The Mysterious MacRae Film

In 1939, Winston Churchill described Russia as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. When it comes to the MacRae film of the Loch Ness Monster, this seems an apt term for the riddle of a mysterious film of an enigmatic object.

If you stumbled across this article seeking information on the clan of MacRae or McRae or perhaps sought information on matters pertaining to history, genealogy, tartan and ancestry, you may well get some, but it comes with a tale of monsters, claims and counter claims.

ENTER TED HOLIDAY

But why should anyone be bothered about a film that has never seen the light of day? Why should it be a forum for debate? The answer lies in what it claims to offer – undisputed proof of the Loch Ness Monster. It was what Loch Ness author, F. W. Holiday, held up as the “most sensational wildlife film of all time”. If that was true, it would be a matter worth pursing and indeed a sizable number have pursued this Holy Grail of Loch Ness Monsterism with the zeal of medieval knights. But like the knights of old, the grail has not come to Camelot and various legends have perhaps grown to fill the void. 

Fifty years on, since this story first came to light, it would seem appropriate to review what has gone before us and what could lie beyond in the unwritten future. The players in this tale are varied, but all with the same intention of arriving at the truth of the matter.

The people that have contributed to what we know include Ted holiday, Mike Dash, Paul Harrison and Alan Wilkins. There will be others, but these are the ones we focus on today. I will add my own observations at the end, so I am more the editor rather than the creator of information for now.

We would not have known anything about the McRae film if it was not for Ted Holiday, maverick Nessie researcher of the 60s and 70s, who revealed the possibility of this game changing film in his 1968 book, “The Great Orm of Loch Ness”. In the chapter entitled, “Expedition '65”, Holiday tells us of his trip to Loch Ness in 1965 and an unexpected end to that particular expedition.

Ted Holiday

The evening before he left, he was informed of a man named Alastair Dallas, who had knowledge of not one but two extraordinary films. Armed with this information, Holiday stopped off on his way back to Wales, in the small Borders town of Kircudbright, where Mr. Dallas lived. Initially, he was not well received by Dallas who was surprised that he was in possession of such information. 

However, once Holiday had convinced him of his pro-monster credentials, he relented somewhat and told the story of the two films which had both been taken in the 1930s by a Doctor MacRae. The physician had retired to the shores of Loch Duich and was now deceased. But before his death he had captured two animals on two separate sequences of film.

The first was taken at Loch Ness, the other further west in Loch Duich. However, the claimed clarity and detail of the long necked animals in the films suggested they went way beyond anything yet achieved in terms of evidence for mysterious aquatic monsters. According to Holiday’s book, the film of the Loch Ness Monster is described thusly ("orm" is Holiday's name for the creature):

Mr. Dallas told me that this film runs for several minutes. Three humps, together with the neck and head, are clearly visible. The neck is held low over the water and seems to be writhing to and fro. During the sequence, a bird flies down and lands on a stone in the foreground, which helps to give scale to the picture.

The Orm's head appears to be bluntly conical in profile - rather like half a rugger ball, to quote Mr Dallas. On the crest of the head are two hornlike sense-organs. Starting between these, and running down the neck, is a bristly mane. Mr Dallas said that this mane reminded him of baleen; it is stiff yet flexible and the texture seemed to him fibrous rather than hairy. Slit-like eyes can be made out on the head but they are not very distinct.

Occasionally, the animal, rolls in the water and one of the forward flippers makes an appearance. It is thick and fleshy in section and seems to be capable of independent movement. The skin looks tough and leathery. Another interesting feature is the fact that the head seems to be in a state of continuous flux or movement, apparently due to the play of muscles under the skin.

The creature in Loch Duich is described in these terms:

The second film, which was also taken by Dr McRae, shows a creature lying in Loch Duich - a sea-loch on the Scottish west coast. The monster is lying against the shore and is writhing its neck over a bed of seaweed. It differs from the Loch Ness specimen in having a longer neck and a mane which looks tufted. A man appears in the picture during this sequence, probably in the background.

With both being shot at a range of about one hundred yards, the attraction of pursuing this matter further was not a difficult decision. However, Alastair Dallas brought the whole thing to a screeching halt with the claim that Doctor MacRae had decided to leave the films in an unnamed bank vault in a safety deposit box and put them under a legal trust until such time as the matter of the monster was taken more seriously.

One of the trustees was Dallas himself, the other was the late Colonel Sir Donald Cameron of Locheil and the third trustee he refused to name (presumably because he or she was still alive). It was only because the terms of the trust did not forbid a description of the film that allowed Dallas to relate the episode to Holiday. Beyond that, Dallas was not prepared to go further.

 Alastair Dallas

After leaving Scotland, Holiday followed up the matter with the present Donald Cameron of Locheil who denied any knowledge of the films. Further letters to Alastair Dallas went unanswered and Ted Holiday concluded he could take the matter no further.

SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH

Apart from a reference by Roy Mackal, it was not until the late 1990s that the matter was taken up again in the research of Mike Dash and Paul Harrison. By coincidence, they had both resolved to see if anything extra could be gleaned from this almost mythical tale of monsters. At this point, I defer to a talk given by Mike Dash to the Weird Weekend convention in 2008 where he laid out his findings and conclusions to the audience. You can find the talk here and I thank Mike and Paul for their permission to use material for this article.

The first question to answer was whether Dr. MacRae ever existed. Mike Dash is quite certain the answer to that question is “Yes”. Using Holiday’s statement about the doctor retiring to the shores of Loch Duich and armed with the Medical Register for that period, he was able to whittle down the various medical MacRaes to a Farquhar MacRae who lived in the village of Ratagan by the shore of Loch Duich. Using various sources, Mike pieced together a life of the man who it is claimed filmed the best evidence ever for the Loch Ness Monster.

• 1855 Born at Lochalsh
• 1884 Qualified as doctor Aberdeen
• 1888 Employed as medical officer for mining company, Rio Tinto Zinc, in Spain
• 1889 Lives on the Isle of Lewis and Harris with brother
• 1892 Moves to Newgate, London,
• 1896 Joins BMA
• 1899 Lives in Belgravia, London
• 1903 Spends one year at the Golden Square Throat Hospital
• 1904 Returns to his London private practise
• 1925 Retires and buys house in Ratagan and names it Selma (after Fingal's palace in Ossian)
• 1948 Dies in Inverness aged 92

Further research by Mike revealed nothing in the wills of MacRae or Cameron of Locheil. However, he uncovered a photograph of Farquhar MacRae taken from Volume 7 of the Celtic Monthly published in 1899 which is shown below. Interestingly, Mike also found some wax cylinders from 1908 held by the British Sound Archive in which McRae sings some Gaelic folk songs!

Farquhar MacRae

So, it seems certain that the man existed as described by Alastair Dallas. But, he had died childless in 1948. Would it be possible to find any living relatives to ask awkward questions about the Loch Ness Monster? The answer was again “Yes” and this involved the parallel research of Paul Harrison who had placed adverts in papers asking for information on the film.

This led to the great-niece of Farquhar MacRae, but she refused to discuss the matter saying there was nothing to it. However, her daughter, Fiona MacRae was a bit more forthcoming in two letters to Paul in 1998.

Farquhar MacRae was born in Lochalsh, December 1855, he died in 1948 and is buried with his father in Kirkston of Lochalsh. He was unmarried. I have heard a story about photographs, not film, that he had taken of the Loch Ness Monster, but know nothing of their whereabouts.

Farquhar MacRae was a cousin of my husband's grandfather. As far as we remember, the film/photo story came to us from his uncle, who died some 30 years ago. I am sorry I can't tell you more. 

Since this letter is dated 1998, the story coming from a relative before he died some "30 years ago", places that before the publication of Holiday's book. At the same time, Mike Dash had constructed a family tree and contacted another relative, Jack MacRae, who lived nearby in Inverinate. He replied:

A rumour has appeared in the Inverness area that Dr F. made a film of the Loch Ness Monster, and that it was stored in a bank on his death. It's not known where he banked in his later years  - could be a London bank. Dr Mary makes light of the rumour, so I wouldn't worry much about it.

Dr. Mary was the mother of the aforementioned Fiona MacRae. Both are tantalising pieces of information, though one might try and argue that the Jack MacRae rumours were a result of Holiday's book rather than an independent source. These accounts might add some weight to the veracity of the story, but, ultimately, do not really take us much further forward.

However, another player enters the stage when Roy Mackal wrote his 1976 book, "The Monsters of Loch Ness". In discussing the MacRae film, he mentions the work of researcher, Alan Wilkins. This is a name which some readers may recall as he was credited with taking a somewhat grainy film of Nessie back in 1975. In fact, I still recall seeing the pictures as a teenager, having cut it out for my clippings collection.

Mackal informs us that Wilkins was told by Dallas that he disputed the account by Holiday and said there was no trust, only one film taken at Loch Duich and he did not know where this was. As a result of this confusion, Mackal declares the film "unacceptable as evidence".

Mike Dash pursued the matter further in the 1990s and added some detail when he spoke to Wilkins by phone. When Wilkins made contact with Dallas in 1974, unlike Holiday, he was refused an audience. According to Mike Dash, parley was eventually granted, but only through an intermediary whom Dallas knew, by the name of Tom Skinner.

Skinner relayed Dallas’ answers back to Wilkins and they painted a different picture to the one presented in Holiday’s book. According to this interview with Dallas, there was only one film and it had been taken at Loch Duich, and it was not as clear as originally claimed. The purported Loch Ness film was actually a sighting Dallas had himself of Nessie on land in September 1936. Dallas claimed that Holiday had completely twisted his original story.

Dallas provided a basic sketch to Wilkins of the creature he claimed to have seen half out of the water in the 1930s. He then later sent what he said was a contemporary sketch and is shown below. I have covered this report before and it is a rather strange creature with multiple dorsal fins, droopy ear like structures and a mouth apparently sucking on a rock. Mike Dash was quite convinced that this was indeed warped by Holiday and did a point by point comparison of the creature described in the Loch Ness film above with the Dallas drawing. We have no record of Holiday’s reply to this accusation, but like Holiday before him, Wilkins closed the case and moved on.

Alastair Dallas' Monster

Around this time, Mike Dash made contact with Alastair Dallas’ son and put again the questions to him that Holiday and Wilkins had done before. In a now familiar refrain, his son denied any  knowledge of any such film and suggested that his father had made up the whole thing and suggested there was nothing to see here and move on. He told them his father had a penchant for tall tales and this was likely one of those tales.

And there our tale of sensational films of mysterious monsters grinds to a halt. What are we to make of it all? Is it an artist’s fantasy from the Borders, unwittingly aided by an over-zealous monster hunter? 

Indeed, as Mike Dash points out, the idea of a trust with no obvious beneficiary seems ill conceived. Nor is it likely to be a vehicle which could legally carry on in perpetuity. All the supposed trustees must be dead now, so where is the film now? Does it lie languishing in a bank vault, outlasting its protectors? In fact, how could it lie in a vault if no one is paying the annual fees for such a service? Moreover, the presence of a trust presupposes a solicitor, so what was their duty should all the trustees die?

A FURTHER PUZZLE

During the course of Mike's research, he stumbled upon a further conundrum. Farquhar MacRae succeeded a Farquhar Matheson as President of the Gael Society of London. So what, you may ask? As it turns out, Matheson had a famous sighting of a sea serpent back in 1893 in the Kyle of Lochalsh near Loch Duich. In fact, the Farquhars were both ENT doctors, both from the same distant parish and both are buried in the same cemetery in nearby Glenelg!

Is it just coincidence that two Farquhars who were sequential Gaelic Society Presidents also had experiences of sea serpents? Mike Dash thinks this synchronicity might mean something, but can't  come to a compelling conclusion. A contemporary drawing of Matheson's sighting is shown below.

Farquhar Matheson's Monster

The conclusion of the researchers is that there is nothing or little of substance to the Loch Ness story, though there is still held out the hope of some kind of film or photograph of something in Loch Duich, though not as sensational as first made out. Indeed, to recall the Grail metaphor in the context of an Indiana Jones film, this Holy Grail may yet turn out to be no more than an unappealing cup.

Then again, it may not.

FURTHER THOUGHTS

Gathering everything together, this is a case which has always proved an entertaining diversion for me as I speculated where that McRae film may or may not be. Back in the 1960s, researchers would have been more focused on the various hi-tech experiments at the loch and would have been confident that their work would render a 30 year old film surplus to requirements. With the failures of the 1960s and 70s, researchers took a fresh look at the legendary film.

I did some digging around myself, albeit aware that the aforementioned researchers had already done a lot of the digging for the Nessie community. The first thing is the alleged twisting of the story by Holiday. To recap, Dallas told Wilkins (via Skinner) that Holiday had screwed up and confused his own sighting with a presumed film taken at Loch Ness by MacRae.

Now since we are told by Dallas' own son that he was prone to telling tall tales, one wonders whether Dallas is the one screwing things up? Reading Holiday's account, it is clear that he mentions not only the two films, but also the Dallas sighting. So it seems Holiday did distinguish between the three events without any conflation. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Holiday could confuse the story that much.

Mike Dash compares the Dallas sighting with the Holiday description of the Loch Ness film and thinks there are parallels which suggest conflation of stories. I am not so convinced by that. Indeed, one could argue that the description of the Loch Duich creature correlates more with Dallas' own sighting. Note how the Duich creature is described as lying on the shore, just like the Dallas land sighting. It could be argued that Holiday was confusing this rather than the other.

But, if Dallas was a tall tale teller, why trust him ahead of Holiday? On the other hand, if Dallas was lying, how did he manage to connect himself with a doctor from a remote hamlet who was forty years his senior? Form your own opinion on who might be the one who is exaggerating.

THE ABBEY CONNECTION

The other point of interest is that it was not Dallas that told Holiday about the films, but an unnamed individual at Loch Ness. Indeed, Holiday states that this person told him there were not one but two films. This would appear to be independent confirmation of the films, but Holiday does not say who this person was. However, there is a clue in the text which points to Fort Augustus Abbey.

We are told in Holiday's book that he and Dallas discussed a sighting by a Prior of the Abbey who was a friend of MacRae. Why would they focus on this obscure sighting? What was the catalyst for this minor topic?  I suspect it was because someone at the Abbey was involved in the story of the MacRae mystery. I am only aware of one Abbey Prior who claimed a sighting of the monster and that was Sir David Oswald Hunter-Blair who was in charge of the Abbey until 1917 but returned there on other occasions.

Sir Oswald Hunter-Blair

This abbot connection was not lost on Mike Dash, who wondered if such a person was the third, unnamed trustee. But since Hunter-Blair died in 1939, Mike concentrated on later abbots of the monastery.  I myself am more focused on Hunter-Blair who was one of the Monster’s supporters during the 1930s; which is probably no surprise if he claimed to have seen it.

However, Hunter-Blair was long dead before Holiday's tip off in 1965. Who could the informant have been? One could draw up a list of suspects, but my money is on Fr. Aloysius Carruth, a Brother at Fort Augustus Abbey best known for his popular booklet, "Loch Ness and its Monster".

Fr. Aloysius Carruth

Carruth's Booket

One possible link here is an article by Dick Raynor on this film which says of Carruth:

The last I heard of him was that he was engaged in missionary work in southern Africa. Significantly, perhaps, the Dallas family received a letter from a Catholic mission in southern Africa asking if the McRae film could be used to raise funds for their work.

Did Carruth get wind of the MacRae film via some direct or indirect information from Hunter-Blair? The two men could have overlapped as Carruth's booklet first came out in 1939, so a conversation may have happened before Hunter-Blair died. A search of Carruth's booklet reveals nothing about the film and does not even mention Hunter-Blair's sighting. Ultimately, we won't know anything more without some new revelation.

AN INTERESTING SIGHTING

As to the Hunter-Blair's sighting, this is mentioned in Constance Whyte’s “More than a Legend” published in 1957. However, on checking the two sources stated, I don't think the sighting she refers to was actually witnessed by him. That he did see something is clearly stated in his own book "A Last Medley of Memories" published in 1936. We even read that he recounted this sighting to Pope Pius XI during an audience.

But despite consulting his works and even making further enquiries to his great-great-nephew, nothing more could be gleaned concerning this sighting. For a man who was quick to promote the monster, he was fairly cagey about his own sighting - just one sentence in the whole scanned literature. I had speculated whether Hunter-Blair was present at the MacRae filming, but we won't know from his own briefest of accounts.

But is it possible that the MacRae sighting is already on the record? A look at the four hundred sightings between 1933 and 1936 for descriptions of a beast that rolled like the MacRae one proved to be very rare. I found only one candidate which described a hump, long neck and rolling motion. It is a little known sighting from 15th July 1934 witnessed by a Mrs Biddle from a Fort Augustus hotel who saw the creature moving near the Abbey Boathouse. This is the extract from the Scotsman dated 17th July while the corresponding Inverness Courier article places the sighting at 9am near the Abbey boat house.

The only other report which mentions the creature rolling several times is mentioned in the Inverness Courier dated 14th November 1933, but this was at noon and no neck was observed. Two other reports (6th March 1934 and 21st August 1935) mention a single roll and no neck. Comparing the Biddle with the MacRae description from Holiday, the two sightings are similar, though the Biddle one is more lacking in detail. One striking similarity is how Mrs Biddle describes the creature as resembling a huge slug while Dallas (in Holiday's book) said it reminded him of a worm.

Remember also that Holiday quoted Dallas as saying there were two horn like projections on the head, which reminds us of a similar configuration on your typical slug. I don't say this because the Loch Ness Monster is a giant slug, but because the appearance of it reminded the witness of such an animal.

If MacRae did indeed film the Loch Ness Monster, Was it possible that Mrs Biddle was witness to it from another vantage point further away? If MacRae was beside the Abbey boathouse with his friend, Hunter-Blair, he was in a superb position to see and film the monster.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be easy to dismiss all this based on the erratic testimony of Alastair Dallas. But Holiday claimed someone else knew about the films and some of MacRae's living relatives seemed to independently confirm this. Something is out there, but what is not entirely clear.

There are other avenues which as yet remain unexplored, those will be left for another time. As you can see, there is a network of people and possibilities, but, alas, none leads anyone to a roll of film. However, there seems to be enough testimony to some kind of image being taken that keeps the MacRae door slightly ajar.

If there is still a film out there, my own guess is that with the death of the last trustee, it is no longer under a trust, but has moved into the ownership of person or persons unknown. Given the connection with Hunter-Blair, that could be a religious organisation, but who knows?

The sticking point is why MacRae would withhold the publishing of such sensational material. One might think the stated reason of waiting until the subject of the monster was taken more seriously is a self-defeating tactic as such a film would surely make people take the subject more seriously. It seems that M'Rae took this matter personally, though, as the mention of "Scottish persons of repute" being treated like mental defectives, may have involved people he held in regard (such as Hunter-Blair).

But the second stated reason was the distasteful expectation that those who scoffed at the monster, would then rush to profit from it, if the film was released. This is an understandable revulsion, but it is one which could permanently keep such a film from examination.

Ultimately, the scientific establishment still requires a live or dead specimen and nothing is going to change that. Indeed, such a film will not persuade as many now as it would back then, especially in this age of CGI accusations. But, if there is a film, let those who stand together with Farquhar MacRae on this subject view it and let them put forward the case for unveiling it.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

An old Soviet article on Nessie

I noticed that eBay is currently selling a copy of the Soviet magazine "Illustrated Russia" which carries an article on the Loch Ness Monster. The date is January 13th 1934 and it was published in Paris.

Now, I know nothing about reading Russian, I only know that CCCP was the same as USSR but if anyone can translate this, that would be great. The magazine is styled as an emigration magazine, and I guess we should not have expected to see any magazines from Moscow about immigration from the USSR. 

If I was a betting man, I would guess the article would be sceptical in tone. That would be backed up by the picture of the deceptive log and the spurious "bones" find further below. Certainly, a contemporary Nazi article was less than supportive of the idea of a monster in Loch Ness. In turn, why should the Soviets countenance the Capitalist Bourgeoisie pigs having a dubious lake monster depriving the impoverished Proletariat of their hard earned cash? Especially when they don't have their own monster!

The picture of the bones is most likely the same find that was mentioned in an article from the Daily Express dated 27th December 1933 and relates to the digging up hundreds of bones allegedly 150 years old. That was covered in a previous blog article but I don't think we should attach much importance to that find as it all went pretty quiet after they were sent to the Natural History Museum for examination.

New Loch Ness Tourism Website Up

After the recent decision to give Nessie the limelight in a new push to promote the Loch Ness and Inverness area, the website has now gone live here. I applauded the decision at the time, a loch with a monster is far more interesting than one without. There may have been solicitations to tone down the monster aspect, probably due to a mixture of a "there is nothing there" attitude and wanting to emphasise the other worthy aspects of the area, but commercial common sense prevailed in the end.

With a 2012 poll saying that almost 25% of Scots believe the Loch Ness Monster is probably or definitely real, there is clearly a market out there for Nessie. That percentage will vary according to countries and is definitely influenced by a sense of Scottishness (the same poll gave 33% for people who voted SNP in the last election). But one wonders what the percentage is for people who make the effort to get to Loch Ness?

Indeed, I would presume that the poll's question asking if you think the Loch Ness Monster is real would have prompted thoughts of extinct dinosaurs in respondents' minds which, unfortunately would have skewed perceptions and hence replies. If the question had rather asked whether people thought Nessie could be other things such as a giant eel or some other unknown mega-fish, I believe the percentage would have noticeably gone up.

The website's page on Nessie is concise enough and not surprisingly, non-committal as to the creature's existence. In fact, you could say it is treating Nessie lightly as it mentions some famous photos without passing further judgements. Either way, the time to go back to Loch Ness approaches!

The most famous mystery about Loch Ness surrounds the phenomenon of an enormous creature that is believed to live in the water – known universally as the Loch Ness Monster, or ‘Nessie’ as she’s affectionately known.

The first recorded sighting of the monster was in 565 AD, when it was said to have snatched up and eaten a local farmer, before being forced back into the waters by St Columba.

Over the years, rumours spread far and wide about ‘strange events’ at Loch Ness. Some believe that ancient Scottish myths about water creatures, like Kelpies and the Each Uisge (meaning ‘water horse’), contributed to the notion of a creature living in the depths of Loch Ness.

In 1933, construction began on the A82 – the road that runs along the north shore of the Loch. The work involved considerable drilling and blasting and it is believed that the disruption forced the monster from the depths and into the open. Around this time, there were numerous independent sightings and, in 1934, London surgeon R. K. Wilson managed to take a photograph that appeared to show a slender head and neck rising above the surface of the water. Nessie hit the headlines and has remained the topic of fierce debate ever since.

In the 1960s, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau conducted a ten-year observational survey – recording an average of 20 sightings per year. And, by the end of the decade, mini-submarines were being used for the first time to explore the depths of the Loch using sophisticated sonar equipment. New public interest was generated in the mid 1970s when underwater photographs of what appeared to be a ‘flipper’ were made public.

To this day, there is no conclusive proof to suggest that the monster is a reality. However, many respectable and responsible observers have been utterly convinced they have seen a huge creature in the water.

Prehistoric animal? Elaborate hoax? Seismic activity? A simple trick of the light? It’s even been said that the whole mystery could be explained by the presence of circus elephants in the area in the 1930s.

Whatever the truth, it’s always worth a trip to Loch Ness to see for yourself.

Solar Eclipses and Nessie

What do solar eclipses and the Loch Ness Monster have in common, you might ask? Nothing at all, it may seem, but the two have a link going back centuries into mankind's dimmer past. When Nessies were Kelpies and eclipses were divine interventions, the two were most certainly seen as having a common connection. We had a solar eclipse over the United Kingdom this week past, so this gives me an excuse to show some pictures I took!

The word "monster" is taken from the Latin word "monstrum" which meant a sign or portent, a warning of things to come. When something out of the ordinary happened in the natural, this was taken to mean something out of the ordinary would happen in the realm of men. This could be anything out of the ordinary, like a calf being born with two heads, a striking pareidolia, a bright comet and so on.

Included in this panoply of "monstra" in the Highlands of Scotland would be the feared "Each Uisge" or Water Horse. For example, we are told by the folklorist, William Kilgour in his "Lochaber in War and Peace" that: 

the belief is prevalent amongst the residents by the lake, that the sea monster never rises save when some MacDonald or a Gillies is about to exchange the barren hills of Morar for a fairer and more salubrious clime.

When the Loch Morar Each Uisge appeared, it portended change for the MacDonalds or Gillies. This was not much different for the Water Horse that inhabited Loch Ness. The appearance of this kelpie was likewise taken as an omen of bad luck for someone. This we are told on the 8th October 1868, when the Inverness Courier reported the effect of a monster hoax perpetrated by a fishing crew on the superstitious locals.

Some of the most credulous natives averred that a huge fish, similar in size and shape, had been occasionally seen gambolling in the loch for years back, and with equal determination protested that its being cast dead on the shore boded no good to the inhabitants – that, in fact, its presence presaged dire calamities either in pestilence or famine, or perhaps both.

We are told of stories where superstitious locals would not speak of the mysterious monstrum they had seen in the loch. Why they did this appears to be due to the fact that the bad luck associated with the Kelpie would only be made worse for the observer if its appearing was made to men known. That would suggest the mere act of appearing was not enough to trigger doom for the intended target, but the promulgation of it was.

One such instance was in February 1919 when Jock Forbes and his father encountered a strange beast on land. Two mile north of Inverfarigaig on a windswept night, their pony stopped and backed off in fright from something ahead. Then they saw about twenty yards ahead a large, dark form coming out of the trees and filling the road as it slowly crossed over to the shallow bank ending in a splash. In true Highland fashion, his father muttered something in Gaelic and the two hardly talked about it again. 

But that was the Loch Ness Kelpie, what about the Loch Ness Monster? Now, to me, Nessie is a biological creature, so it would really be down to an advocate of a paranormal creature to go down this path.

But, playing Devil's Advocate,  since I generally accept paranormal phenomena, what would a "flap" of Nessie sightings between 1933 and 1934 portend? Yes, I hear you say, the World War of 1939-1945. But where were the omens for the Great War of 1914-1918? Hmmm, pretty thin on the ground I must admit. There was a discernible uptick in sightings around 1914, but we'll never know the real numbers because the publicity back then to bring forth reports was far less than from 1933 onwards.

Or perhaps, Nessie portends for individuals rather than nations? That is also difficult to quantify. How long must a person evade "bad luck" before you dismiss such a notion and what exactly constitues such luck above and beyond the normal woes of men? There are plenty of witnesses who lived long and healthy lives and probably prospered in greater degree.

So, if the Loch Ness Monster is a portender of evil, it is not so clear to me. But, if sightings begin to escalate in the future and great pictures and film are being taken, should Nessie hunters rejoice or fear World War III?  

Normal non-paranormal service is now resumed!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

The Latest Nessie Video

Perhaps.

The Daily Record is running a video taken at 1:30pm on the 10th March by tourists at Urquhart Castle which appears to show a hump in the act of submerging and leaving a circular water disturbance behind it. The pictures were taken alongside the video which you can view at the link above. 

However, the witnesses state that "We were so mesmerised, we didn't immediately think of taking pictures although we had the cameras in our hands". It seems that good old "shock and awe" kicked in, but they did get the aftermath of whatever the large object was. Was it our favourite cryptid briefly surfacing or something else? Reasonable comments are welcomed.

The main question is what is the dark object in the centre which is apparently causing the water disturbance?

POSTSCRIPT: I note one Loch Ness researcher has this to say:

".. video of bubbles close to Urquhart Castle jetty at the time and date that divers were recording Google Earth underwater footage - pretty hard to miss the support boats"

The first problem with this opinion is that the video does not show bubbles. It shows a circular disturbance of water. I think this opinion is reading too much into the video. The dome like object in the photograph looks an unlikely candidate for a bubble and, of course, is not in the plural ("bubbles") as suggested. As for the Google Earth team and support boats, that must be some diver to produce a bubble that size!

THOUSANDS of tourists flock to Loch Ness every year hoping to see the elusive monster - or even better - get a photograph of it.

So when a black hump emerged from the dark waters of Britain's biggest loch, as Connie Ross and her daughter Reyshell Avellanoza were taking pictures, the opportunity was too good to miss.

But the pair were so mesmerised for those vital few seconds, their chance of capturing a rare close-up image of the Nessie phenomenon, was gone.

Instead, they filmed the aftermath as the mysterious object sank to just below the surface and moved away into the loch, leaving behind a perfect circle of disturbed water.

It was 29 year old Reyshell's first visit to Scotland, having flown over from the Philipines with her five year old daughter, Heather Elizabeth, to visit her stepfather, 73 year old retired architect Campbell Ross and her mother and Campbell's wife, Consuela (50).

No trip to the Highlands would be complete without a tour of Urquhart Castle and the chance to see the loch's shy occupant.

Connie said: "Campbell drove us down to the loch last Tuesday. He stayed in the car park, and my daughter and granddaughter walked down to go round the Castle and then take pictures by the loch-side.

"It was about 1.30pm in the afternoon and I had my still camera. Reyshell had her tablet and we were taking pictures when Heather pointed out something in the water.

"She said it looked like a big black belly. We looked and could see this big disturbance quite a way out and this big black object in the middle of it.

"We were so mesmerised, we didn't immediately think of taking pictures although we had the cameras in our hands.

"By the time we realised what we were seeing and began filming and snapping away, the object had sank virtually out of sight and moved away further into the loch, leaving behind a perfect circle of water - like a whirlpool.

"I took still photographs and Reyshell used her zoom as well to try and get a closer look, but it wasn't as good as what we saw with our eyes.

"One of my pictures shows a dark object behind the circle of water and that was it moving away.

"We were all quite excited by it. I have always been a believer in the monster and for my family to see it was amazing. If we had been a little quicker with our cameras, we would have better images."

Former Inshore Lifeboat chairman Campbell, who lives in Oldtown Place, Inverness added: "I had been countless times to the loch and didn't bother walking down with them.

"I wish I had not stayed in the car park now. I am also a believer that a strange creature inhabits the loch, but what it is, I haven't a clue.

"However I saw something similar about 30 years ago, a few miles away at the Lochend part. I was driving back to town and a bus-full of tourists had stopped in the lay-by looking at something.

"There was a streak in the water caused by a black hump which we could see in the distance. The first thing my stepdaughter and granddaughter said when they got back to the car park was: 'We've seen the monster, we've seen the monster.'

"There was so much excitement and having seen the video and photographs, it certainly is very unusual and caused by some animate object.

"But until someone gets better visual proof, the mystery will live on."

 The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Peter Costello's In Search of Lake Monsters

This year saw the republishing of Peter Costello’s classic 1974 work, “In Search of Lake Monsters”. I have recently purchased the Kindle edition and now share my thoughts on a book that was influential in my early years of cryptozoology. 

Back in those days as a teenager, I would probably have not classed myself as a cryptozoologist (if I had even heard of the term). However, my enthusiasm for the subject of freshwater cryptids was evident enough, and Costello’s book was ready and timely grist for the mill.

The new edition includes an introduction by Loren Coleman, who interviewed Peter back in 2013. Peter Costello (pictured below) tells us that, like many, he was influenced by the 1960 Dinsdale film as well as the works of Bernard Heuvelmans. 

Indeed, Dinsdale had written his own book eight years before on aquatic cryptids, variously called “The Leviathans” and “Monster Hunt”. But, having been spurred on by these men, Peter wrote the first book exclusively devoted to freshwater monsters.

Heuvelmans especially encouraged Costello to complete the work, and even stood back from the hundred page essay he had prepared on the Loch Ness Monster (now there is a piece I would love to read). In fact, Heuvelmans wrote a preface for the French edition of “In Search of Lake Monsters” and this is usefully included in this new edition as well.

Costello and Heuvelmans shared the same idea that a long necked variant of the pinniped swam the oceans of the world, and in Loch Ness as well. Building on Oudeman’s Megophias megophias, Heuvelmans decided on the taxonomy of Megalotaria longicollis for this variant of sea serpent. It was during this enthusiastic era, that Nessie aficionados also went Latin with Nessiteras rhombobteryx. 

I was never a fan of the mammal theory. I just expected such an air breathing creature to be visible far more often – especially in the relative confines of Loch Ness. What Peter Costello himself believes now is not clearly stated in the new book. He merely satisfies himself to be classed as a retired cryptozoologist. I myself emailed him back in October 2014 as part of my research on a certain subject and I got the impression he was a bit more sanguine about certain aspects of the phenomenon.

I still have the paperback edition from the 1970s and recently added the hardback edition as the paperback is beginning to show its age. In the case of the new edition, I completed the set by purchasing the digital version. I have been slowly building up a digital library of cryptid books, but this is a trickle rather than a flow. I would love to see the publishers (Anomalist Books), continue this theme with other classic works such as the works of Gould, Whyte, Dinsdale and so on.

That is a long term aspiration, but the advantage of a digital book to a researcher such as myself, is the convenience of multiple books on one device, the cut and paste capability for short quotes and the ease of searching for key texts which are not always in the index.

 

As to the book itself, clearly forty years has elapsed and had its effect. Some of the pictures he lauds have passed into hoaxdom, such as the Surgeon’s Photo. The unease he had concerning Frank Searle was confirmed shortly after. Other lake monster stories, such as the Lake Khaiyr of Siberia have proven fraudulent. As to specific eyewitness accounts, these will continue to be argued over as no researcher was there to see what was claimed.

The section devoted to the Loch Ness Monster is large, over a third of the book. That is fine with me as Nessie is the lake monster par excellence. Peter starts at Loch Ness and widens the search out to other Highland lochs and beyond into North America, Europe and so on as Mhorag, the Pooka, Ogopogo, Manipogo, Champ, Nahuelito, Bunyip, Skrimsl, Waitoreke and the Storsjo animal get the treatment. Not surprisingly, Antartica is the only continent with no lake cryptid tradition, mainly due to the absence of lakes.

All that aside. For me personally, the force of the book’s argument remains. I may not agree with his identification of the various animals described, but that there is a case to be answered rather than rejected remains.

Lachlan Stuart's Daughter Speaks

It is one of the most iconic pictures of the Loch Ness Monster. A photograph that demands a reaction, whether it be one of disbelief or one that salutes a continuing mystery.

The picture was taken on the morning of the 14th July 1951 by Lachlan Stuart and appeared in the Scottish Sunday Express the next day. Shot in the shallows of the southern shore, the picture has taken its place in monster history.

Now this picture has been discussed at length on this blog and you can find the chain of articles starting here. Since the first was written in July 2012, nothing has since come to light that would make me alter anything. Well, that was until the grandson of Lachlan Stuart made contact with me.

He informed me by email that his mother, was the daughter of Lachlan Stuart and wished to discuss the story with me. Naturally, as a Loch Ness Monster researcher, I was delighted to have the opportunity to speak to someone that was close to such a famous case. I have her name, but I will call her Mary in this article. So, I phoned Mary in early February and had a half hour conversation about her father and that famous photograph.

One half of me was expecting Mary to inform me that the whole thing was a hoax, but that proved not to be the case. I suppose the conversation was akin to the testimony of a character witness with details about the three main players in this story - Lachlan Stuart, Taylor Hay and Richard Frere.

Mary was about one year old when the photograph appeared. In fact, she appears sitting on her mother's lap in a family photograph that appeared in a Sunday Express feature on the picture. What she learnt was as a result of her later persistent requests for her parents to retell the tale of that day in 1951.

Lachlan Stuart interviewed for the 1958 documentary "Legend of the Loch"

Constance Whyte had sent Lachlan Stuart a complimentary copy of her book, "More Than A Legend" and Mary told me her father's oft retelling of the story was always a near verbatim retelling of the account in that book (which she still has).

For example, Mary confirmed that her mother told them that the picture was taken in the morning and the press had descended on the place by the afternoon. Those who claim the photo was taken in the evening take note.

The other person involved in the taking of the picture was Taylor Hay. One sceptical researcher has even implied that Hay may not have existed, but Mary remembers him over a period of twelve years as he lodged with the Stuarts, not only in the Whitefield cottage at Loch Ness, but also in other places that their forestry work would take them.

Within about a year of the taking of the photograph, the Stuarts and Hay had left to take up new residence in the west of Scotland. Taylor Hay eventually moved out when he married and in due time the Stuart family moved south to England.

Lachlan Stuart passed away in 1979 and Taylor Hay died afterwards. What exactly happened that day passed away with them as they were the only ones present on the beach. However, we have the words and views of those who survived them and this is where Mary comes in.

What was her view of her father in the context of that well known picture? In her opinion, Lachlan Stuart was "the most honest person she knew" and not a practical joker at all. This was why the accusation of Richard Frere came as a shock to not only her, but her mother and two brothers. This was not the father she had known and grown up with and they were left wondering why Frere had said such a thing.

Now, the Stuart family were part of a close community of forestry workers and their families. Her Mum was well informed as to names, places and situations as she talked with not only her husband and lodger (Hay), but also other wives. Did she know who Richard Frere was? She had never heard of him, came the answer from her daughter to me.

Richard Frere

When Frere strode up to Tony Harmsworth only days into the opening of his Loch Ness Monster exhibition in May 1980, it began Tony's descent into an eventual, total scepticism. Tony tells us later when he:

published the fact that the picture was faked in his "Loch Ness - The Monster" publication, he received a poison-pen letter from one of Lachlan Stuart's friends ... which shows how well the photographer conned his friends.  Recently his son called at the Loch Ness Centre and, surprisingly, he didn't know that his father had faked the picture either.  

It might have been wiser to take the denial of Lachlan's son as a counter balance against what Frere said rather than some kind of confirmation. I would be interested to see this poison pen letter that Tony received. Whether that would be allowed is another matter. Tony finishes with this interesting statement:

It must be understood, however, that if you are going to produce a convincing hoax you must tell no-one the truth.

But, Tony, he did allegedly tell someone. Well, that's what Frere claimed. I have picked apart Frere's claims in the aforementioned series of articles. But, Lachlan's daughter asked me why he waited until her father was dead before he accused him. Was he making sure there would be no comeback on his claims?

That sounded logical enough, but on further thought, I am not even sure that Frere was bothered whether Lachlan Stuart or Taylor Hay were dead or alive before he made his way to that exhibition nearly thirty five years ago. Indeed, I am not sure how easily he could have found out about them, given what Mary told me. In my opinion, this major exhibition centre opened and that was the only incentive he needed.

There are three options in assessing Frere's claim. Either he was accurate in what he claimed, he was lying or he misremembered the whole story. In the first regard, Frere's story has too many inconsistencies to be regarded as an accurate portrayal of events. Was he present at the so called hoaxing or did Lachlan Stuart confess to him weeks later? They both can't be true.

Moreover, Frere was looking for a horse for his timber business, and this is linked to his so called conversation with Lachlan Stuart. However, he only went into this business in 1953 and the Stuarts had left the area by then.

So, did Frere lie? It would be easy to fabricate a story in which he and Lachlan had a grudge, or there was some axe to grind. That would be simple to concoct, but very difficult to prove. In fact, there is no reason to suggest it, so I won't go down that path.

MEMORIES

So, did Richard Frere simply misremember some encounter back in 1951? The red flag for me was Frere's opening remark to Alistair Boyd in 1988, "I happen to remember clearly ...". Now, can someone remember something clearly after 37 years? I think that is generally not true.

I have looked at other events brought to light decades after they happened. I covered one only recently from 1909 or 1915 where the witness unveiled the story in 1951. There is a general agreement that memory of events will gradually fade over the years and that may accelerate as the brain enters old age. The minor details will go first and the grosser details will follow until the entire event disappears from the mind.

It is a bit like a footprint being impressed in mud. Over time, erosion from wind, rain, heat and other factors will gradually obliterate the footprint. There are two instances where this process can be mitigated. The first is to regularly rehearse the memory to re-impress the "footprint". So, in our case above, Mary's repeated requests for the retelling of the story from her parents kept the integrity of the memory of the event to a higher degree.

The other is the "impact" event which leaves a greater impression on the mind. Seeing the Loch Ness Monster counts as one of these, something startling or extraordinary that leaves a deeper impression on the memory. This is akin to our footprint being impressed with a huge weight upon it or in more durable material such as clay.

After 37 years, Richard Frere was not going to have a clear memory of a conversation made in 1951. I concede the two may have met in the course of forestry work at the time, they may have had a conversation about Lachlan Stuart's newly taken picture. Being a brief and one off encounter, Lachlan Stuart may not have bothered mentioning it to his wife, hence her lack of recall of Frere.

Lachlan Stuart may even have said that some had suggested he took a picture of hay bales whilst pointing to some nearby hay bales and tarpaulin. After 37 years, such a conversation could become a confession in the mind of someone who regarded the Loch Ness Monster as the worst example of the Highland commercialism he so loathed and fought against.

One clue to this is why he did not take this story to the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau when they had a high profile presence at the loch between 1962 and 1972. Frere had lived in Drumnadrochit since 1959, yet there is no record of him confiding a hoax with anyone. But, at that point, the conversation could have been less ambiguous or may have entered an ambiguous state regarding exact words used. Either way, the better recall of the conversation back then was not sufficient to provoke a visit to the LNIB.

Frere was also heavily involved with the author, Gavin Maxwell, and ran many of his corporate affairs till his death in 1969. Thereafter, he focused on writing Maxwell's biography, "Maxwell's Ghost". In my opinion, this busy part of his life helped to erode memories of this casual conversation even more.

CONCLUSION

Lachlan Stuart's daughter says allegations of a hoax are inconsistent with her father's character. Richard Frere's words are accepted because of his perceived character. Apparently, character witnesses do not count on the other side of the argument.

This is not, primarily, an assessment of the photograph taken in 1951, but rather the characters involved. People will have already made their minds up based on Frere's testimony, photographic analysis and attempted reproductions.

Based on my own years of assessing the Loch Ness Monster debate, witnesses of any sort are not perfect, photograph assessment is not always objective as made out and any famous picture can be reproduced given enough time and resources.

In that light, and as with other cases, I leave the individual reader to form their own judgement on the matter!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com