Jeremy Wade at Loch Ness

Finally, the two part episode of "River Monsters" at Loch Ness will be televised on British TV on 11th February at 7:30pm. Presumably, part two follows next week. This was first televised in the USA in May last year. More details here.

By some strange coincidence, I will be starting my talk on the Loch Ness Monster on the same day at the same time. Thank goodness for video recorders!

The Dornoch Dragon and Nessie

Over at Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog, I stumbled upon a reference to my book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness". The subject in question was the Dornoch Dragon which was reputed to have terrorised that Highland town in the 13th century.

The point of referencing that story in my book was to highlight the difference but co-existence of dragon and kelpie stories in the folklore of Highland times. The Loch Ness Monster is a Kelpie, but it is no Dragon. You can go over to Beachcombing's website to get the story.

But what interests me is not so much the story but the source. I picked up on the story from a letter to The Scotsman newspaper on the 1st January 1934. The author of the letter was a Mr. David Murray Rose. 

Mr. Rose had previously sent a letter to the same newspaper mentioning some pre-1933 references to a strange beast in Loch Ness. These are important references but they have been dismissed by sceptics because he does not state his sources. Now for those who think Nessie is merely a media creation of the 1930s, such pre-1930s references are inconvenient and the sooner they are debunked away the better. Now I admit he does not state his sources, but I accept they exist. This week's article on the Dornoch Dragon has reinforced that view.

The article ends with doubts being cast upon the veracity of Rose's account and again poor old David Murray Rose is in the dock. But then help came along in the shape of Mr. Borky (who I believe also frequents this blog). Borky informed Beachcombing that there is indeed an earlier source for the story and refers us to the Folklore Journal, volume six, published in 1888. You can find a link to it here.

So David Murray Rose is vindicated in this letter to The Scotsman and therefore I would suggest that he is also trustworthy in his other letter on the Loch Ness Monster. Of course, the task is to find these original sources and that is not a simple task if they have not reached the scanners of Google Books yet.

I examined Mr. Rose's research material in Edinburgh when I was researching my book. Suffice to say, my two days there was not enough to cover the vast volume of boxes there. Indeed, trying to read his pencilled handwriting was no easy task either! If I ever retire, I hope to revisit them.

On a side note, I noticed that the 1888 Folklore Journal stated the following:

The dragon killed by St. Gilbert (before-mentioned) must have been a salamander, since it was born from a fire which has lasted seven years. It lived in fire, and its breath burnt all the forests of the Highlands : onlv a man who should see it before it saw him had power to slay it, St. Gilbert dug a hole and hid himself in it, so as to get the first sight of it. 

Interestingly, the Loch Ness Monster was also reputedly referred to as "The Salamander" in the 19th century. Is there a connection here between dragon and kelpie?  As it turns out, folklore has an interesting view of the salamander. The old Gaelic dictionary of animal names say this:

SALAMANDER. — Corr or corra-chagailte ; Teighiollas ; Urchuil or urcuil. 
Fire-form, sometimes fire-bird. 

A belief exists, or existed, that one of these nondescript creatures grew in any fire that was kept burning continuously or incessantly for seven years, hence the reason for extinguishing all furnaces periodically within that period ; it need hardly be added that the reason is of a more utilitarian and prosaic nature in cities. 

Of Sir Robert Gordon, the Third Baronet of Nova Scotia, it is said of his wizardry:

He is said to have fitted up a forge, and here night after night for seven long years he sat watching the glowing embers, until at length his patience was rewarded by the appearance of a live salamander. From this creature he tortured many an unearthly secret.

Perhaps not the salamander of modern day theories, but I wonder if the two were connected?

And finally, I also stumbled upon this piece from 1907:

The Adder as a swimmer — I do not suppose that the adder which was discovered swimming across Loch-Ness knew what it was attempting. Apart from the doubt whether snakes have long sight, it is obvious that a creature whose eyes are always close to the ground must have a very near horizon, and can, therefore, have no notion of the width of a large piece of water. - (to P. C. Inverness.) 

Snakes swimming across Loch Ness? You learn something every day! The sceptics can add that to their list of misidentifications!

A Photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

Trawling around the Internet as I do for Nessie information, I came across this photograph on a website compilation of holiday snaps. The owner of the picture had been to Scotland and elsewhere in Europe from the USA and had decided to put up a montage of her experiences. However, one of the pictures shows something a bit more than normal.

Here is a zoom in on the object of interest. It would appear the the picture was taken on the 15th July 2006 but the camera time is set at 0421. The location is given as a point off the Clansman Harbour at the north end of the loch but closer to the opposite shore, so the photographer was probably on a cruise boat (see map below).

Now I have tried several times to contact the owner of this photograph (who I believe is called Nancy) but without success and this basically leaves me in a bit of no-man's land. The reason I say that is because if I did establish contact the day after this article posted, several replies may be forthcoming. 

For example, the owner may say "It's a Photoshop job, I was just fooling around.". In that case, there is not much more to say and we move on.

Or she may say that is a genuine picture and we can take it from there.

Or she may come up with some other reply such as "The cruise boat had a Nessie sticker on the window for tourist Nessie snaps."

Of course, it may be the photographer is unable or unwilling to make contact.

But despite these unknowns, perhaps this is an opportunity to explore an area of Loch Ness Monster images that provokes debate. I am referring to digital images of the creatures and the argument over whether they are digitally manipulated images.

Of course, manipulated images of the Loch Ness Monster go hand in hand with the mystery itself. The 1977 Shiels picture is perhaps the best example, but the MacNab picture from 1955 has also been put under the scrutiny of sceptical enquirers.  However, such alleged images form a small part of the overall set of images. Others have been accused of being staged props or misidentification, the rest are genuine images of the creature.

PHOTOSHOPPING

Now one question levelled by sceptics today is why the clarity of the classic black and white pictures is not repeated today with superior cameras. However, when a photograph such as this turns up, it is automatically dismissed as a fake. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The "too good to be true" syndrome kicks in almost by instinct.

Now it may not have escaped your attention that the lake cryptid world has no lack of digitally faked images. A search for images of "loch ness monster" on google will throw up a good number of such "photoshopped" images (to quote the vernacular for such images). How can you distinguish the real from the fake? For me, this photograph is the catalyst to explore this more modern aspect of cryptid forensics more closely.

At the "lowest" level of analysis, the aforementioned snap judgements are oft to the fore. A picture appears on a cryptid website and not long after we get the photoshopping comments. People will look at such images and get a "feel" for whether it looks right or not. Of course, this involves a mixture of objective and subjective assessments, but we need something that eliminates the subjective.

At this point, I would have to point out that there are two types of photoshopped images, those that are intended to deceive and those that are intended as an obvious joke. The latter are not that difficult to spot. Those that intend to deceive put a bit more effort into their creation.

IMAGE ANALYSIS

One website I consulted gave five rules for detecting a Photoshop event:

1. "Software" metadata in image file is "Photoshop"
2. Image is compressed to JPEG file by Photoshop (which has some unique pattern)
3. Image is compressed to JPEG file twice (which has some other unique pattern)
4. Part of image has been cloned from another part of it
5. Image color or brightness is deemed abnormal which should be manipulated

I can't say I will exhaustively apply all these principles today - I am no expert on digital manipulation - but the need to "ramp up" on this aspect of Loch Ness Monster investigation has become more apparent to me.

On the first point of the metadata, this is part of the Exif (Exchangeable image file format) data that makes up JPEG, TIF and WAV image files. This data contains information on the circumstances of the image such as camera make and model, date and time, exposure time and focal length. Since the data does not actually describe the image, it is called metadata. You can see this for yourself on a Windows system by right clicking on a picture file and selecting "Properties".

However, on trying some images, finding the clue of subterfuge via the metadata was not as clean cut as one may think. One website that seems to be popular in looking for anomalies is imageedited.com.  This will run some basic tests on an uploaded image file and hazard a guess as to whether the image has been changed. 

When I ran this photograph through it, the decision as to whether image editing had occurred was "Probably" though it did not list any image editing software as a culprit. Is this a decisive conclusion? I do not think so. When I ran another of the owner's photographs from Loch Ness which was no more than an ordinary snap of the castle, it gave the same result!

It seemed apparent to me that both images had undergone some changes in preparation for web site hosting. One possible explanation being the downsizing of the image to a smaller size. I also wondered if an editing software program could be masked by running it through a subsequent, less suspicious program?

MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Seeking to take this further, I came upon the website fotoforensics.com. On top of the metadata analysis I just mentioned, two further tools are employed to ascertain the originality of a photographic image. The first is called Error Level Analysis ("ELA" hereafter). This works on the principle that a JPEG image should uniformly and roughly have the same level of data compression (JPEG is a process which compresses the original image to a smaller file size but usually with the loss of information). Any differences in compression rate in an image is suggestive of digital modification.

The website allows you to upload a file for ELA conversion which outputs an image. The guidelines given for that new image are summarised as follows:

Edges. Similar edges should have similar brightness in the ELA result. All high-contrast edges should look similar to each other, and all low-contrast edges should look similar. With an original photo, low-contrast edges should be almost as bright as high-contrast edges. 

Textures. Similar textures should have similar coloring under ELA. Areas with more surface detail, such as a close-up of a basketball, will likely have a higher ELA result that a smooth surface.

Surfaces. Regardless of the actual color of the surface, all flat surfaces should have about the same coloring under ELA.

With that in mind, I looked around for some faked Nessie pictures to analyze. In each pair, the first picture is the original and the one below is the ELA image. The first one presents an immediate problem as this white Nessie has an ELA which is higher (i.e. more complex) than the sky of a similar hue. 

The next picture is taken from Claudio Diaz's Lake Monster Facebook page. Claudio has produced various Photoshop reproductions and these provide an interesting comparison (indeed, Claudio's opinion on this matter is solicited). Here we see that the brightness of the edges around the "monster" are not consistent with other low/high contrast edges indicating a problem.

Another image from the Lake Monsters Facebook page shows a more indistinct hump image nestling within the reflection of Urquhart Castle. This fuzziness is mirrored in the indistinct lack of edge in the ELA image. A harder image to judge, but perhaps others have an opinion.

Now I bring in the same process for the main photograph of our interest. The result is that, unlike the other pictures, the object here is barely visible in the ELA image. Is this significant and is it an indication of no digital manipulation? Perhaps, but there is no foolproof technique here and it would have helped to have the original and larger image.

JPEG QUALITY

The second analysis tool is JPEG Quality. Each time an image file is opened in a graphics editor and resaved, there is a potential loss of image quality (this depends on the quality level selected). The loss of quality can be estimated and compared to other images. 

Using our fotoforensics tool, the JPEG quality is estimated to be 85%. When another of the Loch Ness holiday snaps from the owner was put through this filter, its quality level was also estimated to be 85%. This suggests both images went through the same sequence of events. If the Nessie photo had gone through an extra level of processing to add the "monster", then it would be possible for it to have a lower JPEG quality.

CONCLUSIONS

So, some conclusions may be reached, but I suspect an expert digital manipulator could produce an image which only experts could judge at the pixel level. Since the owner of the photograph has not replied to my requests, the jury has to remain out on this one.

But certainly, judging it purely as an image (independent of its source), it is a good one. You can see the precise detail that the object possesses as one observes the glint of the sun reflecting off the head and to a lesser extent off the humps. There is also the reflection of the neck on the water. Moreover, the image has packed more detail into a smaller area than the other images we compared here.

On the opposite side of the coin, the second hump to the left of the main hump looks out of place. What could that mean? Also, the zoomed in pixellated area to the left of the neck reflection looks a bit strange, but how valid is an image judgement when individual pixels are resolved?

So, I am bit new to this and would welcome comments from others who may have more experience of image analysis. I would also like to know when sceptics regard a photo as no longer "too good to be true" and not "photoshopped".

 

Forthcoming talk on the Loch Ness Monster

I will be giving a talk on the Loch Ness Monster to the Edinburgh Fortean Society on Tuesday 11th February at 7:30pm. The venue is the Counting House pub on West Nicolson Street in Edinburgh. The Society's website can be found here.

The talk will look back on the year past from the point of view of the Monster as well as the Loch Ness area. That will include excerpts on my own work as well as some stories from the area (some of which have not reached this blog!).

Entry is £1 only and the talk will have a Q&A session at the end. Finish time will be about 10pm. Hope to see you there.

 

Frank Searle Speaks!

A fellow monster hunter, Scott Mardis, altered me to an interesting YouTube video on Frank Searle. To be more precise, it is by Frank Searle himself and is described as a cassette recording he sent out to subscribers of his newsletter in 1979. My thanks to Terry Sly who owns the YouTube channel for putting this online.

You may or may not want to listen to the whole tape before I discuss it below. If you listen first, be warned there is a two minute silence at 28 minutes which is not a fault. The discussion by Frank can be divided into five sections:

 
The Search for the Monster

This is the main section consisting of Frank's views on the creatures as well as the attempts to track it down. Not surprisingly, he is somewhat scathing of organisations and expeditions he regarded as profiteering enterprises. The Loch Ness Investigation Bureau does not escape his judgement as he accuses the organisation of non-existent camera watches in the last few years and an amateurish approach. 

People involved in those latter days may choose to answer this themselves, though in my recent tribute to the late Roy Mackal, it seems there is an implication that the search had moved from surface camera watches to other techniques such as sonar, hydrophone and so on.

He is equally scathing of Robert Rines and the Academy of Applied Sciences and suggests the prevalent theory of the time that the famous "Gargoyle" photograph was none other than the monster prop for the 1969 Sherlock Holmes film. Frank even claims he has a shot of the sunken prop underwater, but gives no indication as to how he obtained this! It seems Frank's view of the AAS would not be far off that of modern sceptics!

Frank goes with the popular theory of its time, the advanced or modified plesiosaur theory. Though he also says the creature is not an air breather. Are these two reconcilable? Thinking also that there may be thirty animals in the loch, he splits them into three or four families which keep to their areas of the loch. An interesting view, though what makes him think that is not clarified.

Of course, there will be agreement between Frank's Nessie views and other monster enthusiasts. I agree with him that sightings are not much more than ten per year but I do not agree with him when he dismisses land sightings as all fabrications and misidentifications. Again, sceptics and Frank Searle meet on common ground. Curiouser and curiouser!

What would Frank do if he had unlimited exploration funds? He would dredge the loch for those Nessie skulls and bones. Now this kind of operation is objected to today, but given the loch floor covers over ten square miles, that would seem to be somewhat over protective. But then again, how much surface would you have to dredge to hit Nessie gold?

Review of interesting cases

The recording goes silent for a couple of minutes after 28 minutes, but don't adjust your controls as Frank does come back with a selection of his own alleged sightings and others from the literature.

Interesting points around Loch Ness

A whistle stop tour of the loch then begins as Frank begins near Dores and heads south and then north along the loch with various observations. One interesting statement he makes as his imaginary tour goes past Alltsigh is how he claims to have had his first sighting, not when he pitched his tent in 1969 but in 1965 when he was on holiday at Loch Ness.

Folklore

Some old folk tales are related as Frank relates the tale of the Witches Burn running by his tent and the soldier ghosts that reputedly march between Ballacladich and Dores.

Monster Hunting Tips

Finally, some monster hunting tips from our controversial figure as he sums up his time there with 25,000 visitors to his caravan exhibition, 2,000 letters answered, 38,000 hours of surface watching, 38 sightings and 9 pictures! The video finally puts up a picture of the interior of Frank's caravan exhibition which I took in the early 1980s. I am not aware of any other such snaps, but would like to see if any are out there to add to the historical Nessie archive.

I would also have to ask Terry about the Searle gravestone at the end of the video. I am not sure it is that of Frank Searle, who I believe died in 2005.

How the tape turned up is a story in itself. Terry's father was John "Sparky" Sly, a piano player, who met Frank Searle in the 1970s when he took his piano up north to try and "serenade" the monster. You can see a clip of a conversation he had with Frank Searle below. After that, Frank sent his tape and newsletters to the Sly household. How many of these tapes survive today is not known, so again, thanks to Terry for putting it online on his YouTube channel.

Joe Zarzynski and Loch Ness

Here is a book I never got round to buying until recently and so I briefly review it here and will add it to the Nessie bibliography.

Joe Zarzynski was active in the search for The Loch Ness and Lake Champlain Monsters in the 1970s and 1980s. He made various trips to Loch Ness but his main focus was on his local cryptid, "Champ" on which he wrote the 1984 book "Champ - Beyond the Legend". Below is a picture of him (right) with famous monster hunter, Tim Dinsdale.

In 1986, he wrote this book which combined two of his major interests, lake cryptids and underwater archaeology. At 111 pages, it is an afternoon read with about 60% of the book devoted to Loch Ness, so it qualifies for the book list. However, the book is not just about underwater wreckage.

The subjects covered in the book from a Loch Ness point of view are the Zulu-class boat wreck of Temple Pier, John Cobb's "Crusader" boat, the Wellington Bomber, the Sherlock Holmes monster, and the 1930s Steam Engine. Non "wreckage" items include the Goodyear Blimp, Ken Wallis' autogyro, submarines and atmospheric diving suits, Nessie boat collisions, giant nets and so on.

One thing I noted was the reference to the Zulu-class boat and I recalled a recent article on divers at Loch Ness which included a reference to a Zulu-class wreck, but off Foyers on the other side of the loch and discovered much later in 2002. Also, since the book was written, parts of John Cobb's boat have been located. Doubtless, other wrecks lie across the bottom and sides of Loch Ness and most likely a number of Nessie carcasses.

Since those days, Joe has left the cryptozoological field and has pursued his other love of investigating shipwrecks. You can find an example of that here. He still supports cryptozoology and believes there is something to the Champ phenomemon.

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.