It only took about 47 years, but the famous two humped monster created for the film "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" has finally been found using sonar. News story here. Once suggested as the identity of the 1975 underwater "gargoyle" picture, this was another monster that eluded hunters for decades. But a tourist unwittingly photographed it when it was undergoing trials, I wrote on that here.
I would be curious to know at what depth the prop was found out and whether a ROV may be sent down to get conclusive photographs? The sonar device employed was a Kongsberg MUNIN AUV (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle) which does have a still camera capability. So we may yet see some optical images, though it is not clear how functional such a device would be in the loch's dark, peat stained depths. Further details on this hi-tech sonar device can be found here as well as their take on this news.
In terms of the task of exploring larger areas of the loch with the AUV, we can see what area was swept during the search for the prop in the two images below. The small circle denotes the location and extent of the sweep in relation to the loch size and the actual area in the zoomed second image. The monster prop is located at the centre of the sweep.
How much the object has silted up over those decades is also interesting in relation to finding real carcasses at those depths. I note with interest that previous big publicity sonar sweeps of the loch which claimed to have found no traces of large objects managed to miss this one. Perhaps they were looking in the wrong place or were not sensitive enough?
Whatever the reasons, we have a new survey ongoing as part of the Loch Ness Project's "Operation Groundtruth". I am ambivalent on what is to be found in terms of monster carcasses. How many such carcasses lie on the bottom of the loch? How buried are they in silt? Have most of the bones mainly dissolved away (more likely for cartilaginous bones)?
That does not mean we should not look, so I wish Adrian luck in tracking down anything of a more monstrous nature.
POSTSCRIPT: As an addenda, I heard Adrian Shine stating on an American broadcast that this was a known sonar anomaly. So, the implication is that conventional sonar had detected something of note, but it was not good enough to resolve the image into something identifiable. I suspect there are a good number of such contacts which lack enough definition and require better technology to resolve them.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
The BBC claimed they covered every inch of the loch in 2003 with multi sonar beams and found nothing ! Enough said.
ReplyDeleteThe sonar image taken by the AUV was quite close to the surface. I don't think it is looking for open water monsters. But it does seem that the previous sonar scans lacked the resolution of this device.
DeleteAnd yet they didn't see this presumably life-size Nessie-shaped thing. What else didn't they see?
DeleteThere is as much chance of finding monsters sitting on the bottom floor or in the side walls ( probably more ) than there is of finding them in open water, so their claim of covering every inch of the loch can now be taken as wrong.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! Bbc said they did this one from " top to bottom"! Obviously not! 600 sonar beams and ya can't find a 30ft model monster! Just proves these sonar sweeps are a waste of time!
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of sonar i went on a cruise from Fort Augustus,the lad in charge told me he had had a couple of big blips deep down only last week.
ReplyDeleteYou should ask him to see the video.
DeleteRight at the start of the season. Funny that eh?
DeleteAm I correct in remembering that the 2003 scans were a failure in the sense that they did not pick up an air trace, ie. In the lungs of some creature? Which was obviously the wrong premise to begin with. However this is interesting, and more data is needed, as you say GB.
ReplyDeleteGB "The sonar image taken by the AUV was quite close to the surface" In fact the company web site states 180 meters
ReplyDeleteLets keep things in perspective, this is not a Nessie hunt. It's a survey of Loch Ness supported by the Loch Ness project and VisitScotland.
Didnt the AAS team pick this up on sonar in the 70's ?
ReplyDeleteThere are various types of sonar scans, I think in the 70s/80s? they used 'side scan' sonar. Think of a half moon shape below the boat, that's the shape of the sonar search beam.
DeleteWhat these people are using (as did the Titanic search and the on going search for the lost Malaysian aircraft) is 'bottom' (there might be another technical term) sonar, whereby the sea bed/Loch bed are only being scanned, nothing else at top/middle depths.
This proves the difficulties of searching Loch Ness, 47 years to locate a stationary 30ft nessie shaped object. Bob Rines searches missed this and yet he scoured the Loch bed with the purpose of finding fixed bottom objects.
ReplyDeleteVery good point. As Adrian Shine said, it's a lost world. But maybe the loch is finally becoming transparent as we continue to develop sonar of this standard and beyond.
DeleteI might be wrong Jack but Im sure I read a while back that Rines actually did locate tne Sherlock Holmes monster.
DeleteIt's great to see that an instrument is put too use with the resolution to more clearly depict underwater objects!! Look at the clarity of the underwater LNM model. Other sonar systems just add more confusion to the matter with blurry smears of " something "
ReplyDeleteIn your searching Loch Ness Roland have you ever spoke to eyewitness Rory Mackintosh? ( sorry if I spelled his name incorrect)
ReplyDeleteHe claims to have seen a massive bus sized creature breach the Loch surface and crash down creating huge waves. He was interviewed on PBS Nova Beast of Loch Ness documentary as you are sure to remember. He didn't mention details other than it's tremendous size. If you have ever questioned his account us Nessie believers would love to know more.
Am I correct in remembering that the 2003 scans were a failure in the sense that they did not pick up an air trace, ie. In the lungs of some creature? Which was obviously the wrong premise to begin with. However this is interesting, and more data is needed, as you say GB.
ReplyDeletein reference to the Rines photographs, on pg. 284 appendix C of his book 'The Monsters of Loch Ness', Roy Mackal mentions the movie prop. Frank Searle, in his book 'Loch Ness Investigation-what really happened' pg. 18, also claimed to have underwater photos of the model.
ReplyDeleteSearle claimed the model was clearly visible in shallow water!
DeleteHe really was a lunatic.
Perhaps looking at his reflection?
DeleteEither that or he had the eyes of superman
ReplyDelete