Friday, 7 August 2015

Loch Ness Monster report from 1998






When I was camping at Loch Ness last May, I met a young man by the name of Gary Northorpe who was working in the area. Naturally, (if I am involved in the conversation), matters turned to the Loch Ness Monster. Gary then volunteered information about a sighting he had as a kid. 

He recounted that when he was 12 years old, he had been on a trip to Inverness from his home in Arbroath. In the car with him were his uncle, aunt and two cousins. It was a summer day and the weather was sunny and the loch had a flat, calm surface. Gary reckoned it would have been between 12 and 3pm as they motored down the A82 while he trained a pair of binoculars on the loch, hoping for a glimpse of the loch's famous resident.

As he continued to watch the waters, something appeared in his field of view in the middle of the loch. For up out of the water appeared a dark hump-like shape. Puzzled by what he was seeing, he continued to watch the object through the binoculars. After what he estimated was about five seconds, the object disappeared back into the water; no more to be seen.

Not surprisingly, when he excitedly told his car companions what he saw, no one believed him and they continued on and away from Loch Ness. Based on the fact that he was now 29 years old, we placed the sighting in the Summer of 1998.

I asked Gary to draw what he saw that day and it is shown at the top of this page. The drawing does indeed reflect the most common type of Nessie sighting, the single hump. Given he was now older and had had some time now to observe the moods of the loch, I asked if it could have been a boat wake he was witnessing. He discounted that explanation based on the dome shape of the object and the fact that it submerged.

Others may suggest that he saw a seal on a rare trip to Loch Ness. I wouldn't discount that possibility since we have a record of a seal in Loch Ness in the following year of 1999. Whether there was a seal in Loch Ness in 1998 is not clear and it is simplistic to call upon this solution purely on a convenience basis.

As a comparison, there is the video sequence below taken by Geoff Mitchinson perhaps only weeks after on the 5th September 1998. This is also a fleeting appearance of a hump like object. Are they the same creature? Seal or monster?



The main issue is the sighting lasted only five seconds and it is not clear how big the object was given it was exclusively seen in the narrow field of view of binoculars. If Gary had been on the shore and had time to continue watching, we may have had more information to aid an assessment of this possible Nessie sighting. You can read about more 1998 reports on Gary Campbell's sightings website.

As an aside, I also spoke to a lady who was working on the campsite who had seen something odd some months before as she looked out on the loch from Foyers. At first she thought it was some canoes making their way down the loch, but on a further look, she realised there was no canoes causing the wave patterns. I took note of what she said, but whether she saw something to do with the Loch Ness Monster is hard to say.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



23 comments:

  1. Probably the last 5 seconds of a wave. Can't take this one seriously. Glimpse at the loch and see a wave for 5 seconds and it will be gone before it has been fully processed.

    Yet another of the many misidentifications I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems you have had a more in depth conversation with the witness than I have? The wave thing was discussed and was rejected.

      Delete
    2. It hasn't been rejected by me. The man saw a wave.

      Delete
    3. Yes, thanks for your forthrightness, but that doesn't cut the mustard here.

      Delete
    4. Argument against bow wave is the height to length ratio is too high and the shape is too rounded at the top. Waves tend to form peaks.

      If it was a churning wave, it would be one amongst many.

      Delete
    5. When you say it doesn't cut the mustard here, I think you mean every sighting is a monster until proven otherwise. Is that a sensible approach to take?

      Delete
    6. No.

      I mean at best the anonymous poster needs to develop his argument further on this website.

      Delete
  2. I have never used binoculars from a moving car but I imagine it can be quite tricky. It would be interesting to know if the far shore was in his field of view, which would give some indication of distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was speaking to Gary this weekend, but I didn't ask that.

      Delete
  3. To the anonymous poster, don't make claims unless you put your name against them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the anonymous poster who has now attached a name, email me at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

      Delete
  4. What happened to Daz and his plans to use 3D sonar in Loch Ness last month?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not got back to me on his personal email.

      Delete
    2. Just passing by, an update. Since mid July the sonar has been tested off the coast of Plymouth (UK) It's not a case of open the box, read instructions and away you go.

      I'm indebted to the help of an ex RN sonar operator who along with others have been testing the sonar. It seems (so I have been informed) there is a technical/hardware problem.

      The unit has been sent back to the manufactures for testing. I'll report updates as an when.

      Daz

      Delete
    3. Another person in a long line of those happy to waste their time and money.

      Delete
  5. Whatever is in the 1998 video is very close to shore, in what is probably very shallow water. It is probably not a lake monster. The sighting could have been a boat - Dinsdale filmed something that looks just like the sketch, and some people say Dinsdale filmed a boat. I know Gary said he saw it surface, but if he was in a moving car looking through binoculars he would not be seeing the same section of water for very long at all. If it was a boat moving the opposite direction of the car it could appear in his FOV suddenly and then be just as suddenly. Trying to find that object again through binocs with both car and boat continuing away from each other would not be easy. Sounds like it could be a mistake by an eager for a sighting witness...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bit hard to tell. It just shows you that even camcorder footage does not produce conclusive footage of what the candidates for a sighting might be!

      Not a wave though.

      Delete
    2. It's the colour of a seal. My guess is it's a seal. Next!

      Delete
  6. Hi there. I'm from Utah and I been spending the last week goin thru all the pages of this Nessie blog. Ive gotten to know the whole darn nine yards of the mystery and its a goddam hoot, y'all!

    Aint nuthin but waves, loggin and common critters in that big ol loch though. The talk by the folks below the blog stories have given that verdict for sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All the pages? That's 400+ articles.

      You're welcome to your opinion, but there's more to this than waves, loggin (?) and common critters!

      Delete
    2. I been reading this 5 year old blog for the past 3 and a half years and I still haven't caught up with all the articles. So much to absorb and sort out to make a snap judgment. There's got to be something to the mystery. Loggin? Is there a logging industry at Loch Ness? I agree with Hank, It can be a hoot at times!

      Delete
  7. I give Me Wagner a 0-100 chance of existing.
    As regards the footage, it looks like a seal until you see the birds in the foreground. I'm quite familiar with seals swimming, but with the birds as comparison, it looks unusually large to be a seal.
    Waves that are seen from a low angle of view may converge to form what appears to be a solid object, so it would depend on Gary's angle from the road as to whether he had seen a wave. But it sounds like he didn't. I don't think I have ever seen a wave from a high angle of view that I could have mistaken for a solid object, and by high angle, I mean any that is higher than the shore really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be a seal, but it would indeed have to be a fleeting view.

      Delete