Saturday, 19 July 2014

Meanwhile at Loch Morar




A while back, I had the pleasure of the company of Tony Healy who was visiting from Australia. He was on a trip around Britain and elsewhere to see not only friends and relatives, but places of cryptozoological interest. Previously, Tony had been to Loch Morar back in 1979 researching various cryptids for a book he hoped to publish called "Monster Safari".

With Tony's consent, this story is based on material taken from the manuscript for that book. Back in 1979, he had visited a Charles Simpson regarding a sighting of the Loch Morar Monster being briefly seen almost wholly out of the water. Quite briefly in fact as it was lurching over a strip of shingle. 

Tony sent a summary of the story to the editor of the local magazine, "West Word", which published the story in its March 2000 edition. I quote the article here.

Last summer, West Word offices were visited by Tony Healy, an Australian author who is interested in Morag and other legendary creatures. He had visited the area 21 years ago and talked then to Charles Simpson of Mallaig about Morag. Now writing a book, Tony came into the office to look at back copies, and went away with those which have mentioned Morag, to have a chat with Ewan MacDonald, who has also sighted the monster. Tony has now sent us this account, and allowed us to reproduce the photo of the painting made of the creature seen by Donald Simpson 25 years ago.

On 27th November 1975 Charles and his brother Donald (who died a few years later) were driving towards Bracorina on a bird watching expedition. The Morar River, as it leaves the loch,  flows over a narrow ridge of gravel, so that for a short distance it is only a couple of feet deep. At 3 p.m., just as they were passing that spot, Charles, who was watching the road ahead, heard his brother, who was driving, suddenly gasp and choke as if unable to breathe.

"I was terrified he'd taken a heart attack", Charles recalled, "but then he braked and pointed to the water. 'This will startle the world', was all he could say at first. When I asked what he meant he said 'Did ye not see it?"'

What Donald had seen was a powerful, 20 foot long animal which rose out of the river less than 40 feet from the car. It lurched across the gravel bar and sank into the deeper waters of the loch. The episode lasted only a couple of seconds but made a deep impression on the man — who had previously been very sceptical about the Morag legend. He said it had smooth brown skin "like a drum" and commented particularly on the muscles in its powerful hindquarters, which were evident as it hauled itself over the gravel bar.

He saw no ears or eyes but said there was what looked like a "trunk" trailing along the side of the body. Shortly afterwards, under Donald's close supervision, a neighbour executed a small watercolour painting of what he had seen. "Donald said it wasn't exactly right"' Charles Simpson explained, "but said it conveyed the general impression of what he saw.

Because the sighting was so unexpected, so startling and so brief, he couldn't even say for sure whether the "trunk" was attached to the front or the back of the creature, but it is interesting to note that long, flexible, trunk-like appendages — which are usually thought to be the snake-like head and neck of the creatures have often been reported at Lochs Ness and Morar. Because, like his brother, he was a highly respected man, an elder of the church and an authority on the wildlife of the area and because he was much too close to the massive creature to have been mistaken — I fully believe Donald Simpson's account: what he saw must certainly have been one of the legendary Loch Morar monsters.

Twelve years on from this report, Tony sent me additional notes and comments. Charles Simpson took Tony to meet Donald's widow, Jessie, who showed him the painting. The local artist was a man by the name of Willie Kirk of Mallaig whom Tony caught up with on his last visit to Loch Morar. Willie seemed a bit of a reclusive chap to Tony who had no problem allowing his painting to be put in the public domain.

Having spoken to them and others who spoke well of Donald Simpson led Tony to believe that there was no hint of deception in their tale. Add to that the fact that Charles was expert in recognising local wildlife and the creature was only forty feet away further reinforced Tony's conclusions.

As to the location of this event, Tony also sent me a photograph of the location where he thinks it all happened. As I said, it was not quite a full blown land sighting. The shingle bar was about two feet under water and so our creature technically never fully left the water.




By using Google Maps, the location can be confirmed via StreetView below. The first map shows Loch Morar in relation to Loch Ness. The second map circles the location of the sighting.



The witness said he was only about 40 feet from the creature which is borne out by the next StreetView picture which shows the road they were travelling on beside the loch.




The thing that has to be said about the creature depicted in the painting is that it is moving from right to left as it hauls itself across the shingle bar out of the River Morar into Loch Morar. Anyone looking at the painting with a Nessie mindset would presume the trunk like object is a long neck and hence the beast is lumbering from left to right. This is not the case, which may present a bit of a conundrum, although the rapidity of the sighting does allow for some uncertainty as to how this appendage actually attached itself to the body. However, if one presumes it is the tail rather than the neck (which has by then submerged to the left), then the image perhaps becomes clearer.

Using a formula mentioned here before, in terms of witness credentials, proximity and clarity, it is a good report. The one thing that one would wish more for is the duration of the sighting, which is mere seconds. The longer, closer or clearer the sighting, then the less chance of misidentification.

But, then again, what kind of creature could be misidentified? Once again, the ubiquitous seal may pop into people's minds, but apart from being 20 feet long and brown in colour, there is another obstacle to that theory and it is a physical obstacle.



I am talking about the hydroelectric dam just up the River Morar which has been in place since 1948. On that basis alone, seals can be excluded. But, of course, what the dam prevents coming in, it also prevents going out. Is Mhorag forever stranded in Loch Morar? If Mr. Simpson's description of "powerful hindquarters" is accurate, then perhaps not.

What the painting conveys is a bit of a mystery to me. That a degree of inaccuracy is acknowledged by the witness adds more uncertainty. The most interesting quote refers to the "muscles in its powerful hindquarters, which were evident as it hauled itself over the gravel bar". It would seem that Charles Simpson saw enough to see impressive musculature in action.

But "powerful hindquarters" is not a term I readily equate with lake monsters. It is something I would more relate to the lion crouched ready to race after its prey or something else more land-bound. Indeed "powerful tail" or "powerful rear flippers" would be more appropriate terms for lake cryptids. But, this is not so much a mystery if the amphibious attributes of the Loch Ness Monster are assigned to the Loch Morar Monster.

What does seems certain, though, is that a large, powerful creature was seen entering Loch Morar nearly forty years ago. It is also about forty years since a book was written on Mhorag. Perhaps Tony or someone ought to do an update on Nessie's famous relation?







105 comments:

  1. That's a very striking account, but I have some cautions.

    Firstly, I know how hard it can be to identify something seen unexpectedly for a few seconds when driving. Your mind is on the road, and perhaps on other things, and it takes time to react. I have seen unfamiliar shapes on a hillside while driving near Loch Ness and spent some time wondering if I was seeing strangely dressed men or even aliens. It took, I would guess, half a minute to realise that they were deer.

    Secondly, size estimates from a brief unexpected sighting are often unreliable. The Spicers apparently reported the length of their beast as anything from 6 feet to 25-30 feet at different times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The duration is the weakest point of the story, though the closeness and experience of the witness are not so easily dismissed.

      For the sake of argument, what could he have mistaken? An otter is far too small at that distance to be mistaken and a deer would have not submerged.

      Delete
    2. The drawing, artistic as it is, was made by someone who wasn't there, and it "wasn't quite right". Apart from that and the rather dubious reason for the trip, and the equally odd comment from the driver, it looks like a black labrador looking for its stick.

      Delete
    3. Your explanation is more contradictory than the one you attemtpt o debunk. You imply that someone is lying (for no good reason) yet say he misidentified a dog. Is he a deceiver or deceived? You also omit that the witness said the painting conveyed the general impression of what he saw. Unfortunately for sceptics, it looks nothing like a black labrador.

      How does one go from a 3 foot black dog to a 20 foot brown monster? Perhaps we should consider again the idea of a hallucination brought on by a mini-stroke again!?

      Such debunkings may be uncritically accepted on sycophantic sceptical forums, but not here.

      Delete
    4. There is one other fact I overlooked which presents problems for your labrador theory. The driver stopped the car.

      Delete
  2. I don't know what he could have mistaken. But nor can I imagine what living or extinct animal would fit his description and the painting. I'm almost tempted to consider the paranormal hypothesis!

    Perhaps we should also think about a hallucination. My first thought on reading that the witness gasped and choked was some sort of mini-stroke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. generally a mild stroke produces hallucinations of 20-30 foot brown lake monster blobs,while headache produce hallucinations of seals and small plesiasaurs.A full blown stroke produces a hallucination of baby Godzilla blowing smoke rings at Gidrahs three necks.its in the Merck Manual

      Delete
    2. Let me remind you that I am not the first person to think the witness might have been ill. His brother's report starts with the words "I was terrified he'd taken a heart attack".

      I said "mini-stroke" as an example of an event that might cause halllucinations. For what it's worth, several medical sites list "stroke" under "causes of hallucinations". But obviously there are other possibilities.

      No-one here seems to be making a serious proposal (living or extinct) for what he saw. I wonder why that is?

      Delete
    3. Why don't you just put them down as liars and be done with it?

      Delete
    4. There is no need to put "them" down as anything. The report gives no hint that Charles saw anything. If something so massive had just submerged I would have expected him to see at least a swirl in the water.

      My problem is that I can't see that image as any known species, current or extinct. To postulate something totally new, and large enough to be pretty conspicuous, on the basis of one sighting seems irrational. One looks for other explanations. If I were just trolling I could easily accuse them of being liars, but I didn't.

      What genus of animal do you think this is?

      Delete
  3. Geordie Sceptic20 July 2014 at 08:19

    Stickleback. A damned big one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting sighting!

    It's a fascinating place - seriously deep water and a very remote and inaccessible shoreline that, for the most part, people will rarely venture anywhere near.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On one of my early visits to Loch Ness, around 1970, I made a detour as far as Mallaig. It was quite an epic journey in those days - I remember the A830 as a single track road with passing places, and occupied mostly by lorries full of herring. I think I drove along the very road where this sighting was reported. I know I stopped and contemplated the surface of Loch Morar for a while. Maybe I'll return.

      Delete
  5. I'd sure like to live there

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  6. Time to insert what may be the earliest written Scottish loch monster reference:

    http://carmichaelwatson.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/morag-monster-of-loch-morar-1.html

    "Tha creatair ann an Loch Morar agus is e a Mhorag / Morag a theirear rithe – There is a creature in Lochmorar and she is called Morag. She is never seen save when one of the daoine duchasach – of the hereditary people of the place dies. The last time she was seen was when Aonas na Traigh, Aeneas Macdonnell, died in 1898 (?).
    The Morag is peculiar to Loch Morar. She is seen in broad daylight and by many persons – including church persons – parsons. [note in margin: She has been seen by the narrator Eoghan Dughallach and by many others including pearsachan eaglais.]
    She appears in a cnap dubh – a black heap or ball slowing and deliberately rising in the water and moving along like a boat water logged."

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating link, thanks.
      Unfortunately if you search that blog for "Morag" you will find two separate accounts of Morag as a mermaid - fair face, blue eyes, yellow hair, snowy bosom - which don't fit so well with the modern sightings or indeed with any possible creature.

      Delete
    2. Parts 2 and 3 of that article featuring Blonde Morag The Mermaid essentially seem to be based on a later account supplied by a local poet (whose licence presumably hadn't been revoked). The "cnap dubh" (black lump) may also have had legendary qualities but it seems to be close to the boundary with reportage (naming specific people and events from the immediate past). More than one named individual is said to have seen the cnap dubh.
      In the poet's account in Part 3 "the Mhorag detaches herself upon the surface in three distinct portions – one portion representing death, another a coffin, and the third a grave." – which sounds a bit like a three-hump or neck-and-two-hump sighting. He then describes her "normal" aspect as a blonde mermaid. One man's attempt to be creative and look for the sunny side?
      And even in the mermaid account in Part 2 (which seems to incorporate material from James MacDonald the poet): "Old [ ] Macdougall, crofter, Mallaig Bheag [said] that the horn of the steamer, the shriek of the train and the crank of the rifle were inimical to the Morag"
      Does this sound like anyone we know?

      *AnonStg*

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic21 July 2014 at 22:48

      Death, coffin & a grave = 3 humps, eh? ;-)

      The endless attempts to turn mythological accounts into actual physical sightings always make me laugh.

      I see from the above account that Morag only appears when one of the hereditary locals dies. Ermmm.... maybe this happens due to their ashes being spread on the loch, which brings the fish to the surface, followed by our three-humped beastie? Sounds plausible, eh?

      Delete
  7. Geordie Sceptic20 July 2014 at 14:24

    Morar has a very sinister feel, looking at photos. Does it contain many fish? I believe it doesn't suffer the Loch Ness suspended peat problem but I may be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been to Loch Morar several times and it does have a healthy fish population but I'm not aware of any actual studies that may have taken place. You are right in the fact that the water doesn't have the peat problems of Loch Ness. The water at Morar is crystal clear. I would describe the place as having a curiously sinister atmosphere but my partner doesn't like the feel of the place at all, regardless of the Morag sightings.

      Delete
  8. I have never been to Loch Morar myself. I should try and rectify that omission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good idea Roland. I personally feel that Morar is beautiful and has a great atmosphere, not sinister at all in my opinion (we all feel atmospheres differently). . Though perhaps I should not say that until I have traversed it all (I have only ventured as far as the end of the tiny, mostly single track road).

      Delete
    2. Agreed. It's a must see place. Absolutely stunning.

      Delete
  9. Burton Caruthers20 July 2014 at 16:54

    It takes an incredibly keen eye to notice such detail "in a couple of seconds", and while driving too. I'm impressed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THings that make a strking impression on us tend to be etched into the memory more readily.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic21 July 2014 at 11:56

      More likely that things seen very briefly and not understood can form very distorted memories.

      I remember someone thinking they had filmed a huge wild cat in the Bodmin Moor area, and subsequent technical analysis showed it was no bigger than a domestic cat.

      I'd say this animal briefly seen was probably just a known animal viewed so quickly and at some angle the viewer couldn't immediately process. His confusion may have then caused him to miscalculate or badly recall the size.

      Delete
    3. Stone the crows, GS solves it again with some simple well chosen words!

      What known animal would that be then?

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic21 July 2014 at 13:20

      Thanks GB, it's good to know you appreciate my logical approach.

      If you think about what I wrote, you would realise I could not possibly tell you what animal he saw, because we have only received his semi-processed confusion, rather than the "source material", so to speak.

      I'm always here to assist, GB. Are you up there later this summer? I think a sceptical trip is long overdue....

      Delete
    5. Another trip to loch ness geordie sceptc? Crikey you are there more than the hunters ? Hmmmm

      Delete
    6. Geordie Sceptic21 July 2014 at 22:40

      Not been there for a long time. Love the entire area. There are absolutely no monsters there, but I'm sure you know people don't visit the Highlands only to try to catch a glimpse of something in the water. Hmmmmm..... got it?

      Delete
    7. Absolutely no monsters there.
      The GreatGeordie Has Spoken. Henceforth From Here On There Will be No Monsters In Loch Mortar....And To Seal This Great Skeptical Declaration,The GreatGeordie Will Go For A Midnight Swim In Loch Mortar As Proof There Is No Monster-Hear. Ye,Hear Ye!!

      Delete
    8. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 03:39

      Anonymous, if you give me your name, perhaps we could meet up?

      Delete
  10. I am increasingly skeptical about this. If the proportions of that painting are right, and the beast is 20 feet long, it has about 7 feet above the water. If it's in 2 feet of water that's a body depth of 9 feet. Guessing a body width of 6 feet and an ellipsoidal shape gives a weight of 15 metric tons. That's heavier than the largest orca.

    Does anyone think a breeding population of orca-sized animals can exist in Loch Morar? Or, if it comes in over the dam, that it wouldn't have been seen more often?

    Not to mention that, with that "trunk", it looks like no animal that size that I've ever heard of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's because it's an animal as yet unknown to science. I believe the British were also sceptical about the existence of the platypus. Also folks sighted this creature as being about the size of an Indian elephant, which reach about 5 tons. Not small, but less than your own estimate. It sounds like a sincere recollection to me. Why make it up?

      Delete
  11. Lmao he really does leave himself open doesnt he? I think he is a bit of a weirdo really. Why spend half your life on a nessie site if you dont believe ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 04:26

      I'm trying to help people like you. People who really do need help.

      Delete
  12. No monsters there Geordie??? Depends what u count as a monster!!!! Call em wat u like but i call em large aquatic unknown creatures!!! Eyewitness accounts back it up and so does sonar! Even top sonar expert Arni Carr who didnt believe in large creatures said he obtained large sonar hits that wer to large for normal things in the loch. And top kid him laa. Maybe u spent too long chasing a dinosaur playing a bagpipe then got dissapointed when u realised it wasnt there lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 05:32

      Eyewitnesses raise interest and have resulted in plenty of funded searches, all of which have failed to find anything.

      Sonar hits are interesting but inconclusive due to them only being indicative of some kind of air volume. They are extremely rare but would be common if there really was a population of sonar-evident animals down there. The tourist boats hardly ever detect anything on sonar year after year. That's why believers clutch at the idea nessies don't give sonar hits or they stick to the sides when sonar equipped boats are on the surface.

      Delete
  13. So which sonar results have failed to find anything geordie??????? And actually the tourists boats regulary pick up sonar contacts! The royal scot fort augustus has had several this year!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 11:15

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3096839.stm

    The most extensive sonar search of this millennium failed to produce any hits whatsoever. Hardly consistent with a population of monsters, wouldn't you agree?

    Operation Deepscan 1897 - a couple of inconclusive hits from a curtain of sonar run down the entire length of the loch. Again, at odds with the idea of a breeding population of monsters.

    The more sonar technology advances, the fewer times the operators get spurious hits.

    The tourist boats simply do not record sonar hits regularly. That is just not true. GB posted a sonar image recently which was several years old, indicating that this is by no means common. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it here, including names, dates and links. If you don't post those, you are simply making empty comments.

    The Loch Ness Monster industry has thrived on rumour and stories for 80 years. "A friend saw this, another friend has a photograph, someone on a boat saw xyz on a sonar chart" etc etc. But when evidence is requested, nothing of any substance ever comes forth.

    When do we get to see Roland's analysis of the photo in the Colin Baxter booklet? This has been talked about by Jake as though it's a game changer, so where is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I covered this in my plesiosaur article. Fish livestock studies would have predicted a lack of Nessie traffic midloch.

      Delete
    2. I have scanned the Baxter photos, but I have another article to publish before then.

      Delete
    3. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 11:40

      Then it's rather odd that the surface sighting reports seem to be frequently far from the loch edges. Should we discount those sighting reports?

      Delete
    4. Edges? The creature is a bottom dweller which also ventures to the littoral regions (or "edges"). My view is that it spends most of its time at the bottom. If you are at the bottom, a vertical rise takes you into one of those very rare mid water appearances.

      Delete
    5. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 12:52

      Wouldn't a colony of 30ft monsters swimming near to the pretty flat bottom show up regularly on sonar? I can't see why they wouldn't. I'm assuming you are referring to eels and arctic char as food sources?

      Delete
    6. Depends on the type of creature. I favour the amphibious llike fish with no swimbladder (as befits a benthic dweller).

      Delete
    7. If that is the case you must view the sonar contacts on record as something other than these monsters, Glasgow Boy.

      Delete
    8. Interesting debate. One therefore assumes that the blog author must regard the sonar hits which Jake refers to as being caused by something other than the Loch Ness Monster! Interesting indeed.

      Delete
    9. It is possible that the creature can evade sonar if it has no swimbladder. However, a full anatomical picture of the creature is not in my or anyone's grasp. For example, there are thefluctuating humps which some (like DInsdale) have suggested may at sundry times contain gas. If that were the case, they may appear on sonar,

      Delete
    10. So, just to get this clear... you are proposing that the scarcity of sonar hits is down to the creatures lacking a swim bladder, yet at the same time you want to claim the sonar hits that have occurred as evidence of Nessie, due to some kind of gas humps?

      I love this website!!!! :-) :-) :-)

      Delete
    11. You misread what I said. I said "may", "if". I don't "claim" anything here, this is a matter of speculation and ongoing debate.

      This is not your neat and tidy world where problems are magically solved by effortlessly turning labradors into monsters.

      Nice work if you can get it ...

      Delete
    12. Now you raise an interesting point there GB. We do in fact have a set of biological and physical rules which the world's lakes and animals do have to conform to. Nessie and Loch Ness seem to be the only things outside of these rules, apart from other paranormal myths.

      All points to Nessie being purely myth.

      Delete
    13. Yes, we've been thru the "Nessie breaks the laws of physics" arguments here already. More a case of sceptics giving up too easily.

      Delete
    14. The same could be said when searching for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. At some point we realise there's no reason to keep looking.

      Amusing little blog you've got going here though.

      Delete
    15. To evade sonar, monsters must first detect it. Boats on Loch Ness now have sonars operating at 455 and 800 kHz, unlikely to be detectable by fish or amphibians. Air isn't needed, these new imaging sonars practically take photos. Google "Didson".

      Delete
    16. Depends on your point of view really. Do you see a reason to "keep looking" at this blog in that case?

      Delete
    17. Yes, sonar is undoubtedly getting better and we had a taste of that in the Rines carcass article I published recently. However, the sonar equipment I have seen on board three of the commercial cruisers did not seem to have the high spec of the Didson boxes you mention.

      I would also note that lower frequencies penetrate deeper but deliver lower quality images than the higher frequency scans you mention? So what examples of detailed sonar scans can we see of the 12 square miles and more of the loch bottom?

      Even Rines with his hi-tech sonar needed a ROV to actually check what was spotted.


      Delete
  15. Geordie Sceptic22 July 2014 at 11:57

    Anyway, I'm going to be off this site for a while now. I have a lot on over the next couple of weeks.

    So at least you won't all have me on here questioning reports of splashes etc. Other people may still continue spoiling the daydream though.

    Later chaps....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems someone has come in to take over your "shift", and I think I recognise who it is ...

      Delete
    2. Trevor or Tobias?

      Delete
    3. Hey I'm not Geordie Sceptic! I've never even been to Newcastle. I live in Dores.

      Delete
  16. Geordie? The BBC ? Tell me more about this operation please? Lol operation deepscan had 3 targets and only covered 60% of the loch !! When ur in loch ness again go and see the guys on the royal scott who havr regular sonar contacts, until then dont talk bout summit u clearly dont know bout kid lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BBC project did not cover all the loch. They didn't even sweep it in one go. So when they say "all the loch" they meant piecemeal over days.

      The tourist boats do go anomalous hits at various times which do not get publicised. The thing is interpreting them.

      Delete
    2. Yeah i know part of The Royal Scot's spiel is talk of "regular sonar contacts".

      They're a tourist boat. Go figure.

      Let's see the evidence of these sonar contacts.

      Delete
    3. Operation Deepscan covered far more than 60% of the loch. Jake, please post evidence that only 60% was covered, otherwise you are doing what GS says and are just shouting out numbers without anything to back them up.

      Delete
  17. Oh and i havnt said the baxter photo is a game changer geordie expert ooops sceptic sorry!!@ dont put words in my mouth la. I said from my point of view its a convincing photo seeing as a 38 seconds video of the same object was obtained ruling out the obvious sceptics seals and otters. Photo was low down bit video was higher up on the hill taken by a very reliable witness :))

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link to video please, or you're just streaming out empty words again.

      Delete
  18. An object going along for 38 seconds then sinking . Leaving a huge v wash behind it. Seals and otters dont do that, so what was it???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can we comment without a link to the video? We're not going to just take your word for it Jake.

      Delete
    2. Circus elephants that have evolved To feed on highly oxygenated weed that allows them To Live underwater permanently.just throw peanuts on the water and you will see!!

      Delete
  19. Tobias just watch any documentry on operstion deepscan and it tells you roughly 60% was covered! And sorry i got no computer to link anything on here i only use my phone like i previously said! Cant link the video la. But there is one lol no empty words from me! Maybe i can try and link it somehow to GB but im not very technical lol i lay bricks for a living!!!!@ :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've searched the web and can't find that 60% figure anywhere. I think it's not a real figure at all. Why would they have stopped before getting to the far end? They didn't stop.

      Delete
  20. Go on the boat trevor and ask them to see the evidence !

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ha, i've been on it more than once. You get the 'regular sonar contacts' line, then when asked to see them you get 'the majority are explained away - we don't record them'.

    Any genuinely intriguing sonar contacts are media-bound sharpish.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hello . I follow this blog with interest without adding much im afraid. I dont want 2 get into arguments with my beliefs. I believe there is something 2 this mystery and nobody will change my opinion. I have a relation who helped out on operation deepscan in 1987 and he spent years intrigued by this mystery. Now Jake's calculations are not far wrong on Deepscan: Tony Harmsworth ( a main figure in Deepscan) said they covered about 70 per cent of the loch at the most: Jake you seem 2 be in the know despite claims on here you have empty words: Is this video you have seen the one taken by the AAS in the year 2000 from their base near drumnadrochit whilst on their latest exhibition? : I have also seen this video off my relation but 4 some reason it has not been shown much.: in fact i have only seen a very brief glimpse of the video on the start of one of the programnes on the Loch Ness Monster: In fact i have numerous dvd's on this subject and i have the one ( i think) with this brief account on it. When i have time i will search through them and let this blog know which one it is.: and yes i agree it is a very interesting video as it shows the powerful wake that so many eye witness's claim 2 have seen: i will get back 2 you on this when i have time 2 search through my collection: Thanks Peter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's ask Tony Harmsworth. He has an internet presence and seems a sharp man.

      Delete
    2. A very big Jake fan this guy, eh?

      Delete
  23. Yes trevor u get the spiel cus its a tourist boat but same time the skipper is a big believer in these creatures! Ive seen the sonar contacts he obtains lol perhaps im lucky la lol and the sonar contact got on the faster boats last year cudnt even be explained by the experts :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi peter yes i think thats the one la!thank goodness u said that cus i was startin to think id imagined seeing it after listenin to this lot lol lol and yeah every report on operation deepscan says it covered 60% - 75 % so that averages out if my maths are right bout 67%..... oh dear i exxagarated by 7% lol sorry folks please forgive me :))))) lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at the flotilla as it went up the entire length of the loch I'd put the coverage at 90-95%.

      Doesn't really matter if we're saying nessie gives no sonar contacts. But hang on, are we saying that?

      Delete
  25. Operation deepscan produced three large targets on the first run then none on the second run. Rumour has it targets were had on the trial run though how true this is i dont know. Where were these three targets on the second run ? They evaded the sonar this time so what else could ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounbites were needed for the monster-hungry media at the time. If you look into it properly now you'll find admissions that the hits could have been closely grouped salmon, a seal, or anomolous readings. Operation Deepscan definitely did not pinpoint a colony of monsters, that is why people like Shine and Harmsworth (2 people who stand to gain financially from the myth being real) do not believe in a Loch Ness Monster.

      Delete
    2. I don't accept that argument. A seal would have been easily spotted by the line of boats. Also salmon stick to the littoral regions. Anomalous readings just sounds like a safety net phrase. Now, they may have been anomalous readings, but that kiod of defeats the purpose of Operation Deepscan if anything unknown is just dismissed as "anomalous"? When does a strange sonar reading become non-anomalous?

      I spoke to Adrian Shine last year about the three mystery contacts. He said he did not have an explanation for them. That doesn't mean he thinks they are monsters, just that he still can't explain them.

      Delete
    3. I'm sure even you would agree that if any monsters gave sonar hits, a figure of around 20 would be the minimum expected from such a sweep. Hence Adrian Shine = sceptic.

      Delete
  26. Google searching for nessie and it says 60% of the loch was covered!!!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Its the affect i have anon !!!! Lol :))))

    ReplyDelete
  28. To return to Loch Morar -- as we seem to have done a bit of drifting -- one of the things that I learned from reading "The search for Morag" (1972) is that the main west coast local paper, the "Oban Times" had a ban on reporting monster stories. This dated from the time of a hoax in 1877 when someone got access to the news office and created a headline story about an epic battle between locals and a huge monster in Oban Bay. I suppose this would have affected coverage of any reports from Shiel, Treig, Awe and possibly even Lochy and Arkaig. So it's not just sonar hits that could be under-reported,
    This is the sort of thing that can happen outside the squeaky-clean science lab environment.

    *AnonStg*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting, AnonStg. I previously mentioned how the Inverness Courier took a dismissive line on 19th stories Loch Ness monsters. I wonder if you 1877 hoax also affected them?

      Delete
  29. Hello again gentlemen: as promised i checked my dvd collection and found the one with the video Jake is on about: It is the Deep sea Detectives one on Loch Ness. Now it is only a very very short glimpse of the video but i am certain it is the same one. It is on right at the very start and you can see a wake moving and it has been circled. It is barely on for a second but the actual film is about half a minuite long: in the film the wake ends up very large and you can make something out moving and creating this wash: it is very unlike anything i have seen: i believe it was taken by a member of the Bob Rhines team in 2001:: I noticed someone said im a Jake fan? Well he does bring a bit of humour to this site as sometimes i feel it can be taken too seriously. If some people believe then thats up to them and likewise for people who dont believe: it would be a boring world if we all felt the same. The truth is nobody knows if there is a Nessie and if there is nobody knows what it is. At least the hunters have a beautiful place for their hobby. Carry on i say and keep smiling. Thank you Peter

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have deleted some comments accusing sceptics of working for the intelligence services. Let's keep the discussion focussed on the main subject - the Loch Ness Monster!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Cheers peter lol not sure bout deep sea detective one but i will av a gander weekend i got loads of dvds on the subject!but yeah mate sounds like same one and the colin baxter pic is of same object and yeah was around 2000/2001 so must be!!!!! Intresting piv and vid i think!!!! Cheers for that old fruit

    ReplyDelete
  32. I would hope the UK intelligence services would have more pressing priorities than scanning a Nessie website looking for subterfuge! Unless MI5 have their own version of Fox Mulder consigned to a basement somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. New template??

      Delete
    2. I was prompted to look up loch morar monster tonight having watched loch ness monster revisited...this blog came to my attention, I am sure you guys are way out of my league on the lmm subject however I and my late dad plus 2 brothers and 1 sister saw lmm up close while we were stranded in a boat on lm, we were returning back from a day fishing on lm when the outboard motor packed in, lmm was 30ft from the boat, she is around 20ft long, at least with 2 humps, she stayed in one position until dad fixed outboard motor, then she disappeared when we finally got going...my point is all the science and sonar in the world will never convince us she does not exist!!!

      Delete
  33. Well, Nick Pope is too UFO-orientated...

    ReplyDelete
  34. I watched an old documentary on YouTube last night where a more youthful looking Adrian Shine was camped out at Loch Morar. He was using the clearer waters there to try and capture underwater imagery of the LMM. The difference in visibility was very noticeable - a diver 60 feet away from Shine's camera could clearly be seen.

    I assume the experiment turned up nothing of note, however.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am read this blog with interest prompted by the television program tonight Nessie revisited. Whilst this blog is interesting albeit the content being a bit too technical for me(re sonar experiments) I,my late dad and 3 of my siblings were in fact up close and personal with LMM, we were on the loch fishing, landed on shingle cove for late lunch, when we set off on our return our outboard motor packed in 100yards from shore, LMM was 30ft from our boat whilst dad was working on motor, she is around 20/25' long with 2 humps, she stayed in same position till motor started then dissapeared beneath the water, no science or sonar experiments will convince my family she does not exist!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Patricia.

      When did you see this and what part of Loch Ness?

      Delete
    2. This was on Loch Morar not Ness, not far from a shingle beach where we stopped for lunch, when we finally returned to our frantic mum we were met with reporters and 2 fishermen who had told everyone a monster knocked their boat, you can imagine the chaos when we landed as we had been on the loch for hours unbeknown to everyone we were stranded due to the outboard motor problems. My dad quickly ushered us away and told us not to mention the monster as everyone would think we were jumping on the fishermens bandwagon. My dad later explained to us when we were older (I was 14 at the time) he was frantically trying to figure out how to get us to the nearest shore to safety...we still laugh about it to this day. She definitely does exist!!!! P

      Delete
    3. Patricia, perhaps you could tell me more by email - my email is

      shimei123@yahoo.co.uk

      Delete
    4. It was circus elephants..And dead deers..

      Delete
  36. Well very interesting reading. Back in the mid 80s to mid 90s I spent a lot of time with friends camping at Morar on the area called the Jetty. We got to know the local farmers very well. They talked all the time about the giant eels in the loch. One day we were shown part of a neck washed up on the sure. Never seen anything like it. Destroyed on the fire that night, apparently it was to stay a secret.

    Over the years as we became even greater friends with the farming family a lot more was said.

    " in October go to the head of the loch. Wait till 6.30 am and you will see what all the fuss Is about. Throw out some dead fish and it will come, long neck and flippers.

    Always found this amusing as the farmers joked about all the sonar technology, when all you had to do was throw it fish lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool. I am almost tempted to get over there with some dead trout. :)

      Delete
  37. To me, the drawing looks like nothing else I can think of, but certainly bears a resemblance to the Spicer's sighting. To me, that says it all.

    ReplyDelete