Tales of Multiple Monsters

What better way to start an article on multiple Nessies than this recent creation by Jack Rumney? Being inspired by the new Kelpie statues near Falkirk, he transported them to the home of Kelpies, Loch Ness. As said here before, Loch Ness has more weird creature stories associated with it than any other Scottish loch (and perhaps any other lake cryptid).

THE RECORD

So how many sighting reports do you think have been made which mention more than one creature? This obviously meant a bit of digging about and my thanks to Charles Paxton for his help. As it turns out, the answer is surprisingly few. Out of over one thousand reports that have made it into newspapers, books and other written sources; the total number is nineteen or perhaps 1.7% of the entire database. What I have managed to find are listed below in chronological order:

1. Miss Fraser 24th June 1934 ("More Than A Legend" p.84)
One monster and smaller one swimming side by side.

2. Farmer 29th June 1934 (Dundee Courier and Advertiser 30th June 1934)
Two humps half a mile apart.

3. Mr. R.Scott July 12th 1934 (Evening Telegraph 13th July 1934)
Two creatures inferred by time and distance between Urquhart Bay and Fort Augustus.

4. Angus MacRae July 14th 1934 (Inverness Courier 17th July 1934)
Two huge objects (one fin-like) moving 100 yards away between Altsigh and Castle. One was forward and to right of other.

5. Robert Neish A weekend of July 1934 (Aberdeen Press and Journal 5th Feb 1942)
Two eight foot necks with cow like heads at point opposite "Johnnies Point" moving about.

6. Colin and Archibald Campbell September 1936 (Aberdeen Press and Journal 22nd Sept 1936)
Two humps 15ft apart near Fraser's Point.

7. C.B.Farrel (2nd hand) 3rd January 1937 ("More Than A Legend" p.84)
Monster reported at Foyers and then within 15 minutes at Borlum Bay 10 miles away.

8. Andrew Smith and Anthony Considine June 1937 ("More Than A Legend" p.83)
Three small creatures seen swimming away from stern of boat near Fort Augustus. Three feet long, lizard like with four rudimentary limbs and distinct necks.

9. Robert Gourlay 13th July 1937 (Aberdeen Press and Journal 14th July 1937)
At Brachla near Abriachan. Big, black, shiny object with two smaller ones either side.

10. Mr. S. Hunter Gordon 1939 ("More Than A Legend" p.39)
Two humps moving in parallel and a few yards apart moving up loch, breaking surface every 200 yards or so.

11. Sandie Grant and Mr. Scott 8th January 1943 ("More Than A Legend" p.83)
Large animal seen moving towards Corrie's Cave while a similar object disturbed water near Horseshoe.

12. George Carpenter August 8th 1943 (LNIB sighting report)
A report of three monsters seen from the air (heads only).

13. Kenneth Key September 1952 ("Loch Ness Monster" 4th edition pg.18)
Three heads seen moving in V formation towards shore, no necks. 

14. Mr. D. Campbell 16th June 1957 ("Loch Ness Monster" 4th edition pg 115)
Seen near Dores, two objects initially mistaken for rowing boats 150 yards apart. One did a right angle turn around the other and then both disappeared. Seen from a hillside a mile away.

15. Alex Campbell 16th July 1958  ("The Loch Ness Story" p.81)
One large hump heading diagonally across the loch while the other lying quietly beside.
Seen near Fort Augustus Abbey.

16. Mr. Connel Sept 1969 near Dores ("Project Water Horse" p.189)
Three pairs of double humps, each extending about 20 feet. Sunk in unison and seen at half mile distance.

17. Mrs Robertson August 18th 1970 Fort Augustus ("Project Water Horse" p.189)
Head and neck with double hump with smaller one hump and head neck splashing behind. Seen at 300 yards from Fort Augustus.

18. Frank Searle 12th June 1975 (Searle p.91)
Two small creatures seen in stream heading towards loch.

19. Ian Dunn and Billy Kennedy 12th July 1976 (Alex Harvey Band - "The Loch Ness Monster")

Four triangular humps moving about.

To give you some detail on some of these events, case number two is shown below (click to enlarge).

Then we have the extremely rare case of two long necks being seen. This is case number five and I actually did not know about this report until recently when I did a more focused search at the library. It is a collector's item, only one of two reports made of two long necks.

ANALYSIS

If anyone thinks they can add to this list, let me know. So what does the list tell us? Firstly, one item on this list tells us that not everything is to be explicitly trusted. You may guess I am referring to Frank Searle's story of seeing two juvenile Nessies clambering in a stream. Now whether Frank is telling the truth here is largely lost in the noise of his known hoaxing. If I had to start filtering supposed hoaxes and misidentifications from what is dubbed "real", there would be plenty of scope for our own bias and prejudice to skew the outcome. So everything stays.

The most creatures reported are four in our last account but the complete list is twelve sightings of two creatures, six sightings of three and one of four. At least five of the nineteen reports involve smaller creatures accompanied or unaccompanied by what one may call the adult. There are no reports of multiple creatures seen on land.

Note we only cover multiple visual sightings and not sonar. I have not looked into sonar contacts in regard to whether they display multiple and simultaneous hits.

But what constitutes a multiple sighting? Obviously, when two long necks are reported or humps are travelling in parallel as opposed to in sequence then we can mark those as multiple. However, some are less clear. Case number six refers to two humps fifteen feet apart. Now, it could be conceived that this is one creature or two. Each case has to be assessed on its individual facts. So, for example, it may be speculated that the famous MacNab photograph is in fact two creatures, one smaller than the other (this is my own opinion).

Roy Mackal in his study of sightings for his book "The Monsters of Loch Ness" had 66 out of 251 sightings display two or more humps (26%). A fair number of these could be multiple animals, but it would be pretty much a subjective judgement as to which is which.

The other factor is time and space as demonstrated by cases 3 and 7 where single creatures are observed but separated by a large distance and short time. The presumption here is that the first creature observed could not get to the location of the second sighting in time and therefore these are distinct animals. Again, there is a degree of subjectivity involved here in how fast a Loch Ness Monster is inclined to move. My own view is that these creatures are largely inert but can move when a suitably large threat or opportunity arises.

STATISTICS

Things become more interesting when the distribution of sightings is analysed. The spatial distribution looks unremarkable and accords with a random spread but this cannot be said of the temporal distribution.

The first thing that struck me was how 26% of the reports happened within a mere 20 day period over June and July 1934! These five cases occurred during one of the busiest periods for Loch Ness Monster reports. Between June and July 1934, we have about 50 reported cases and so our five cases constitute 10% of that record as opposed to the overall statistic of 1.7% which makes it nearly six times higher.

The year 1937 is also curious in giving us 3 reports out of a total of about 23 reports but the 20 day period in 1934 particularly raises a question I will return to. The final anomaly is of the opposite kind in that we have no cases of multiple monsters reported since 1976! That is a gap of 37 years which seems intolerable from a random, statistical point of view. If we extrapolate the post-war period reports beyond 1976 out to 2013, we may reasonably expect perhaps 8 or 9 reports. A big zero would seem to defy expectations, no matter which way it was viewed.

So why the big gap? Doubtless, the drop in recording of sightings has contributed to this void, though I am not entirely convinced this is the sole reason. Is the feared drop in the monster population due to overfishing of the surrounding waters being reflected in this statistical space? I sincerely hope not and rather hope that a closer look at that period of time may yet yield something.

MONSTERS AND THEORIES

So what can be gleaned from this subset of the sightings database? A result of less than 2% of the entire database suggests that the Loch Ness Monster is no pack animal. This analysis suggests the Loch Ness Monster is more a tiger than a lion. Most of a creature's life may be spent in isolation ploughing lonely furrows along the deep basins of the loch (when it can be bothered to move). One may then presume that proximity of creatures happen for at least three rare reasons, raising offspring, mating and territorial conflict.

The first we see in several of the reports though the other two are somewhat more difficult to demonstrate. The lack of multiple large creatures would suggest mating is not a frequent event (i.e. it is multiennial). Considering the creatures live in darkness, it is no surprise that I will now compare them to the reproductive cycles of deep sea fish where animal growth is slow, longevity is long and sexual maturity is reached at an age comparable to humans. The lack of multiple animal sightings is consistent with this view.

Territoriality is a more complex matter requiring a more detailed analysis of the sightings database.  I will leave that for another day.

Though not a full explanation, the statistical anomaly previously mentioned for the summer of 1934 has some explanation in multiple animals. It is a well known theory that the road blasting and dumping of numerous tonnes of rubble into the loch during the A82 upgrade stirred the Loch Ness Monster to the surface.

The year of 1934 has the highest proportion of reports at about 140 or nearly 13% of the total whereas the annual average is more like 1.25% per annum. If multiple animals as opposed to one animal are being stirred from the depths during those seminal years of 1933 and 1934, then a multiplication of sightings is more understandable (though I suggest not the only explanation).

Why we should have such a high concentration of multiple creatures over a 20 day period is not known or accountable from our monster theory. It is simply not known what went on over that period of time.

THE SCEPTICAL THEORY

Now if you are sceptical about all these musings about creatures in Loch Ness, I now focus on how all this applies to the conventional sceptical theory on the Loch Ness Monster. Or to put it another way, does the sceptical theory predict that only about 2% of reports will be of multiple monsters?

I suggest it doesn't make any predictions at all expect in a broad, general sense and it is a reactive rather than proactive theory. By that I mean, the theory is mainly brought out when a sighting makes the news, some normal explanation is offered and it is then put back in the box.

Actual quantitative studies based on the theory are few and far between. In other words, the theory lacks detail and precision. So when the question is asked "What percentage of reports will be of multiple monsters?", do not expect an answer.

However, it is my opinion that the theory is flawed and our 2% is lower than the sceptical theory would allow. As you can guess, the theory is a composite one in which "Nessies" turn out to be wave effects, debris, animal, hoaxes and so on. Now within each of these subsets there is scope to allow for the so called misperception of multiple Nessies.

For example, witnesses misidentify logs, birds, otters and deer as Loch Ness Monsters. Each of these has the potential to create a "long neck" event. The total percentage of single long neck sightings is less than 10%. The total percentage for multiple long neck sightings is less than 0.2% which is one fiftieth of the single neck total. Water fowl and otters are not solitary creatures and there is always a good chance that when one is seen there will be another within the field of view. Better than one in fifty I would suggest.

The same applies to tree debris being washed into the loch from streams, there is again a good chance of two logs putting in an appearance. In the case of deer swimming across the loch, it is accepted that these rare events tend to be singular.

When I met sceptical Loch Ness researcher Adrian Shine at the recent "Nessie at 80" event, I put the question to him why multiple long neck reports are so rare. His reply was that people are less likely to be fooled by two birds than one. I agree that the more birds you see, the less likely you are to see monsters, but on reflection, how true can that be for just two necks?

For example, people readily report multiple humps. As mentioned above, they made up 26% of Roy Mackal's analysis. The readiness with which people see two or more humps suggests (from the sceptical theory point of view) that multiple long necks should not be as rare as the statistics suggest.

Likewise, it is strange that humps seen in a configuration suggestive of multiple animals (i.e. in parallel or a sufficient distance apart) are not more reported. The sceptical theory tells us that the waters of Loch Ness present a fluid and dynamic environment for all manner of strange hump like events to be seen. Yet only 14 of the 19 reports above fall into that category giving us a paltry 1.3% return over 80 years. May I suggest that this is not enough?

ANOMALIES

Then there is the mystery of the twenty days of multiple creature events in June and July 1934. How does the sceptical theory account for this? Birds, deer, otters and logs are pretty seasonal and predictable in their behaviour and so patterns of events should not be so concentrated according to the sceptical theory.

Clearly, some event happened back then which caused a flurry of "multiple creature" events. A catalyst that was unlikely to cause a repeat again for the next 80 years.  Sceptically minded replies are welcomed.

One suggestion that can be dismissed is the suggestion that two seals got into Loch Ness at that time. This theory was suggested by one sceptic to account for the spring 1933 sighting by the Mackays. To suggest our mythical pair of pinnipeds were still there over a year later is simplistic - as is the suggestion they came back.

In fact, it is highly unlikely that two regularly surfacing seals would have escaped everyone's attention during a time when the loch was being so keenly observed. Seals are regularly searched for by the authorities so as to not disrupt the salmon runs. There is no report of any seals in Loch Ness during those times and so we take it that none existed.

And finally, how does the sceptical theory accommodate the fact that no multiple sightings have occurred since 1976? Surely something is also wrong there?

CONCLUSION

Now if we credit witnesses with being more credible than the sceptical theory implies, then it is less of an anomaly that so few reports are of multiple creatures. Misidentifications and hoaxes form a minority of the reports and so the percentages drop. Moreover, statistical anomalies are less anomalous when a non-seasonal group of monsters is introduced to the mix.

It is admitted that a "monster" theory can also lack precision and detail in these matters (we can't even agree on the subphylum). But I am not the one admitting that the mystery has been solved by the application of logic, science and critical thinking. It is clear to me the conventional sceptical theory is no better in that regard (if not worse).

The record states that we have multiple large creatures in Loch Ness. The upper limit of four implied in these reports should not be regarded as the actual number inhabiting the loch. It is hoped that some recent multiple animal report will turn up to confirm all is well population wise at Loch Ness.

Nessie Review of 2013

The year two thousand and thirteen draws to a close and it is time to look back and reflect on what has happened in terms of the Loch Ness Monster and events elsewhere which have an eye towards Loch Ness.

ANNIVERSARY

The most important event this year was the year itself as 2013 marked the 80th anniversary of the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon. Though legends and stories of strange creatures go back a lot further than 1933, this was the year that this now worldwide story was birthed and there is no sign of the old girl dying off yet. Not by a long chalk.

Mention Loch Ness to citizens across the world and the first thing they think of is Nessie. The two are inseparable and long may it continue. The Tourist agencies of Scotland may try to disassociate them and point to the other attractions of Loch Ness, but I suggest they cease and desist.

The story started with the sighting of a water disturbance and two humps seen by the Mackays around April 1933. I took a fresh look at this seminal story some months back. The exact date is not clear but the publishing of their story by the Inverness Courier on May 2nd 1933 can be regarded as the date of importance as far as public awareness is concerned.

To mark the event, a special symposium was arranged by Charles Paxton and Gordon Rutter and was held at the Counting House in Edinburgh in April. The event received publicity worldwide and was well attended as various speakers (including myself) held forth on various aspects of the phenomenon.

It was perhaps a sign of the times that the event was more sceptically leaning than the last symposium in 1987, but a show of hands in response to the simple question "Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster?" was pretty much 50-50. I gave my own thoughts on the event here.

A week later, a special event to mark the Mackay sighting was held at Loch Ness itself and near the spot where Aldie Mackay spotted the double hump coursing its way across the loch. The event was suitably backed up by Birthday Cake and Whisky.

THE MONSTER

But what of the old beast herself this year past? Though there were things to discuss, sightings again were thin on the ground compared to previous years. By thin, I mean they were not reported in the general media as the number of people who believe they have seen something outnumbers those which make it into print. These days, I suspect you will need a video or photograph of some interest to make it into the public view. However, what turned up this year makes me dub this year, the Year of the Wave Like Nessie.

Firstly, the only sighting I am aware of is one I have not written about until now! It appeared on the Facebook page of the cruise company, Cruise Loch Ness. It goes like this: 

Three different people came to the Wheelhouse today to tell me that they had seen something in the Loch on the 2 o clock cruise. They all described a long black thing on the surface behind the 'Royal Scot' it was visible for a few seconds before disappearing. I wish they'd said something when they were watching it, as I was busy looking where we were going and missed it !! 

This happened on April 5th just the day before the aforementioned Edinburgh Symposium. The skipper, Marcus Atkinson, gave me further details:

I was skippering the Royal Scot when this happened, and it was me that posted on Facebook. It is unusual because, over the last few years no-one has ever mentioned seeing anything, then on one trip three different people from different parts of the boat came to the wheelhouse and mentioned seeing something? I remember that it was a flat day with no wind, and everyone pointed to the same spot on the loch.

At the time I didn't think much about it because - they were all pointing to the place on the Loch where the Royal Scot turns around. This off the horseshoe scree and on a windless day the wake from our voyage up will slowly move across the Loch, at times it does look like several humps moving across the water. Because I didn't see it, it's hard to say anything really. Other than I wish someone had pointed it out at the time!

One may suspect it was just a wave if it was not for the independent tourists who came to Marcus. Was it a Nessie-like Wave or a Wave-like Nessie putting in an appearance for it's 80th?

The wave theme continued with a video taken by David Elder in August when he spotted something snake like making its way across the loch near Fort Augustus. This one generated quite a few comments about waves being caused by long gone boats. A pretty convenient explanation I thought since it does not require any proving on the part of the sceptic. A look at the still below shows three distant white boats near the horizon which makes them over nine miles away based on a height above sea level of 62 feet. There are also some boats in another picture on the far south shore making their way towards the observer.

A bit too far away to leave much of a wave for my liking. Accepting the presence of large creatures in Loch Ness as I do, it is inevitable from my point of view that these creatures can put on wave-like appearances. Admittedly, not good enough for the sceptically minded, but one that I take into account.

The wave theme appeared one more time in November with Jonathan Bright's unusual photograph of something appearing behind a Jacobite cruise ship. This might well be the first infra-red picture of the Loch Ness Monster. Again, the wave explanation was offered and was critiqued on this website. It clearly generated a lot of interest as it currently stands as the seventh most accessed article on this blog.

Oh well, perhaps these three Nessie stories was her just giving us a "wave" on her birthday. Jonathan's photograph is an example of how stories can filter through from recent years. Not everything that makes the news need happen in the year of reporting it.

This was also the year that George Edwards came clean on his hump photograph. Thanks to a conversation Steve Feltham had, the fibreglass prop that was actually photographed was presented to the world. Though George confessed, he was not explicit on how the photograph came about.

THE MONEY MONSTER

That little episode brought into relief a conflict of sorts that rumbled through 2013. I speak not of so called "believers" or "non-believers" in Nessie but a conflict between Loch Ness businessmen and Loch Ness businessmen. Whether they believe there is a large monster in Loch Ness (and I doubt it), they certainly profit from it and where there is money to be made, there is potential for conflict.

George Edwards' stunt brought to light a war of words between such people as to how the Loch Ness Monster should be presented to the public. George's "end justifies the means" approach did not sit well with Tony Harmsworth who preferred the scientific approach. When the Drumnadrochit Chamber of Commerce told Tony to remove negative comments about Edwards from their website, he tendered his resignation.

The wars continued later in the Summer when the two competing exhibition centres at Drumnadrochit got into a tiff over what signs should be shown where. This resulted in one sign being taken and the owner of the Nessieland exhibition being arrested by the police over its theft!

BOOKS

In the world of print, three titles of contrasting nature came out in 2013. The best for me was the biography of famous monster hunter, Tim Dinsdale, titled "The Man Who Hunted Nessie". This was written by his youngest son, Angus. I reviewed this book here. The second book by J.F. Derry called "Loch Ness Monster and other Unexplained Mysteries" was more an anthology of photographs and stories as published by the British newspaper, the Daily Mirror.

In distinction to these was the sceptical tome "Abominable Science" written by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero. I reviewed their chapter on the Loch Ness Monster or perhaps the better term is panned it. I gave it one star on amazon.com while nearly everyone else was praising it to the skies and the sceptics never forgave me for that! In fact, they focused on that more on than what I said because I was told the rating should be based on the whole book. Well, I have nearly finished the book and I may up it to two stars. But the fact that they complained more about that the exposure of  poor research suggested deflection tactics to me.

REST IN PEACE

This was the year we also said farewell to some people involved in the hunt for the Loch Ness Monster. The most prominent was the now legendary monster hunter, Professor Roy Mackal, who died of heart failure at the age of 88 in September. Roy joined the Loch Ness Phenomenon Investigation Bureau in 1965 and helped put the "Scientific" into "Investigation". You can read tributes to him by Loren Coleman (who broke the sad news), the Chicago Sun Times, Dick Raynor (who worked with him) and myself.

We also say "Rest In Peace" to Ken Wallis who died at the grand old age of 97. He famously employed his one man autogyro to help the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau perform any airborne surveys of Loch Ness - in case Nessie popped up to the surface. The Loch Ness Monster has been spotted from the air on at least one occassion, so the idea had merit. Doubtless, Mackal and Wallis would have met back then in 1970.

THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

Meanwhile, the search for the Loch Ness Monster continued in 2013. Aside from the myriads of tourists that hot summer, people such as myself and Gordon Holmes took the high road to Loch Ness in search of Nessie. I posted recently about Gordon's recent work and my own attempts to glimpse the creature. I always am thinking of a new angle to try and catch that elusive piece of evidence. Of course, there is nothing new there. The aforementioned Loch Ness Investigation Bureau brainstormed many a new technique into existence and some of their ideas are still employed today. The one I don't particularly fancy is "nightdrifting" where you drift around in a small boat in the darkest hours ... waiting for something. I would probably freeze to death first.

Back home, discoveries of a different kind were made as old stories came to light after decades of hiding and well known stories were re-examined. The well kent Jennifer Bruce photograph was shown to be more than just a passing seagull and I finished off my series on the Lachlan Stuart photograph. An old tale from the 1880s telling of a diver's encounter with a strange beast was found as was a curious photograph from 1938 which was closely correlated to a known sighting from the time. A recently obtained zoom in does not reveal much more but indicates some water disturbance to the left. In some ways, it is reminiscent of Gordon Holmes' 2007 video.

What will 2014 hold? God willing, I hope to be back at Loch Ness in April. I also plan to give a talk on recent events at Loch Ness in Edinburgh in March. That year will also mark the 80th anniversary of the most famous Nessie image of all, the Surgeon's Photograph, in April. So expect some media coverage around that time.

And again, we await that story or picture which continues to make the Loch Ness Monster a subject that is more than just interesting - it's an intriguing and enduring story.

A good New Year to you all when it comes.

Another Strange Satellite Image

Remember this image below from Google Maps a few years back? It made the newspapers but it was clear on examination that it was nothing more than a boat with attendant bow waves.

It was seen making its way up the loch north of Invermoriston as the wider map shows below. The scale of 200m gives an idea how big it is.

Then there was the filament like images spotted on Loch Ness images and covered here. However, another stranger object has turned up, not in Google Maps, but Apple Maps recently. This image is shown below and something can be seen to the left making its way presumably south down the loch. The zoom in is shown below.

Now as it turns out, this object does not appear on Google maps and I show the equivalent picture below with attendant scale. Using the scale gives a rough size of 40 metres for the entire object, which is about twice the size as our more famous Google Boat image above.

Like the Google Boat image, I doubt the object is all one object. There is wake action going on in both pictures to the extent that the Google Boat is half wake and half boat (10m each) or the standard size of a Caley Cruiser boat.

The other object is a bit more difficult to parse, but the object is perhaps 20 metres long which makes me wonder if it is the bigger Jacobite cruiser boats that head south from the locks near Inverness? If somebody could find one of those larger boats on satellite imagery, that would be helpful. An overlay of the two objects show some similarities and dissimilarities.

The first question is why is the image so much fainter? If you look at the original Apple Maps image, you can see the smaller boats moored near Aldourie Castle (below centre of image). Like our Google Boat, they are quite quite white in colour. So why is this object not showing a similar albedo? Could this be because it is just below the water's surface or perhaps it is a darker colour? 

However, to produce the presumed bow wave we see, it must be showing something at the surface. And what is that crescent type "wave" ahead of the main part of the object?

Anyway, comments are invited in an attempt to identify what is going on here.

Roy Mackal 1925-2013

Loren Coleman reports on his blog that Professor Roy Mackal died this September at the age of 88. With the passing of this leading light in the pursuit of the Loch Ness Monster, it would be remiss not to say some words here. Loren gives a fuller view of the man's life but this blog focuses on his contribution to the mystery that resides in Loch Ness.

It was a chance tourist visit to Loch Ness in the autumn of 1965 that led an American microbiologist from the University of Chicago to meet up with David James, the head of the Loch Ness Phenomenon Investigation Bureau. By the following year, he had become a director of the Bureau and had already convinced the first of several American based organisations to give financial or technical support to the Bureau. The LNPIB would have been a lot poorer for the absence of Mackal's enthusiasm and American connections and, indeed, may have experienced an earlier demise.

But it was not only money that Mackal brought to Loch Ness. It was a scientific application and rigour under his technical directorship that extended the Bureau's reach into the murky depths of the loch. Techniques that were only touched upon were realised and new ones came to fruition as well. Under his lead, underwater photography, acoustic monitoring, fixed and mobile sonar searches, specimen collection from the loch and its environmental assessment earnestly pressed ahead. To that we can add the never used biopsy darts and large Nessie nets.

Various sonar hits were recorded as well as some curious noises from the oil barrel encased hydrophones. The surface surveillance continued as usual and Roy even had a possible sighting of the Loch Ness Monster in September 1970 during the "Big Expedition". The clip at this YouTube link is from around that time showing Dr. Mackal in his capacity of LNIB technical advisor talking about Dan Taylor's submarine, the Viperfish.

Regarding the sighting, he was changing the tapes on one of the hydrophone recording devices. Roy noticed a disturbance about 6 feet in diameter and about 30 feet away caused by what appeared to be some animal "roiling about". What was described as a "black, triangular, blunt-pointed, rubbery-looking object" appeared every few seconds before completely submerging. Though he was inconclusive as to what it may have been in his seminal book "The Monsters of Loch Ness", he became more convinced later:

If that's a fish, I thought, it's a mighty fish indeed! To this day, when someone asks me, 'Do you believe there is a monster in Loch Ness?' my stomach does a somersault. I know what I saw."

The response of his scientific colleagues was naturally mixed. It is accepted that career progress at his University of Chicago halted, though it appears they were more supportive later where he taught a course in zoological mysteries.

The mixed reception was also evident when the scientific journal Nature pulled his article on the 1968 Tucker-Birmingham sonar results but it was taken up by New Scientist. The publishers of Nature continued their campaign against him by spreading falsehoods about the testing of the sonar equipment and its operators. Some things do not change.

Mackal's thoughts on what the Loch Ness Monster could be was a reflection on the depth of the mystery as he ranged in opinions from mollusc to sirenian to amphibian and finally the zeuglodon. 

But all good things must come to an end and when a Robert Rines came along to one of his lectures in 1969, the technical dominance began to swung over to the visits of the Academy of Applied Science. The LNIB folded in 1972 and Roy Mackal's influence began to wane. By the end of the 1970s, Roy Mackal's cryptozoological interests began to focus on a sauropod in the depths of the Congo jungles.

Like others before and after him, the final clinching piece of evidence never came but not before he amassed and collated all his scientific, technical and personal experiences into the massive tome that is known as "The Monsters of Loch Ness". Published in 1976 and coming in at 401 pages, it is a comprehensive work on the Loch Ness Monster and, in my opinion, the best book on the subject.

It may lack the romance, adventure, history and folklore of other Nessie books and have its faults, but this is outweighed by the vast range it covers in analysing the phenomenon.

Roy Mackal has gone and another symbolic figure from those heady days of the 1960s and 1970s passes into cryptozoological history. I never met him or communicated with him in any way, but I hope this blog will continue to uphold in its own little way what he thought about Loch Ness - "Here be Monsters!".

Christmas and Nessie

I popped into one of the main Edinburgh bookstores yesterday for a bit of Christmas shopping but thought I would also check up on their cryptozoological offerings. With a particular focus on looking out for any Loch Ness Monster books, it came as no surprise that there was nothing on display. I include even sceptically minded books in that search.

So while it was a relief not to see the likes of Abominable Science's poor handling of Nessie on offer, I was wondering if the lack of books on offer reflected the public's lack of interest in the subject? After all, the popularity of shows like "Finding Bigfoot" would suggest a keen interest.

The most likely section for Loch Ness Monster and cryptozoological books to be found is strangely the "Spirituality" section of the book store. Ironically, the "Popular Science" section was right beside it (and I checked there in vain for cryptozoologically sceptical books). I would also point out that, being in Scotland, there is also a "Scottish Interest" section. Sadly, that had no Nessie books either.

The "Spirituality" shelves seem to be a catch-all for anything kooky. Alongside the expected titles on astral projection, angels and poltergeists were UFOs and conspiracy theory titles. There were two monster-type books on sale. The first was Jospeh Nigg's "Sea Monsters" which was interesting from a sea serpent point of view but not Nessie. The one title that was Loch Ness Monster related was one previously covered here. That title was "The Loch Ness Monster: And Other Unexplained Mysteries" by J. F. Derry. Strictly this is a book about newspaper stories about Nessie and other mysteries, nevertheless, it is an interesting book.

Of course, people tend to order books online these days and one will find a richer selection of books on the major retailer websites. But if the walk in bookstore is an indicator of what is most popular to the general public, then clearly good old fashioned mysteries are falling short.

As a final comment, the "Popular Science" shelves were about a third bigger than the "Spirituality" shelves. In my younger days, the latter shelves would have been a lot bigger. Doubtless, an indicator of trends, even if Nessie-sceptical books can't get a look in!

I wonder what readers are seeing in their bookstores?

A Rediscovered Diver's Tale

Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster are rare, seeing it on land is rarer still, but the rarest of all sightings belong to those people who dive into the depths of the loch to unexpectedly encounter its most notorious resident. I could probably count all these stories on the fingers of one hand stretching back over 130 years.

So, I was delighted to stumble upon this new (yet old) story of a diver who had an unsettling time of it in Loch Ness in the 1880s. I was perusing some old newspaper clippings in the National Library of Scotland when I came across this letter from a reader in the 9th December 1933 issue of the Dundee Courier and Advertiser.

The text of the story is given below:

LOCH NESS MONSTER

Sir, As much has appeared in the press recently regarding the Loch Ness monster, perhaps it may be of interest to the readers of the “Courier and Advertiser” to hear a little more from one who for some years dwelt in the district of Dores, on the beautiful classic shores of Loch Ness.

Once coming to “Meffin” I made the interesting discovery that one of the residents of this village also hailed from this part of Inverness-shire. After discussing persons and places the conversation turned round to the Loch Ness monster.

“I remember,” he began, “how the villagers in that district used to talk about a monster being seen on Loch Ness, about three(?) miles from Invermoriston – that is, at Ruskich(?). The story runs that a gentleman sailing down the loch in his yacht was driven shorewards. The yacht sank and came to rest on a ledge of rock.

In order to secure some of his valuables the owner of the sunken yacht hired the Caledonian Canal diver – Honeyman by name – from the village of Clachnaharry. He intimated to the assembled onlookers that he would begin work the following morning. When the coast was clear, however, the diver, thinking that he and his ??? would get something for themselves, donned his diving suit and descended into the water to make inspection.

When he got to the yacht it slipped off the ledge of the rock and disappeared into the depths. But then, to the diver’s intense horror, a huge beast, measuring about nine feet long and possessing a body as stout as that of an average man, passed in front of him.

Perhaps the diver thought that it was the ??? of the lower regions that had come to advise him on his dishonest work, or that Loch Ness possessed the door to the nether regions. Whatever it may have been, the diver, who in very truth had ‘got the wind up,’ adamantly refused to descend into the water again.

“I understand,” added my friend, “that there is still living in Clachnaharry a man that can remember the details of this incident, which happened nearly 50 years ago. It was no unusual thing for parents of the Loch Ness district to frighten recalcitrant children by threatening to bring the Loch Ness water horse to them.” -  I am, etc,

A Lover of the Highlands.

Methven.

Some of the words are hard to pick out due to the letter being printed at the spine of the newspaper. The words I am not sure of are marked with a (?) while illegible ones are marked "???". However, I am sure you get the gist of the story. My guess is that this sinking occurred three miles north of Invermoriston near Alltsigh which marked the beginning of the long Ruskich Wood. Since the incident is alleged to have happened fifty years before around 1883, a contemporary half-inch to the mile survey map below marks the general area (courtesy of the National Library of Scotland).

The story itself concerns a sunk yacht and a diver called Honeyman from Clachnaharry. Addressing the boat first, I have found no record of such a sinking in the newspapers of the time which some may presume to cast doubt upon the story.

In fact, stories of sinkings at Loch Ness are pretty rare. The best known one was the schooner  "Margaret Wilson" which struck the rocks near Point Clair back in 1861. It was carrying a large cargo of guano at the time (and wonders whether such a load attracted or repelled Nessie!).

But I would suggest sinkings could as easily not be reported. The best example I can think of was the sinking of the Zulu class boat, the "Pansy", off Foyers at some time after 1911. There is no record of this 80 foot vessel sinking in Loch Ness and it was not discovered until 2002 during the Loch Ness Project's Operation Groundtruth. More details can be found here.

However, more success was gained in the matter of our diver Honeyman. An examination of the 1881 census revealed a small number of males by that name residing in the Inverness county. The most likely candidate was James Honeyman who resided at No.2 Low Street in the Clachnaharry area.  He was aged 31 years in 1881 which best places him as our man since the other Honeymans were aged 0, 11, 14, 61 and 66.

However, his trade is stated as "carpenter" in the 1881 census and "house joiner" in the 1891 census. One may have expected the job of "diver" to be stated but on reflection I would not think so. My reason for saying so is because I do not think such a skill would be a full time job. For example, a search revealed that a Donnie Goodwin was a lock keeper on the Caledonian Canal as well as a diver. One suspects he spent more time being a lock keeper than a diver! In the same light, I suspect other divers required other jobs to gain income. Below is an 1874 picture of a diver courtesy of the Highland Heritage website Ambaile. It cannot be verified if this is James Honeyman himself.

James Honeyman's street is still there today (though doubtless it would be unrecognisable to him). It's location near the mouth of the Caledonian Canal may suggest that he was well placed for a maritime-related job.

Now at this point some may ask about the well known Duncan MacDonald story from 1880. To remind readers, here is the story quoted from "The Loch Ness Story" by Nicholas Witchell.

An experience by another MacDonald in 1880 was of an altogether different nature and terrifying in the extreme. As a diver, Duncan MacDonald was sent down to investigate a ship that had sunk in the Caledonian Canal entrance at Fort Augustus. Not long after, he sent urgent signals on his line to be immediately brought back to the surface. 

Shaking and ashen faced, he refused to say what he had seen for several days. When he had sufficiently composed himself, he told the tale of how he had seen a “very odd looking beastie ... like a huge frog” lying on the rock ledge where the wreck was lodged as he examined its hull. 

He refused to ever dive in the loch again though it would appear this encounter was where Loch Ness ends and the canal begins.

My first thought was whether these two stories could be the same or related in some way. But I do not think so as there is more that divides than unites them. They occurred about the same time but the names and locations are different. 

So a man descends into Loch Ness seeking riches but returns with terror. What exactly did he see that day? Something nine feet long and one to two feet wide swam past him but there is not much more to add. That is certainly bigger than anything known in Loch Ness but not quite full Nessie proportions. One wonders if the diver had managed to see the whole creature from the limited field of view of his helmet?

Getting rough dimensions of a similar helmet, suggests the diameter of the helmet is about 24cm and the "porthole" is just over 9cm. The boat was most likely on a ledge about 10m under where I guess the horizontal visibility would be less than 6m. Drawing some field of view triangles based on these numbers gives a field of view of about 4.5m at a distance of 6m. Likewise, a 3m creature would full occupy the horizontal field of view at a distance of 4m. So, the creature would have to be less than 12 feet away to not be fully visible through the helmet visor.

Of course, it could be our oft mentioned but never seen Atlantic Sturgeon which would have these proportions. Would Honeyman have recognised a sturgeon? One presumes so, but who knows in those conditions? I will just remind readers here that no sturgeon has ever been seen or caught in Loch Ness.

So, an interesting story and one wonders if James Honeyman's descendants still tell this tale of their great-great-grandfather? If so, perhaps you could contact me at this blog!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Analysis of the Jonathan Bright Picture

Two weeks ago I published the latest photograph of the Loch Ness Monster without much in the way of comment. Jonathan's story and photo have already been published in the latest issue of Fortean Times (No.308) and so now having had a closer look at the picture and the accompanying facts, let us see what else can be found out.

The photograph was taken by Jonathan Bright on the morning of the 2nd November 2011 as his ride on the Jacobite Cruiser boat was heading out towards Urquhart Bay. He was snapping pictures randomly with various cameras. As he was looking out from the stern of the boat, he snapped a series of pictures with his specially adapted infra-red camera but did not notice anything unusual at the time or even later, during his initial review of the pics. But it was a coincidence of the unexpected kind that prompted him to go back and check what he had.

For it was on that same day that George Edwards claimed to have taken his now infamous picture of a hump in Loch Ness. When Edwards' picture became news in August 2012 and thinking he might have taken pictures in that vicinity, Jonathan reviewed his snaps and did indeed find something unusual. However, what Jonathan Bright photographed is not what George Edwards photographed.

Based on what Jonathan has said, the picture was taken as the Jacobite was a few minutes out of the pier beside the Clansman Hotel and a suggested point is circled in the map below. The boat would be generally heading south west towards the vicinity of Urquhart Castle (marked A). The time would have been shortly after 11am when the tour boat departed from the harbour.

So what is in this first ever infra-red photograph of the mystery of Loch Ness? A zoom in of the picture reveals a bit more detail. In fact and in my opinion, it reveals something that looks out of the ordinary. But first, let us try and get some data out of this picture.

Jonathan kindly provided me with the uncropped image, the EXIF data and the model and make of his digital camera. From that an estimate of the object's size and distance can be made from the focal length, crop factor, distance to horizon, height of witness standing at the stern of the boat and relative distance of object to horizon.

That gave an object height of about 0.75 metre and a distance from the observer of about 31.5 metres. If we assume the object is turned at an angle of about 45 degrees to the observer, then the side aspect is estimated to be about 1.3 metres. This was based on the camera being 2.8 metres above the water. But a greater witness height would result in a bigger and more distant object and vice versa. So, for example, a combined witness/boat height of 3.5 metres gives an object height of 0.93m and a distance of 40 metres. If any wants the full trigonometrical calculations, send me an email.

So it is an object of some proportions but not as big as some Nessie sightings. But what are the possible candidates for such an object appearing on the surface of Loch Ness? Based on your comments to the previous posts, I address them here.

DEBRIS SUCH AS A LOG

Are we simply looking at a natural object such as a log or some man made rubbish? Apart from the shape of the object not suggesting the usual stuff that floats around Loch Ness, several other things dictated against this interpretation.

Firstly, Jonathan was on a boat ploughing through the water. I emailed Marcus Atkinson, who operates one of the large cruise boats at Loch Ness. I asked him what they do when an obstacle lies dead ahead of the boat.

He said they normally steer a course around it unless it is something minuscule such as twigs. So it is unlikely that such an object is going to end up only 31 metres behind the boat.

Secondly, once the object is avoided, the bow wave of the boat is going to be another reason why the object won't be so easily found right behind the boat. The reason being that the outward going bow wave will tend to push objects away from the boat's direction of travel.

Thirdly, even if the boat went over the object due to it being very low in the water, how come it manages to appear nearly a metre high on the other side? In the light of these propositions, I do not regard the debris as a valid theory. (Jacobite Cruises do have a catamaran boat which technically allows debris to pass underneath but it was not commissioned until 2012).

THE PASSING WAVE

The other explanation offered is that this is merely a wave. This might seem to carry more weight than floating logs. A quote from the Great Loch Ness Monster Debate Facebook page is appropriate here.

In my opinion, as a boat skipper who daily sees the waves made by the larger trip boats near Urquhart Castle, the "Nessie" photo is indistinguishable from the usual interference waves generated when the bow-wave from a south-west bound boat meets the north-east moving wind generated waves on an ordinary day. If someone offers a more logical explanation I will be pleased to learn from it.

So, be it logs or waves, the skeptics say their bit, mark it "solved" and move on (and let it be known that monsters do not constitute a "logical explanation"). Meanwhile, I had obtained the Fortean Times issue which carried the story of this photograph. Elsewhere in the issue, I came across a quote from Charles Fort which summed up it all up for me.

"When I see that a thing has been explained, I go on investigating."

So let's get on with the investigating. There are some reasons why I do not agree with this wave theory.

The person whom I quoted on waves is Dick Raynor. He has spent decades at the loch taking pictures of phenomena which can fool inexperienced observers of the loch. I looked at his web page on waves and wakes to see what his years of taking pictures has produced. I assume it was representative of his research on this topic. 

To put it bluntly, none of his photos look like the object in Jonathan's picture. But his quote says it is indistinguishable from the "usual interference waves" on the loch. I take the word "usual" to mean these are a common phenomenon, so he must have a better picture on file somewhere which matches Jonathan's picture.

In the meantime, the photos on his site show waves which are too flat, extended and appears together in sequential groups. Neither of these apply to the object in our picture which is more peaked and is on its own. I have scanned the uncropped picture and see no evidence of this being in those classes of wakes and waves. That is how we determine if it is distinguishable from the "usual" waves. The photograph below shows an actual Jacobite cruiser interacting with another boat wake. I see nothing in this picture to suggest the production of a stand out lone metre high wave.

Jonathan also sent me the photographs he took immediately before and after our main picture. The one below was taken seconds before and shows nothing.  However, I overlaid the Nessie picture over it and it just makes the right hand edge of the overlay. So, it is a matter of debate whether our object would have appeared in both pictures since its direction of travel is not clear.

Furthermore, the photo below which was taken after Nessie is too far to the observer's right hand side but is included to show the lack of any proposed interference waves. Readers may note unusual colouring of the pictures. This is because they were taken in infra-red. I have not come to any conclusion as to whether this adds to or takes away from the analysis of the picture.

Jonathan says it is a picture taken with τhe internal IR pass filter of his camera, which allows infrared light from 720 nM (the near infrared range extending from 700nM to 1000 or 1400nM, depending on the dividing system). So this is not in the thermal IR range beloved of Bigfoot Flir camera hunts. Jonathan's own comment on near IR suggests:

"The dark/light colors seem to rather depend on the composition of the surfaces, for example, healthy vegetation/chlorophyll reflects large amount of near-infrared light, thus giving the whitish appearance to the tree leaves and grass, while rocky surfaces reflect little nIR light. But I really don't know how a 'Loch Ness monster' body would behave."

Perhaps this is a clue which suggests the object in the picture is of a more rough texture. 

The other issue I noted was the height of the wave compared to others round about. Consider how waves normally interfere constructively to produce one bigger wave. The compound wave cannot be greater than the combined energies of its parent waves.  This wave looks at least twice as big as the waves around it which suggests another boat or wind source of comparable energy is nearby churning out waves.

There is no indication of such a thing in the picture. Indeed, the Jacobite cruisers are amongst the most powerful boats in the loch and, being November, I think the other cruises have closed out for the season. I am wondering what powerful boat could be around to provide this additional energy? Not that it matters, this "wave" does not look like such a wave. Jonathan also commented on how this "wave" seems to have water running off it as suggested by the white "streaks" you can see around its base.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Could it be an animal known to science such as a seal? I do not consider this a seal as the back would look smoother and more rounded. Could it be a sturgeon? Well, despite the fact that such a sight would be extremely rare, I do not think an Atlantic Sturgeon could arch its back like that or display the contours I think I can see.

Finally, it was perhaps no surprise that it was suggested that Jonathan had faked the photograph via the ubiquitous Photoshop. Now, this gets trotted out now and again and I suspect without much in the way of analysis. But these type of images are becoming more and more prevalent and the Loch Ness researcher needs to be able to conversant with their tell tale signs.

But based on my conversations with Jonathan, he comes across as no faker to me. Moreover, to my less than expert eye, the image looks "in situ" based on contrast and light considerations. It is darker than the waves around it, but that is more an argument against it being a wave than a digital artifact.

Moreover, Jonathan is not a tourist seeking five minutes of fame. He is involved in various public events in Greece as a researcher and it would be plain stupid to put all this on the line for a fake photo. Indeed, why not make it a better photo and add a sequence if one was intent on fooling people?

Others may wish to comment, but please state your reasons rather than just state your opinion!

THE LOCH NESS MONSTER

So what could it be? How about I go out on a limb and suggest it is the Loch Ness Monster? Considering the estimated dimensions, this looks more like the head and neck of the creature than its main body. Jonathan has suggested he can see the head looking back at him but I have reservations about that interpretation. In fact, to me the object looks somewhat similar to the photo taken by Sidney Wilson back in 2007 (below). However, I think Jonathan's is a better picture and again we have to be wary of the effects of pareidolia. Indeed, the Wilson image looks like a polar bear's head to me!

I do agree with Jonathan that the picture could be interpreted as a head with two white horn-like projections being visible. It could even be argued that two eyes can be made out and a muzzle of some description. What can be seen is to some extent dictated by the viewer.

But in my opinion, the proposed head is too large to fit what we know about the head and neck of the Monster from the witness database. By and large, the classic head is lacking in features and sometimes is no more than a continuation of the neck. I say that without going into detail about what this "head" may actually be. Moreover, the proposed head gives the impression of looking back in the direction it appears to be travelling in which looks quite un-animal like behaviour to me.

The other question to ask is how big the entire creature is for a head in this size range? Now when I say the head is too big, I mean in terms of internal proportions rather than absolute size. If we assume a 0.6m (1ft11in) head height from the picture, I would estimate the entire size based on a rough and ready plesiosaur body shape to be 12:1 overall giving us a 23 footer (a respectable size for a Loch Ness Monster).

Jonathan is a member of the sizeable community of paranormal researchers and is open to such an interpretation for Nessie, so that does offer a wider latitude in interpreting the picture.  However, there are some recorded sightings which claim to see larger heads and I would neither wish to be dogmatic or claim the final word on that matter. In fact, the head and neck reported by J.M. Ballantyne in 1965 is a good example in that regard (sketch below).

On the subject of backs, there was one back sighting that immediately came to mind when I saw this picture and that was the Commander Meiklem report from August 1933. He saw a ridged back in the relatively shallow waters of Inchnacardoch Bay. I say that because there is the appearance of something ridge-like running along the top of the object.

But Meiklem's object was at least the size of a "cart-horse", this is a lot smaller. Back ridges are occasionally reported by witnesses but they are not a universal feature of Nessie morphology which leads me to speculate whether it is a feature that is specific to age, gender or season.

Or could it be the back of a juvenile Nessie? If we know little about the Loch Ness Monster, then we know even less about alleged little Nessies. Do they even exist? One presumes so biologically but next to nothing can be said about them from the witness record. I addressed this subject in a previous article.

But if I suggest that this is the rear view of the head and neck then could the proposed ridge be more akin to the mane of the legendary water horse? Again, we have reports of mane like structures being reported by witnesses. And again, they are not a universal feature of the witness record and so I presume they are also gender, age or season specific. The problem is similar to the old tale of the blind men and the elephant. What exactly are we looking at? Neck, back or perhaps even tail?

One aspect of reported manes is that they tend to "flop" down over the neck while this apparent mane looks more erect. Can these mane like structure be raised in the manner of a courtship or territorial display? Yes, I know, speculation.

It is this mane or ridge like structure that distinguishes the object from any proposed wave, log or other object but the picture highlights an ongoing issue. This was taken at a mere range of about 100 feet but still there is no unambiguous data to extract. By unambiguous, I mean acceptable even to sceptics (but perhaps I use that term too optimistically).

Admittedly, the object's relatively small size is a hindrance, but how close does one have to get to this creature to get the picture that gets the whole world talking? If it had been a classic ten foot hump then we would get closer to that scenario.

In conclusion, I think this is a picture of the Loch Ness Monster. I think it tells Nessie researchers a bit more about the creature's morphology but does not provide the slam dunk evidence.

To rephrase some words mentioned above, if someone offers a more logical explanation I will be pleased to learn from it.