly available?"

    GB maybe it's just me being cynical but I suspect the situation's far worse than that.

    Too many Nessie Bigfoot UFO ghosts etc researchers're all too aware if they write some humdinger piece in favour of these things existing or come up with powerful evidence making it harder for their existence to be denied all they'll get for it is a few slaps on the back from a bunch of online nerds who still wan'o marry Princess Leia and endless hateful tirades asserting they're gullible fools or duplicitious frauds on the make.

    If though they can write a humdinger piece seemingly nuking the possibility of their existence or produce evidence enabling Dawkins and co to trot out references to Tooth Fairies and Spaghetti Monsters then the gatekeepers of orthodoxy might well reward them with jobs as 'proper' journalists 'proper' researchers.

    "today witnesses do not have the firewall of a publicly recognised figure such as Tim Dinsdale to stand by them and back them up."

    I think what Dinsdale aboveall provided was the sense he was taking them seriously and not wondering whether or not it was time to push the local lunatic asylum escapee panic button.

    1. I think the modern sceptic would only accept a live or dead specimen. No point in talking to them then .... !

  3. I live thirty miles from Loch Ness and am familiar with the loch in all its different moods. I was a sceptic until about a year ago. I was driving past the loch shore - the surface this day was glassy smooth - when I spotted something long and dark - six to eight feet in length - projecting directly out of the water. My sight was obscured by trees for ten seconds or so. When I reached the next clearing that area of the loch was heavily disturbed.
    As a local I was reluctant to report the sighting and invite ridicule.
    Interestingly, the marine biologist Adrian Shine, who is supposed to have conducted an extensive study of the loch, has stated publicly that large creatures could not survive in Loch Ness because of the sparse food chain. Now, I am no marine biologist, but as a local fisherman I know that Loch Ness is rich in one food source which is not part of any food chain:- migrating salmon. Any fisherman knows that salmon's stomachs atrophy when they are in fresh water, so they are incapable of eating. Salmon migrate through Loch Ness all year round en route to several river sytems which flow into Loch Ness.
    Adrian Shine is not an idiot. He must know this. I am no advocate of conspiracy theories, but is it possible this gentleman knows more than he is saying?

    1. Hello,

      It sounds like you exemplify the "silent majority" I was speaking of. If you email me at I would like to know more about your sighting and perhaps post a fuller but anonymous account?

      I don't think there is any conspiracy about food suppy theories, you can read my own take on this by clicking the "ENOUGH FOOD FOR NESSIE?" link on the right hand side.

  4. Here's the thing kids, and I'm going to sound patronising, because there are nufties out there who need to hear this - The testimony, or the eye witness account of the average & honest man IS FINAL. This is the way it works in courts, BECAUSE IT IS THE WAY IT IS, people are basically honest. It doesn't mean that what they saw is definitely this or that, or that what it seems to represent is this or that necessarily, because there is always the possibility of confusion or deception, however, (and hear the knocking on the side of the coconut when I say this), if avaerge Joe tells you he saw a creature that looked like the lochness monster, that's what he saw, and in this case its only a short jump from there to that actually being the case.