An old video from perhaps the late 1990s has been posted on LiveLeaks and I am not sure of its title or provenance but it is an enjoyable watch as old footage from years of reports and searches are shown. The documentary is sceptical and ends with the Sturgeon theory, which I guess is a monster of sorts (a subject worthy of a future post no doubt).
Look out for Lachlan Stuart being interviewed at about 9m40s into the video (picture above). Quite topical considering the current posts on his photo and personalises the story a bit. You will also find the ubiquitous Alex Campbell, Tim Dinsdale and others featuring to varying degrees.
Another YouTube clip I saw is from a series of videos called "Mysterious Planet" whose 21st episode concentrates on the Loch Ness Monster. Now this clip has interest for me personally as they give time to the "eel head" interpretation of the photo that was first publicised on this blog. Based on that, the editor proposes the Giant Salamander theory which seems to have gained some traction recently (I suspect the editor had read this post I previously publicised).
This is not the first video I have seen that publicises the Hugh Gray eel head, so it is nice to see the word getting out on this important piece of Loch Ness Monster evidence.
The Loch Ness Monster has been drawn, painted and modelled in various ways for decades now. Some are not very serious as I think of the many humorous postcards and models that have been churned out. However, some people with artistic skills have turned their talents to the Loch Ness story and framed their interpretation over a phenomenon that has had many opinions spoken over it.
One such artist is Bradford Johnson who I have communicated with in recent months. He has a long interest in Nessie and her hunters and has produced a portfolio of related paintings over the years. He is currently working on a gallery entitled "Surveillance And Looking For Signs" which focuses on the monster hunters themselves. One example he sent me is of the (in)famous Nessie hunter, Bernard Wetherell, who was implicated in the Surgeon's Photograph hoax.
The paintings are derived from relevant photographs and Bradford is on the lookout for more hunter photographs. If anyone knows a good source for Wetherell pictures, let me know.
You can view his other Loch Ness Monster portfolios below:
In the next instalment of the "Nessie on Land" series, I would like to examine a not so well known story.
In
the course of emails between like minded Nessie people, I was reminded
of this land sighting from 1934 which, like most such cases
today, tends to move beneath the radar of modern Internet surfers. My
fellow Nessie enthusiast pointed out that the provenance of the original
story was the March 3rd 1934 edition of the Glasgow Herald which by a
stroke of luck I was able to access and reproduce for your interest
below. It is a fascinating story and all the more since the beast
was so near to the witnesses. I am trying to think of a sighting that
was so close in proximity to the observers but for now such an answer
eludes me.
A further bit of research also produced the following clipping from the Northern Chronicle of the 7th March. The details are largely the same though the distance is given as 20 yards instead of 20 feet. Newspaper reporters are not always the best at transmitting such "minor" details (as I have found in recent reports) and somebody got "feet" confused with "yards" or vice versa but it does add the detail that the sighting occurred about 8pm.
Land
sightings are important for two reasons. First, the observer is
normally closer to the creature than someone who is obliged to watch the
animal far out on the loch surface. Secondly, you see a lot more of
Nessie since she is out of the water. This apart from revealing more
about morphology and behaviour also decreases the chances that the
witnesses have misidentified what they are seeing. In the case of Jean
MacDonald and Patricia Harvey, they saw just about everything from
twenty feet/yards (albeit it was a full moon evening).
The
date of the sighting is
most
likely Tuesday January the 30th 1934 based on
full moon data for that time which is about the stated four weeks prior
to the article being submitted to the newspaper. Given that a full moon
rises in the east like the sun and is south at about midnight then I
would speculate that at about their time in the evening it was south
east and so it is likely the creature was between them and the full
moon. Given that the trees in the picture (more below) look deciduous they would have
been devoid of foliage in January hence allowing a good deal more
moonlight to shine on the creature and as the account says at twenty
feet "they had no difficulty in recognising that it was something out of
the ordinary".
Now
seventy eight years since the event, we can employ modern tools such as
Google StreetView to find the locality of the sighting. The newspaper
account is quite precise in placing the event near where
the
Inchnacardoch Burn flows
under the A82 (The main Glasgow to Inverness road). This places us about the centre of the circle on the satellite map below. At the bottom of the picture you can see the double entrance of the River Oich and the Caledonian Canal into Loch Ness.
It is also stated as happening less than a mile from
Fort Augustus and the pictures below are about 0.7 miles from the town. Using StreetView we can zoom into the very location of this most unusual sighting of the monster (click on images for detailed views). As
we try to place ourselves in the shoes of those two frightened girls,
it is clear that twenty feet is a good estimate for the distance between
them and the creature (you can also fit in 20 yards as the creature moved further away).
As
it appeared to them near the river and road intersection, it would have
been at its closest and I suggest more of its front was visible. As it
made rapid progress, it would have presented a side view to the
witnesses and as the beast veered away into the trees, the tail section
would have been all they saw. In due time, the monster would have been
lost to view in the trees but I suspect our frightened witnesses did not
wait until it was out of view as they ran back into town! There is no
drawing that accompanies this sighting but based on the description,
one can come up with something which I use further below.
Now
those who are sceptical about this sighting may zoom in one feature to
the exclusion of all others - the white underside of the neck. This
would suggest an otter. Such is the opinion of sceptic Steuart
Campbell who for some reason thinks the description bears a close resemblance to an otter. Maurice Burton is silent on the case but given his predilection for otter explanations, it would not surprise me if he went along with that. Ronald Binns says nothing but Roy Mackal is curious in that instead
of accepting this case as positive evidence, he suggests that the witnesses saw a cow or deer. Why he should
have thought that I have no idea but the description again bears no
resemblance to either animal - even if it wasn't daylight conditions.
Otters
have been linked with the Loch Ness Monster since the Spicer sighting
of July 1933. When George Spicer wrote into the Inverness Courier with
his account (it was only the second sighting that the Courier had
published) the editor preceded it with a local expert's opinion
that it was merely an otter with her young. Since then the two animals
have been inextricably linked in the monster debate.
Some otters
do have a patch of white on their necks and for some this is enough
to prematurely close the book on this case. Here is one such picture of
an otter sporting a somewhat dirty white patch (original link here).
Here is another of an otter cub - I just happened to like this cute picture (original link here).
I
was keen in this situation to find a picture of not just any old otter
but one that was found near Loch Ness. Some are too indistinct to see
the underside but I found
this picture of an otter rescued in Inverness (original link here).
This next one was taken up the road from our sighting in Glenmoriston but it is hard to make out any light coloured underside (original link here). Indeed, getting any kind of photograph of an otter at Loch Ness is a bit of an achievement.
However,
the main reason for using the Inverness photograph (apart from seeing a
white underside) is the posture of the otter. The witnesses stated that:
"The thickest part of the body appeared to be at the shoulder. The body tapered considerably towards the tail."
This
description cannot be applied to an otter - white neck or not. In fact,
the opposite seems to be the case in that the thickest part of the body
is at the rear and so the body rises markedly towards the tail. The
contrast could not be clearer.
In case it may be protested that
the posture is different when the otter is running, check the YouTube
video below. I see no difference between standing and running, it's a
completely different posture to the creature
described.
Also, as you can see, an otter when it runs keeps its head
down for obvious reasons. When our creature is speeding along, it is
evident from the description that the neck was raised. I would
also suggest from the
account that the creature crossed the burn rather than following its
course. Otters tend to follow the presence of water unless forced elsewhere by
something like danger.
The other important difference is size.
This creature is stated as being up to ten feet long and six feet high.
Otters are commonly three to four feet long from nose to tail so we go
with three and a half feet for an otter and nine feet for the beast seen
by the girls. Height wise, one foot is good for an otter compared to
the six feet estimated at Loch Ness. Now one may make a case for size
being overestimated (or underestimated) at longer distance, but at
twenty feet away, errors of observations are at a minimum (at this point, I have to be fair and point out that Maurice Burton did not discount the possibility that giant outsized otters could live at Loch Ness, other sceptics would point out this is replacing one unknown with another unknown). The two relative sizes of the creatures are shown below. I cut the head-neck short on my reconstructed Nessie since the witnesses did not describe this particular feature.
In
that light, I could not allow this case to expire merely on the colour
of one part of the creature. But now thanks to a combination of a good
description of the location, Google StreetView and my attempts at using image editing
software, the two respective outlines of the animals
can be superimposed on the location to give a sense of what the girls
claimed to see against what an otter would look like.
I think it is clear that it would be a bit of a push to mistake an otter for something ten foot by six, especially since the witnesses had multiple frames of reference, such as the adjacent trees and the burn being crossed. Put yourself in their place, could you mistake such a creature for something smaller? I don't think I would either.
Perhaps it was indeed a large animal such as a deer or cow? Again, put yourself in the place of the witnesses and ask whether an animal familiar to these rural people could be so easily mistaken for this larger creature with a dramatically sloping back at such a short distance. Again, common sense suggests this is not likely.
On another point, apart from being the possibly closest sighting of the beast, this sighting may also hold the "record" for the monster being seen furthest from the loch at 350 metres. There is one other sighting which may beat even that, but at such a long distance, what was the creature doing there?
That is a matter of sheer speculation. At ten feet long, it could qualify as a "juvenile" Nessie and as such would have less bulk to impede it going further inland. Perhaps juveniles are also a bit more inquisitive? Who knows, but it would seem that the burn which emptied into Loch Ness held the creature's attention for some reason.
Whatever the reasons may be for the Loch Ness Monster being found so far from it's lair, two girls wandering back home on an evening stumbled into a surreal situation which would forever be etched in their memories.
First of all, let me welcome a new blog to the Nessie blogosphere. The author is Steven Plambeck and it is called "The Loch Ness Giant Salamander". You can click here to visit the blog.
You may guess from the blog title that Steven is following in a tradition that stretches right back to the birth of the Nessie story in 1933. Before long neck stories began to dominate peoples' thinking, some held to the view that Nessie was some form of outsized amphibian and in particular the salamander. I am a bit partial to a fish-like amphibian or amphibian-like fish theory myself, so we are in agreement to some degree there. An amphibian has its issues just like any other Nessie theory but I am sure it can hold its own in the Nessie pantheon.
However, Steven has had a further look at the Hugh Gray photograph in this respect and is of the mind that there is more than just one creature in view. I'll say no more and you check it out yourself with his latest article.
Charles Paxton gave an enlightening talk on the statistics of Nessie sightings last month and here are some reviews of it. Eyewitness reports of the Loch Ness Monster are the lifeblood and raw data of the phenomenon and any serious study of them is to be welcomed. I hope Charles will publish his final paper on this ongoing work sometime next year.
On a similar theme, I would give a heads up to anyone near Edinburgh next week on the 11th September as the founder of Fortean Times, Bob Rickard addresses the Edinburgh Fortean Society on that magazine's history and the Charles Fort legacy.
I remember as a teenager before FT went mainstream eagerly awaiting the next issue to drop through the letterbox and immerse myself in the weird world of not just cryptozoology but anything you care to label as beyond the fringe of normal human experience.
There was also the wacky art of Hunt Emerson and I even played my part as I sent the editorial team any Fortean like newspaper clippings I came across. Further details of the talk can be found here.
This post is a place holder for articles which address the cultural aspects of the Loch Ness Monster. This blog of course covers the main theme of Nessie herself and those who pursue her but a modern day mythology has wrapped itself around the creature as society in its various aspects expresses their various conceptions of the Loch Ness Monster.
The old Highlanders mapped their bridled demon onto the mysterious object that ploughed its way thru Loch Ness and modern man is no different in how he processes the beast through various cultural filters of the day. You have the Commercial filter where outlets sell postcards (above), fluffy toys, fridge magnets and badges portraying something ranging from a green monster wearing a tartan bunnet to a more standard looking plesiosaur.
You have the Hollywood filter which either portrays Nessie as a gentle giant appealing to family audiences such as in the 2007 "The Water Horse" film or for the less nervous we have the marauding man eater such as in the 2008 film "Loch Ness Terror". All entertaining stuff but not much to do with that thing looking like an upturned boat slowly gliding to a point of submerging.
That is also reflected in the literary world where films often take their ideas. Steve Alten's "The Loch" leads a genre of book which stays with the mysterious beast you need to avoid at all costs ranging to titles where things are just generally a bit mysterious and edgy.
This is most reflected in the Childrens' filter where we see that the Loch Ness Monster seems to have some magical appeal to kids. There are more books written on Nessie for kids than other audiences and I don't see that trend changing anytime soon. This can range from green Nessies which present the Loch Ness story in a kid-like way to general friendly Nessie stories. By the way, if anyone can guess why Nessie is often presented as a green creature in many cultural references despite being generally described as grey or black, I would be interested in your comment. Clearly, grey/black is not a cheery colour or conducive to entertaining, but why green?
Each of these filters or genres presents the Monster in a
different way to its intended audience. But like the Kelpie of old, they
may bear little resemblance to the underlying reality. Even the more serious books which concentrate on the evidence and seek to avoid "entertaining" are not immune to cultural influences as more popular theories such as the plesiosaur one infiltrate the handling of the evidence. In the end, culture is the sum of all our preferences and prejudices and the Loch Ness Monster is no more immune to that than any other folklore, be it modern or ancient.
Below are links to the various articles I have written relating to the Culture of Nessie.
The BBC News website carried an article recently about the "Silly Season"
or that period of time between July and September when news is slow and
the media generally turn to stories about Nessie, UFOs and other "odd"
stories. The reason for the slow news is due to things such as
Parliament being in recess and the football season being over.
David
Clarke from Sheffield Hallam University has been studying such news
items in an attempt to classify the Silly Season and its origins in
mermaid and sea serpents reports from the 19th century. Needless to say,
the Loch Ness Monster is high up on the list of items and Mr. Clarke
himself is quoted as saying:
"I'd like to go back and see when the first sightings of the Loch Ness
Monster took place, it could well have happened during the silly
season"
Indeed, would there be a Loch Ness Monster without the
Silly Season? Well, I can help him to some extent. Did the first reports
of Nessie happen during that season? The answer is "Yes" and "No" for
the first reported sighting was reported in May 1933 but the sighting
which escalated the monster to the public view was the Spicer land
sighting in August 1933. One story in season and one out of season, take
your pick as to which was more important. But it takes more than one
monster report to sustain a phenomenon and it is generally agreed from
statistical studies that most reported sightings are during this season.
But is this a cause or an effect? In other words, is the
monster seen at all times of year, but the ones during the Silly Season
get more publicity? Or do more people view the loch during the Summer
and hence that is the main explanation for this peak? It would be easier
to assume the summer peak is down to
more viewers, the Silly Season and other factors. Whether the creature
itself surfaces more during the Summer is not a trivial question and
requires further studies beyond the scope of this article.
To
that end, I have no problem believing the Silly Season has its part to
play in the Loch Ness Monster story, but it would be naive to suggest it
is the sole progenitor of the phenomenon. If it was just a matter of
producing a story for news starved journalists then that would be it,
but as Loch Ness researchers know, sightings of the monster ebb and flow
and occasionally disappear from view for years. Is this because Nessie
is no longer regarded as Silly Season material or because people are not
reporting what they see or because Nessie herself is not surfacing as
much?
The period of rising tensions and finally war between
1937-1945 may be one example of Nessie not being regarded as Silly
Season material, but the more likely reason was the
fact that the Silly Season itself disappeared as war does not take time
off during the summer months.
The austerity years of 1946-1954
(when rationing effectively ceased) may have been seen as prime years
for Silly Season reporting to entertain the recovering British public, but again
not much in the way of Nessie stories. Was this a collective decision by
newspaper editors or more to do with the British public preferring the
sunny, cheering beaches of England for their holidays rather than the
cold north of Loch Ness?
Again, a study of the Silly Season
requires other social factors and as a result turns it into a rather
complicated subject. To me, the Loch Ness Monster needs the press to
stimulate interest and produce the next generation of inquirers. What
would have happened if the BBC did not televise Tim Dinsdale's film in
1960 to a prime time audience? Would we ever have heard of the
subsequent group of monster hunters and their organisations? Would I be
writing this article?
So the media reporters are important, but to my mind they need Loch Ness
observers reporting what they saw, and those observers need a large and
mysterious creature to observe. Could the Silly Season on its own
sustain the Loch Ness phenomenon without the need for a monster? Perhaps
for a year or two, but for nigh on eighty years? This blogger doubts that.
