Tuesday 30 June 2015

Thoughts on John MacLean, Lachlan Stuart and the An Seileag




First off, I wrote an article on the famous John MacLean sighting a while back. The item was linked by James Jeffrey Paul a few days back which led to a comment by well known Nessie sceptic, Tony Harmsworth. He "explained" to James that it was a combination of a cormorant and waves. Shall we now go home? Not likely.

So what gets on my pectorals more than anything else in this subject? It's sceptics dissing and dumbing down Nessie witnesses without exception. It can be summed up in that most unusual of sceptical dogmas:

No Loch Ness Monster eyewitness has ever accurately described what they claimed to see.

That applies to all 1500 or so reports that we know about. Yes, it does sound counter-intuitive, doesn't it? But the only way they get away with this outlandish axiom is because the alternative is seen as even more counter-intuitive by the general public; that a monster inhabits Loch Ness. Sorry, but one implausibility should not rely on another for its justification.

But John MacLean was a local man who fished Loch Ness, I think he would have had some experience of the wildlife around Loch Ness. How much experience do you need around the loch to recognise a cormorant?

He was only about sixty feet from this animal, how close do you have to be to recognise a cormorant?

He observed this creature for six minutes, how long do you need to tell a cormorant from a monster?

Clearly none of this is relevant to the sceptic.


LACHLAN STUART

Thirteen years later, Lachlan Stuart claimed to have seen and photographed the Loch Ness Monster on the other side of the loch. Tony Harmsworth also has a hook into this story in his 1985 booklet, The Mysterious Monsters of Loch Ness. In this short work, he states that Richard Frere approached him and told him that he had witnessed Lachlan Stuart and Taylor Hay set up hay bales and tarpaulin to photograph a hoax.

This was at variance with later accounts which had Stuart merely confessing the deed to Frere. Tony stood by his version until he stated "I got it wrong" at the Nessie at 80 conference. Given the 28 year gap between booklet and recantation, I put it to you the recall of the 1985 Tony would be more reliable than the 2013 Tony.

But my main point here was I always wondered what a hay bale from that time would have looked like. Eventually I found a 1950s picture of Inchnacardoch Bay with hay bales in the distance. Judge for yourselves whether these types of objects are up to the task. I would say the job is not so clear cut as some make out, but no doubt one or two sceptics will come up with creative answers.



As a comparison, here is a photograph of hay bales in an Irish field.



THE AN SEILEAG

Moving on to more folkloric times, I recently found this story from The Celtic Review of 1905. It is set in the Isle of Lewis and Harris amongst the small lochs of that island. 

Many years have passed since my old grandmother told me the tale; and she said that it was a very old story then. In the lochs there dwelt a huge monster, a water-horse. He was very dangerous. He used to swell the loch, so that any one that happened to be in the neighbourhood was swept into it, and afterwards devoured. This monster had a liking for women and children, whom he enticed to his dwellings under the loch, there to eat them up. The grass round the loch also served him for food. Not very long ago there was a seileig in a loch over the way of Leurbost.

A seileig is not the same as the each-uisge. It is like an enormous eel, and is supposed to come from the sea. Several people saw a part of this seileig rise like an island in the middle of the loch. They got a big hook and fastened it to a long chain. On the hook they hung the carcass of a sheep, and threw it into the loch. Next day they pulled out the chain. The sheep was gone, and the great hook had been pulled straight.

There was a burn running from the loch to the sea, and some time after, when it was in spate, the people saw traces along the sides of the burn as if some slimy monster had been making its way from the loch to the sea. It must have been the seileig for nothing more was seen of it in the loch. 

Giant eels form part of the tapestry of Scottish monsters. For example, one could argue that we can read an eel into the etymology of Loch Shiel (gaelic sealg or seileig).

AND KELPIES

Finally, a poem about the feared Kelpie taken from the The Mataura Ensign newspaper dated 6th May 1892.



76 comments:

  1. Geordie Sceptic30 June 2015 at 15:00

    There were always more than one shape of hay bales, GB. That is that point cleared up.

    Now, eyewitness accounts are so varied and no one has ever captured a clear and convincing photo, film or video of anything unusual. That is despite 1500 reports, and you always tell us the true number is at least double that.

    So once again the question boils down to which is more likely - repeated eyewitness error, or a colony of animals resistant to all forms of image capture which also never leaves any trace of a corpse?

    For the vast majority, eyewitness error is by far the more likely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think your points have been answered in previous articles and comments. No need to go over the same ground again.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic2 July 2015 at 05:33

      The article brings up the old point about how not all witnesses can be mistaken. Hence my tired old reply.

      Took 2 days for my comment to appear!

      Look, I really don't want to be seen as the bad guy always annoying GB. Perhaps if I could see in clear terms what is unacceptable to post on here, I will be able to adhere to it. Currently it feels like insults and repetition are fine when aimed at sceptics, but cannot be allowed when fired the other way. If there was a clear and fairly policed set of posting rules, I would happily follow them, as long as they weren't simply designed to stifle free speech.

      How about it, GB? And just to be clear, if anyone else has a pop at this post they need to recognise when someone is extending an olive branch.

      Delete
  2. It's easy to be a skeptic. Anything that is unprecedented or physically unproven is simply said to be mistaken on the part of the observer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geordie Sceptic1 July 2015 at 02:42

      Funnily enough I think the opposite. Just like everyone else on here, I desperately wanted the Loch Ness Monster to be real. I very reluctantly had to accept it wasn't after I examined the (lack of) evidence closely.

      Hopefully my earlier post will appear soon. I'm not sure why it hasn't yet.

      Delete
    2. I have to agree with Geordie here as someone who has been visiting the Loch for over 20 years and also dropping in on this blog daily since it first started I wouldn’t say that it has been an easy decision to come to but I am now firmly in the sceptic camp.

      Funnily enough although I have built up a fair collection of books on the subject and read all the available information online it is GB’s in depth analysis of the available evidence that has finally made me come to a decision that I personally do not believe that there are any large animals in Loch Ness and I cannot understand how anyone who studies the information available can come to any other conclusion.

      However I will always find the subject interesting and continue to visit the area and this blog .


      Delete
    3. Dawsey, I don't think 1500+ reports are so easily dismissed. What is your interpretation of the MacLean sighting?

      Delete
    4. Dawsey? DAWSEY??(hes having a jar with Geordie)..

      Delete
  3. I'd like to know what color hay tarps were back in the 1950's. Did they tend to be black?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was going to look around for images of 1950s tarpaulin, not enought time to waste!

      Delete
  4. What I'm finding interesting in this post is comparing the idea, today, that "Nessie (if it exists) somehow harmless, while in the past creatures like it (again, if real) were considered deadly-dangerous. Maybe, assuming a real creature, those back then knew something we don't?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hay bales vary. One photo like this only tells us about one particular shape of hay bale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I am sure they do in Cornwall, Norfolk and Wales. Unlike you, I have provided photographic proof of the most likely configuration for the area and year.

      Was that also an admission that the hay bales shown are not up to the job?

      Delete
    2. No it was a dismissal of your idea that this photo says anything about the Lachlan Stuart photo.

      Delete
    3. But surely if the hay bales presented were adequate for the task, you would have no need to invoke another explanation?

      And, yes, it was a dismissal, just not a very good one.

      Delete
    4. One photo of one field is totally pointless in this context.

      Delete
    5. You guys know the value of everything and the value of nothing.

      A picture of how hay bales were created at a point near the time time and place of the Stuart picture means nothing.

      If they looked exactly like the three humps, you'd be all over it like a rash.

      Delete
    6. I'm afraid I don't understand your argument at all. These hay bales do not in any way suggest that other shaped hay bales don't exist. The equivalent would be for a skeptic to show a photo of a swan on the loch and declare it as proof that all Nessie sightings are swans.

      Baffling me this one, Roland.

      Delete
    7. Fair play to you GB for dealing with the default sceptics day and daily. Funny how they see what they want to see, and then accuse open minded people of doing the same. It's a poor show, and poor science. Something doesn't 'not exist' simply because we want it to. How very arrogant some of us have become.

      Delete
    8. The argument is I have a photo to back up what I am saying, you're asking us to assume your counter argument is correct without any backup. It could be that this style of hay baling was the only way of doing hay in 1950s Loch Ness, can you offer proof to the contrary?

      Delete
    9. Ha ha no one has to, Roland! You're acting like a photo of some hay in a field proves that Lachlan photographed a monster. This is so crazy I can scarcely believe you hold down a normal working life!

      Delete
    10. Can you offer proof of Nessie?

      Delete
    11. Martin, no one wants Nessie to not exist. But also as grown ups we can't ignore the fact that it's not there, just because we want it to exist. That's like believing in Santa.

      Delete
    12. You're not applying logic correctly. I am attempting to disprove the sceptical theory NOT prove the monster theory.

      Delete
    13. Santa? Your opinion, of course.

      Delete
    14. "Can you offer proof of Nessie?"

      You mean summarise my blog? I would rather you read the blog.

      Delete
    15. I have. Lots of words but no monster.

      Delete
    16. Edit: "I have. Lots of words but no monster, in my opinion."

      Delete
  6. Geordie Sceptic2 July 2015 at 13:01

    http://www.sulgrave.org/OLD%20SULGRAVE/More%20Photos%2004.html

    Well would you believe it, people wearing 1950s clothing, handling rectangular hay bales, dang!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ??

      I already admitted above that you would have got various shapes all over the UK. The point is I have a picture from the time and place near Lachlan Stuart.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic2 July 2015 at 22:18

      And where do you find any suggestion that the field in the photo is the one from which LS obtained his hay bales? Where also do you find evidence that no other fields were nearby with the rectangular shape of hay bale? This is so silly as to be embarrassing, GB. Using your logic we could also say that the photo is proof that every field around Loch Ness was used to grow corn, unless we can prove otherwise!

      I think you've veered way off the logic road on this one.

      Delete
    3. I don't think you quite understand my approach. I am dealing here with known quantities, you are dealing in abstracts. The former usually trumps the latter.

      I present a contemporary photo of hay bales that look less than useful for a monster hoax. You can only reply by suggesting possibilties rather than proof.

      So when asking the question "what kind of hay bales were used at Loch Ness in the 1950s", so far we can find only one example.

      You may eventually find one from the right time and place, but until then, I have the photo, you just have words.

      (Not that this is a very important matter, my analysis of Frere's conflicting stories, etc cast doubt upon the hay bale story anyway).

      I am sure this will keep you sceptics busy on google images over the school holidays.

      Delete
    4. You don't have a photo other than one of a field. No link whatsoever between that field and Lachlan Stuart. Mate you're embarrassing yourself on this one.

      Delete
    5. I have a photo, you have words!

      Delete
  7. GB - would you say it is reasonable to assume that hay bales (covered in tarpaulin, and wet) may alter shape/be manipulated into a shape?

    There is no way to prove that this is a 'monster', and equally no way to prove that this is not a 'monster' - but as a member of the jury I am unconvinced by this photograph.

    This does not, however, mean that I do not think some strange animal exists/has existed in Loch Ness and other Scottish Lochs!

    Cheers,

    DB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, but I think I would look elsewhere rather than the ones under discussion.

      Delete
    2. I think on balance of probabilities, we have an oddity here. It may not be 'beyond reasonable doubt' for some people, ie. a body. I am grown up by the way with a degree and a very enquiring mind. I don't know it all and accept that, which is why I can be open minded and 'not know' what we have here, unlike you anonymous, who knows that this huge body of evidence amounts to nothing......

      Delete
  8. Pains me to say this. I love this blog and have done for years. But critical thinking and common sense have gone completely AWOL on this article.

    I do believe Roland will return to form soon though!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it has more exposed the less than joined up thinking of some comments here!

      Delete
  9. I agree that MacLean didn't see a cormorant. And to extrapolate from 20 ft length above the water to 50-60 ft total length is ludicrous - otters frequently show their whole length while swimming. My feeling is that the drawings must be stylised, i.e. they show parts of the animal that he saw at different times as if they were all seen simultaneously. This is quite common with witnesses who have no artistic training.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 50-60ft refers to the distance to the creature, not its length.

      The drawings are consistent with the report from the Aberdeen P&J I reproduced.


      Delete
  10. Well, I am off abroad on holiday now. So comments are not going to appear for a long time.

    Have a good vacation/holiday wherever you are.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Enjoy ur hols GB.. im off to loch ness in a fortnight. I will let u know anything of intrest i hear. ....bon voyage :)))))

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi there

    Just to let you know that Nessie is on the front page of today's Daily Star (Friday 17th July) with the headline "Fishy Truth About Loch Ness Monster". There's a nice mock photo of Nessie, and then when you turn to page 11 a disappointlingly small article about the fact that Steve Feltham has given up on his search for the monster because he believes it was a giant Wels catfish.

    I haven't seen Nessie on the front cover of a tabloid for many years, and was pleased to see this today.

    Mike, Huddersfield

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read that too. At least one must give credit to the guy for his perseverance over the years.

      Daz

      Delete
  13. I saw it today in the sun newspaper. 24 years and he thinks it is a catfish. I bet he feels a bit silly.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why do all the reports claim he is an expert ? He is not an expert at all.He is just a bloke that sits in a caravan, and catfish were introduced to english lakes not scottish highland lochs. And as Roland points out , sightings go back years before the 1930's so the claim they only reached maturity then is clearly nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who's been studying the Loch for 24 years, I'd give the kudos of being an expert. He's entitled to his theory. Has any of of us been so dedicated?

      Delete
    2. In my book, moving to the Loch, reading all available literature, speaking to witnesses, scientists and sceptics alike, and then liviing on the shore and studying the Loch for quarter of a century makes him an expert. What criteria would you demand , 'anonymous'?'

      Delete
  15. Yes he is entitled to his opinion. But 24 years sitting in a caravan does not make him an expert. How can anyone be an expert in the loch ness monster?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course he's an expert! But that doesn't mean he or anyone is right or wrong on various Nessie opinions. It's all about opinions (depsite the arrogant self assured tones you'll get elsewhere).

      Delete
  16. I to was quite surprised and taken aback at Steve Feltham's pronouncement that he now believes a giant catfish is responsible for LNM saga, Just a wild guess I would say. Well, fair is fair, giant salamander, giant eel, giant fish, giant long neck seal, giant whatever. To each his own, I'll stick to the giant “something” theory.

    And I agree with some of the previous post, that just living on the loch side and watching the waters does not make him an expert on the LNM! If that were the case,and by that logic, then everybody living by the loch is an expert. But, to be fair, Feltham does not proclaim to be an expert, it's the media who put that tag on him. One has to admire his dedication and tenacity, you can't take that away from him. I probably would have given up years ago. His real claim to fame and part of his legacy will no doubt be his part in exposing the Edwards hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Have u seen your blogs bin slagged off loads on lake monster skeptic's forum fb page?!!? Think they set it up wen u were away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skeptics forum ??????? Lol u cudnt make it up haha think sum people need to find a hobby or two lol :)))

      Delete
    2. Jake, you and John Alvarado have both been mentioned on the Facebook page for your outstanding contributions to the advancement of science.

      Delete
    3. Thanks. Any recognition we can get is always welcomed. When are the Nobel Prize ceremonies?

      Delete
    4. Lol ...love it dormouse. I wudnt like it any other way :))) pass me a tennents !!! Ha ha

      Delete
    5. I hope the prize is a week's supply of tennents for my stay :)) i enjoy the mystery in a casual way and always have fun....unlike some people !!!!!!!! Lol . Just at the loch now, no sign of any cstfish or sturgeon's or anything jurrasic !! I think anyone is entitled to av a snoop round the mystery.....even my humble self...... happy days folks ;)

      Delete
  18. Id be suprised if steve said that. He prob said they could account for some of the sightings!!! Anyway i will be in Loch Ness in an hour maybe i mifht spot a catfish or two :))))

    ReplyDelete
  19. Congratulations Roland! Five years of publishing this blog. Thanks for the enjoyment it brings to all us Nessie enthusiasts and I know it must be a true labor of love for you. I'm glad you decided to keep the comments section open, it just wouldn't be the same without it. Here's to five more and maybe five after that. Best regards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hooray for Roland Watson and his wonderful Loch Ness Monster blog!!!

      THREE CHEERS..... HIP HIP!!!

      Delete
    2. Free chairs! Hip hop!

      Thanks.

      Delete
    3. I hope all the negative ppl out there get our message. Glasgow Boy's blog is here too stay and we love it!!! We don't need science and clever measurements ruining our beliefs. The moaners might have the facts and science on there side but we have our monster myth or real. Its ours and we won't give up on it!!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. Seems the skeptics and the trolls also enjoy the blog for whatever it's worth, and their own reasons, for they always have their noses here. Keep going GB.

      Delete
    5. Why having a laugh? I love nessie always have done. Coolest thing eber!!! But we all know its not 4 real. It doesnt stop us from being really into it. My family have all the exibition stuff at home. Been there lots. We know its not real but its the best fun ever looking for her!!!!

      Delete
    6. I would not include myself in your "we".

      Delete
    7. I understand what Anon above is saying. Nessie is a fun subject but where's the harm in that? I think it has long been established as a fake but what the hell. It's great for Highland tourism and no one is forced to visit. Long may the interest continue.

      Delete
    8. No harm in that, I just disagree with the idea that "we all know its not 4 real".

      Delete
  20. Thing is, with the catfish theory, surely specimens have been caught in the Loch by local fishermen and week-end anglers? Have to check that out.

    Daz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe we can get Jeremy Wade back to Loch Ness to confirm the “Monster Catfish” theory.

      Delete
  21. I prefer this blog to the others. The new one is a bit daunting. It's crazy how you get so many scientist's in one place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What new one? Do you know GB?

      Delete
    2. I think that's Jake confusing Facebook with a blog, The dig about scientists is a clue, he's still rattled by having been mentioned on the Facebook page.

      Delete
    3. Looks like they all obsessed with me :)))))) lol xxxx

      Delete
    4. Hey Jake, we're famous! Next stop Cambridge for our honorary degree.

      Delete