It is now 80 years since the date in the title, but you may ask what is the significance of it? Was there an important sighting on that day, a significant photograph taken or did some personality get up to something that has forever lived in modern Loch Ness folklore?
The answer is none of these, for the 24th July 1934 was the day in which the Loch Ness Monster was reported the most times in one day. In total, there were five claimed sightings of the monster on the busiest day of the busiest month of the busiest year ever for loch Ness Monster stories.
Now, these days, I would consider it good going if we had five reported sightings in one year, let alone one day, and this just reminds us just how manic things were up at Loch Ness those long years ago. Once can only dream of such activity now.
However, before I look at that day, I must dismiss the rival claim of Barbara Abbot. If you go to the very first entry of Paul Harrison's 2012 edition of "The Encyclopedia of the Loch Ness Monster" you will read of her claim to have seen Nessie five times at different locations in one day. The whole affair is topped off by Nessie tossing a live seal into the air, catching it in her mouth and eating it. I am not going to take this one any further.
The sources for the reports are all newspapers, The Scotsman for the 25th and 27th July 1934, the Inverness Courier for 27th July and the Northern Chronicle for the 25th July.
The sighting log begins in the morning with Duncan Cameron who reported a long neck moving at speed in Urquhart Bay toward Fort Augustus. The clipping below is from the 27th July edition of The Scotsman.
The account was also reported on the same day by the Inverness Courier, but both do not give a more precise time than the "morning". However, a reading of the other four sightings leads me to conclude this was the first sighting of the day. By 11:15am, the second sighting had occurred when a Mr. Charles Mace saw an object off Ruskie further down the loch. His account is taken from the Northern Chronicle.
The third account occurred at 11:30am a couple miles north of Fort Augustus by the crew of the steam drifter, "Sedulous". They saw a black hump like an upturned boat at a distance of 400 yards which drifted about for a period of time. This account appears in the Scotsman and Northern Chronicle and though generally in agreement, they don't seem to agree on how long the object appeared for. The Scotsman has the object "cruising about" while the Chronicle has the object visible for only a few seconds. The account below is from the 25th July edition of The Scotsman.
Moving onto our fourth account, by about noon, the object (or another object) was back at Ruskie where it was spotted by Robert C. Urquhart. Mr. Urquhart was one of the 20 watchers employed by Edward Mountain for his four week surface watching expedition. Each man was equipped with a camera and a telescope (or binoculars) in pursuit of their quarry.
Finally, our busy day for Nessie closes with the fifth sighting reported by another watcher for the Mountain expedition. This was a Mr. Ralph who was stationed at Temple Pier overlooking Urquhart Bay. His sighting occurred at 3:25pm when he saw a dome shaped object break the surface for a short time. The account below is from the Chronicle but an ink blemish on the original document obscures some of the details.
I have plotted the five reports on a map of Loch Ness, each numbered in chronological order from Duncan Cameron through to Mr. Ralph. The salient details for each sighting are given in tabular form.
NAME TIME LOCATION DURATION COMMENT
Cameron AM Urquhart Bay 20 minutes long neck and head with 50 yard wake
Mace 1115 Ruskie 30 minutes eel like object with seal like head
"Sedulous" 1130 nr F.Augustus seconds? black hump like upturned boat
Urquhart 1200 Ruskie 5 minutes duck-like
Ralph 1525 Temple Pier seconds semi circular object
Now the first question that naturally arises is whether these are all genuine sightings of the Loch Ness Monster? For the sceptic, the answer is easy. It is "No" at all times and all places, till Loch Ness freezes over again.
For the Nessie advocates, each case has to be judged on its own merits. Three of the cases involved the witness examining the object through a telescope or binoculars, which enhances their credibility (Mace, Urquhart and Ralph). Three cases also were of multi-minute duration, which again allows time to assess the object in view as to whether it is common or uncommon. Based on these factors, I would rank the sightings in order of decreasing credibility as Mace, Urquhart, Cameron, Sedulous and Ralph.
The last, by virtue of the fact that part of the account was obscured, made an assessment more difficult. It is also to be noted that one witness (Urquhart) thought the object looked like a duck. Another (Mace) thought the object looked like a seal (in part). Some sceptics when looking at these phrases will subconsciously replace the phrase "looked like" with "was" and conclude misidentification. This is despite the two objects in question being examined through a telescope or binoculars. Note that this "retranslation" of the text does not carry so well when the other phrases "looked like an eel" or "looked like an upturned boat" are examined.
The Urquhart account is the only one to mention photographs being taken. Two of our accounts involved Mountain men, so one would reasonably presume an attempt to photograph the object was also attempted in the case of Mr. Ralph. Then again, perhaps not, as his report suggests the object was in view for only seconds.
Does the Urquhart photograph exist to this day? Well, five pictures were publicised but individual details of each picture are lacking. This photograph was taken opposite Foyers but the Mountain Expedition pictures I have are inconclusive in determining if any were taken from Ruskie.
Another question that may be asked is whether these could all be the same creature? The answer to that is most likely "No". I say this because the Mace and Sedulous accounts overlap by 15 minutes but are about 8 miles apart. So, if these are monster reports, we have at least two creatures. Furthermore, one could conjecture that the two sightings at Ruskie are the same object (Mace at 1115-1145 and Urquhart at 1200).
Meanwhile, what about the two reports near Urquhart Bay? These were Cameron in the morning and Ralph at 1525. One could speculate that this could be the same creature which appeared to Cameron, swam onto Ruskie for the two sightings and then finished the day back around Urquhart Bay. Yes, I know, sheer speculation, but readers will form their own opinion.
So, it was a busy day on the 24th July 1934 and one doubts it will ever get that busy again. Meanwhile, we look forward to the next year which manages to muster five sightings over 365 days.
Your response to Barbara Abbot's account is very noteworthy. You are so dismissive of her story because you find it too far-fetched that you can't even be bothered to continue with it.
ReplyDeleteYet when skeptics are dismissive of, for example, the Spicers' report, or the huge MacNab monster, you get very agitated.
I wonder why your limits of credulity are fine, but the limits of skeptics are not?
I was expecting this kind of response. We all have different levels of credulity and it is not the case that "believers" accepts every report put in front of them. You will find that there is a spectrum of opinion across the board, so talking about "limits" is a personal thing.
DeleteIt is not a case of fine for some and not for others. It is about opinions, that is why you believe your limits of credulity are fine but the limits of "believers" are not. Cuts both ways.
At least you now know how us skeptics feel when you guys start talking of nocturnal monsters just because someone said they heard a splash! We roll our eyes to the ceiling just like you did over this story.
DeletePerfectly viable interpretation - if you believe in loch ness monsters.
DeleteWhether one believes in these monsters or not, wouldn't it be prudent - and demonstrative of analytical thought processes - to discuss the more mundane possible explanations behind a report of a splash with the cause unseen?
DeleteI'm talking logic rather than wishful thinking here, especially given that the "creatures" you believe in have not been proven during an 80 year search, and on top of that, there are no visual reports to my knowledge of a monster bursting out of the water like a whale.
Perhaps worth considering the less exciting explanations?
There's no doubt it my mind there was something in the Loch in the 30s that people were seeing. What it was is another question, as is whether or not it's still around today.
ReplyDeleteSure you can factor in the 'power of suggestion' which, along with misidentification will cover a lot of sightings, but even still - there were simply too many reports of something swimming around in the loch.
Your comment rings true for various people. Some think it was there but not now.
DeleteMy feeling is that people were going beserk every time they saw a line of waves. Remember the older depictions of nessie were of a multiple coiled serpent, or 'line of waves" in science-speak :)
DeleteYes, but none of these were those long line of humps.
DeleteI think in the 30s in particular, and maybe during other 'peak' periods, even when you remove the liars, the mistaken, and those so desperate to see something that they see something, you're still left with a not-small body of anecdotal evidence that there was something unusual being seen in the water.
DeleteA lot of the sightings were by people well used to observing the loch and the tricks it can play.
Like i say, what it is/was is open to debate.
GB, I would think the depictions of lines of coils were just misidentified lines of waves, wouldn't you? After the surgeon's photo hoax thoughts turned more to plesiosaurs so the coils turned into humps in the reports of sightings. The "coil sighting" became extinct quite a long time ago.
DeleteJust goes to show how sightings are based on the fashionable depictions at the time. Much like UFO reports (antennae and windows in the 1950s, black deltas in the 1990s), and Bigfoot reports (the beasts reported these days are as much as 9 or 10 feet tall, in the 1960s they were generally much smaller).
I like the bit about sceptics now convinced !!! Ive met a few of them in my time up there !!
ReplyDeleteBut there have been a lot more believers converted to scepticism :)
DeleteI didn't know there was a 2012 edition of Harrison. Is it worth getting? I have the 1999 edition.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that so long ago someone was describing a 20 foot eel. That seems to me one of the more credible possibilities. But then, what do we do with the head and neck sightings?
It is a kindle only version and adds anything from Loch Ness since 1999. I find it useful. The Abbot case I mentioned was an addition.
DeleteThanks. I'll get the Kindle edition. I don't actually have a Kindle but the Android app works well on my 10" tablet.
DeleteI see some optimist on Amazon is asking £395.80 for the print version!
Are you sure anon ? I dont think anybody knows how many people have turned their opinion. Guess work again :)))
ReplyDeleteThe subject used to be regularly in the papers and on the news. Ask Joe Public about their view on the Loch Ness Monster these days and they will almost definitely just laugh. It's a subject no longer taken seriously.
DeleteEven Glasgow Boy acknowledges a tide of scepticism at the top of his blog. Is he just guessing too? :)))
I think there's a lot of truth in that, and stuff like the Bright photo doesn't help at all.
DeleteSo whats the figures on believers turned sceptics? And figures on sceptics turned believers??? :))))))
ReplyDeleteI've met much more of the former than the latter. Much more.
DeleteThere have always been more sceptics than believers in the general populace. The only possible exception may have been in the mid 1970s, but I can't prove that either way.
DeleteBut how many believers turned sceptis are still not 100% that there is nothing there. I think most still think that there might be something. Whilst the sceptics turned believers ive met are all 100 % that there is something . If that makes any sense me ols fruits ;)
ReplyDeleteJake!! LOL!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI come to this blog for the fun factor and Jake has just posted the funniest message I've ever seen here!!! "We dont have as many converts as you but ours are more convinced than yours are!"
This is unintentionally the most rip roaringly amusing post ever on these pages!! On a separate note, is Jake saying the believers are more dogmatic than the skeptics because they apparently know they are right "100%" while skeptics have some doubts? The truth is no one can know either way, including the tiny numbers of skeptics who think they saw something, because they never get anything clear on photo or video, remember?
LOL again Jake. You brighten my days Sir!! :)
IMO, you are easily amused.
DeleteHaha GB just thinking the same myself lol think a couple of words zimbambdoo used showed his real identity :))))
ReplyDeleteJake you know how 2 rile these skeptics up ! Its refreshing so keep up the good work , after all this should not be so serious ! Now, i know where you are coming from because i suppose if you believe in nessie and after a number of years with no sightings then its obvious you will probably get a bit sceptical. But it is a different story if you are a big sceptic then you see something that changes your mind because in my eyes it must be something decent 2 make you change it. And i also agree that most sceptical people deep down do think that maybe there is something in the nessie story. Surely you would not waste your time coming on blogs about nessie if you were adamant there was nothing there, and anybody who says different is talking tosh! Nice 2 see people like Jake and Glasgow Boy arguing the cause for nessie.
ReplyDeleteSid writes just like Jake.
DeleteThis is why I believe there was something in the loch at some point. Not because i wish an aquatic dinosaur was bobbing around in a loch halfway across the world from me... but because many, many ordinary, creditable people from all walks of life (sailors, housewives, clergyman, hunters, etc.) have seen something inexplicable. And I've seen various accounts (Loch Ness Memoirs) implying there are many more locals who have seen something and can't or won't be bothered to report it because of all the hysteria.
ReplyDeleteI've tended to believe in the numbers. They can't all be mistaken. Tourists wishing with all their heart to see something can be mistaken, sure, but people with good reputations who have lived in the area all their lives, and know what seals and loch waves and swimming deer look like... if they see something inexplicable, I'll trust they saw something inexplicable to them. Each case needs to scrutinized, of course... I'd like to believe on the whole, but I'll be sceptical of each individual sighting.
Yet, if none of it's true, and there never was a monster, then why this lake? Why all the mistakes and mystery over this particular lake, and not over other lakes around the world? Sure, a few others have legends, but Loch Ness has a tradition of them. I find it intriguing that Morar does, too.
I say I believe there was something in the loch, but I'm not sure it's there now. I'm worried about pollution and climate change... if it's some invertebrate and/or amphibian, I'd say it's especially vulnerable to any change in its environment, and it may already be extinct... and we'd never know it. That'd be ironic if there were a herd of Nessies at one point, and they all died out within the past 30 years.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time as someone once said.
DeleteI don't think pollution or climate change are factors here. It's a very clean area, there's no significant pollutant that I can think of.
DeleteIf you believe that numbers of reports make something true, then you also have to believe in alien abductions, ghosts, and chubacabra.
DeleteMyths are self-perpetuating.
"believe in" what? People accept multiple reports point to something but there is a diversity of opinions on what the Loch Ness Monster might be - as there are for other mysterious phenomema.
DeleteAnd myths are clearly not self-perpetuating as many have gone by the wayside over the centuries.
GB, of course some myths endure, that's why some have continued for centuries, passed down from generation to generation. Some people still believe in fairies and unicorns! The more difficult to disprove myths - such as ghosts, nessie, grey men from outer space and Bigfoot - will naturally endure longer, because it's pretty much impossible to ever debunk these myths 100%.
DeleteAs for the overwhelming numbers of early 20th century sightings, just take a closer look and a big problem emerges. We see various conflicting descrptions: smooth skin, rough skin like an elephant's; horns, no horns; large whiskers, no whiskers; large horselike heads, no discernible head at the end of the neck; huge eyes, no eyes; black skin, grey skin, yellow skin, green skin; multiple coils, single humps... and even more than this list. The sheer numbers of big discrepancies should also tell you that very large numbers of people simply *had to* have been mistaken. And if dozens of good people can make mistakes based on the loch's reputation, how can we honestly say all were not mistaken?
Like I said, most "myths" are not self perpetuating. Some have something real behind them to keep it going.
DeleteYour "big problem" betrays a lack of creative thinking on the part of sceptics and sightings. First, you put across the absence of this or that as a big deal. For example, of the 1300 reports I have looked at, less than 1% mention horns, even less mentions whiskers. Should I regard horns as significant in that case?
Other animals vary within their species. Some have tusks, some don't, some change color for various reasons. Some have manes, so do not. Why do you force the Loch Ness Monster to be one size fits all? The only reason I can see is to win an argument.
I grant that some of the features described may not be there at all. Some of those 1300 reports will be hoaxes, some will be attempts to discern features at 400, 600, 800 metres. No witness is perfect and will introduce errors of observation. But for you to go to one extreme and discount all this is simplistic, rash and unoriginal!
GB, if you seriously feel you can just brush aside these descriptive differences, it's you who is posting just to try to win an argument. I've seen you and others mention that there's enough eyewitness testimony for Nessie to satisfy a court of law. Well I'd suggest these big differences would enable a barrister to rip the case to pieces.
DeleteYou suggest that the distances of the observations explain these discrepancies. Well in that case, don't the distances also suggest misidentification of known animals as a likely explanation?
As for myths dying out - I think we've witnessed that process in action with nessie since the 1970s. I'm sure it will never completely die, but it's in intensive care. :)
So what you're saying Tobias is that other than the hoaxes, all the others were mistaken? Now that is something that I find impossible to believe.
DeleteTobias, I am not surprised you ignore the reasons I give for sightings varying in description. Yes, a witness can get finer details wrong, but you seem to think that if you can't get the minor details right, you won't get the major ones right either! A logical fallacy indeed.
DeleteSo, a witness describes a long necked creature with two humps out at 200 metres. The witness then says he couldn't be sure if eyes were visible or not. You turn round and say - "Ah! Wintness uncertainty! Must have been a cormorant."
This is the kind of "superior" sceptical thinking this blog has to put up with.
Just accept that a witness can be certain about the general "big picture" of what they are seeing, but whether there were eyes, horns, whiskers or the gradation of the roughness or smoothness of the skin is another matter.
If you can't see the difference, there's no point in talking further about this matter.
As for myths dying, I am sure they were saying that about Nessie after the second world war.
And as for barristers, I am sure the barristers for the defence would also have a field day with the astonishing "Greta Finlay saw a deer" theory. Lke taking candy from a baby that one.
Greta Finlay could have seen a flying ant for all you and I know, because once again there was no photo or video. She was free to give any description she chose and there's no further analysis that can be made by any of us, including the mighty GB.
DeleteThanks for solving the Loch Ness Mystery, Anonymous. Can you reveal your identity, so we can give you the proper praise and recognition?
DeleteYes seeing is believing. Robert Rines spent over 30 years back and 2 from the states looking for nessie because of what he saw whilst in the company of other people who all agreed they were looking at a large creature.He must have been very convinced of what he saw to spend so much time of his life and even when he was 80 odd searching for the answer.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about Rines, Sid. I think he was well intentioned enough, but with hindsight I think his methods were flawed, as was his approach in general.
DeleteI think the debunking of the Rines work has lead to a lot of the modern-day scepticism of the phenomenon.
I find it hard to see why anyone thinks that there was a monster in the 1930's but not now. If there was a monster in 1930 then it must have survived for thousands of years. Therefore there must have bin a colony of these monsters. Why would they survive for thousands of years then die out within 80 years?
ReplyDeleteFor me it's down to weight of sightings then compared to now. There were spells in the 30s where there were more sightings in a morning than you get in a year these days.
DeleteLike I say, I'm sure the majority were mistaken identity or just plain made up, but even factoring that in leaves a decent volume of sightings which suggest something was in the loch. What that was is moot.
I'm less convinced something unusual is in the loch today, though I don't completely discount it.
It seems if you stick up 4 Jake then certain people claim you are him. Funny as. No im Sid and at least i put my name 2 my posts unlike the Anons. Why dont you put your name 2 your posts so we can see who we are talking 2 ?
ReplyDeleteLol wat with my bad spelling thats a big insult to ya sidney haha ! Sorry old fruit !!!! Haha
ReplyDeleteNo problem Jake . Its nice 2 see a Jake the lad construction worker in support of the monster. @ Trevor yes i agree with you but the point im getting at is Rines must have seen something that convinced him enough 2 bring his work 2 the loch 4 over 30 years.i think he saw something that he knew was a large animal moving about in the water. Another credible witness was Alister Boyd.
ReplyDeleteI notice that sid has the same problem as Jake, both are unable to use the function where you reply directly underneath the comment you're trying to reply to. You both always just start a new thread.
DeleteHow drastic..................:)
ReplyDeleteDrastically obvious clue you mean? :)
DeleteWhat a disgrace i am doing that .tut tut LOL
ReplyDeleteThere are two scenarios in which surface frequency of an actual population of animals could vary markedly during different periods. The one most mentioned here has been the possibility of extinction since the 30's. Tim suggested any species that had been present for thousands of years couldn't have simply died out in the last 80. I'd like to think that couldn't happen as well, but many animals are exquisitely sensitive to what us humans consider "small" changes in their environments. Amphibians are among these especially sensitive animals, and the numbers of salamander and frog species are crashing around us like a house of cards right now. So if we're really dealing with an amphibian of some type, then the prognosis is indeed grim.
ReplyDeleteBut I said there were two scenarios to account for a variation in surface activity, and the other is more optimistic. Instead of extinction, we could be dealing with a BEHAVIORAL change. Perhaps something could be making a population avoid the surface more in recent years OR just as likely something ELSE was causing an atypical amount of surface activity during the 1930's. Perhaps what we are going through now is normal, and it was the 30's and the years following that were the unusual period. Oft mentioned is the "coincidence" that construction of the A82 along the north side of the Loch occurred at the start of the most famous period for sightings. Tons of shoreline were dynamited and dumped into the Loch. We cannot pretend to know the full impact this had on the ecosystem of the time. Sure, rocks falling on bottom dwelling animals would stir them up, but the actual effects could have been far more subtle than a bop on the head. Did we temporarily change the chemical composition of the water, or disrupt breeding cycles even just a little? What environmental dominoes did we tip? WE might be the cause of a behavioral change that lead to more sightings, and now after 8 decades things have gotten gradually back to "normal". Meaning sightings are now the exception rather than the rule, even if the size of the population is relatively unchanged.
Thanks, Steve.
DeleteI think the dumping of thousand ot tons of rubble did disturb the ecosystem equilibirum of the creatures and did create a spike in reports. But also, the opening of the loch to road views was also influential. However, the regrowth of the shore line trees over the decades has reduced visibility and hence sightings.
One could speculate that the increased water activity is also a deterrant, but proving that is another matter.
Population decrease is a possibility, one I hope is not true.
Quite so -- many, many variables, and all in flux. I was forgetting the treeline regrowth. Offsetting that we have more eyes watching from boats, but offsetting THAT is far more engine noise. The increase in motorized craft on the Loch has been staggering (although the bookmark I saved with the stats on that now eludes me).
DeleteThen there's the low frequency hum emitted 24/7 by the newer turbines installed at the Foyers power station in the 70's. Prior to that, Mackal's hydrophone experiments recorded an unrecognizable species communicating by low frequency "clicks". But the experiment can't be repeated today because the turbine noise drowns it out with background noise. Whichever animals those were communicating (perhaps not 'Nessie', but certainly real animals) if we can't hear them anymore, then they can't hear each other either. So it's almost certain the behavior of at least one unknown species has been disrupted by this factor alone. All this is before we even get to talking about chemical pollutants and the fungal and viral infections decimating our amphibious species today.
Adrian Shine found the radioactive signature of 1960's nuclear tests, and of the Chernobyl disaster, in core samples taken from the bed of the Loch.
Yes it's a clean Loch by >our< shoddy human standards, but that's not to say we haven't changed it enough to alter both the behavior and the population size of one or more of its indigenous species.
Mackal recorded clicks. That cannot be extrapolated to "Mackal recorded an unrecognizable species communicating by low frequency clicks".
DeleteSorry, it just can't.
Impressive post. And does the Foyers hum trump the geo-stress hum which someone mentioned when I cited a 1997 Invermoriston wee hours 'sounding'?
DeleteMind you, Jan Sundberg -- admittedly a bit of a song-and-dance man -- claimed to have recorded clicks from hydrophones circa 2000.
*AnonStg*
As stated above, Mackal's clicks were apparently recorded.
DeleteDoes anybody have any idea of what happened to those recordings? It might be enlightening if we could hear them.
CL, if it is LNIB property then it will be buried deep and out of sight by Adrian Shine and the Loch Ness Project , probably never to see the light of day.
DeleteGumball, I distinctly recall that Mackal shared the recordings at the time, and no one could recognize the species making the apparent calls. Therefore my use of the term "unrecognized" is appropriate. It would have been too much to say "unknown" species or "unclassified" species, because an eventual match to a known species might one day be found, but then that's not what I said.
DeleteJust clicks. Not necessarily even animal in origin.
DeleteInteresting stuff Steve.
ReplyDeleteEvery days a school day.