Sighting of Loch Ness Monster from 1990

I sometimes wonder how many sightings of the Loch Ness Monster go unreported? There is the strange account of the seagulls I found on an Internet comment board (see link). I also spoke to someone originally from Inverness recently who claimed a friend saw something strange in the loch some years back. We only get the slightest details or they never fully surface. However, Chris Sharratt while working at Loch Ness in 1990 had a strange experience which he posted on his flickr account and which I reproduce here:

Ok, I will try to keep it short, but I will tell you the facts surrounding my sighting of what might have been the Loch Ness Monster!

The idyllic 3 years I told you about in my last post, looking after a new salmon farm on my own in the wilds, came to an abrupt end when we discovered the loch we had the fish cages in (not Loch Ness itself) had zillions of small water flea type organisms that were passing on a parasitic disease to the young salmon.

So all the fish were moved out, and I moved companies and became site manager on a similar juvenile-salmon farm which actually was (and still is) on Loch Ness itself, near the tiny shoreside village of Dores.

For a year or two I was still caretaker of the other site, even though all the fish had long gone.
This meant that occasionally I made the journey from the Dores farm at the start of Loch Ness, right along the road that follows the south side of the loch to the small inland loch near Whitebridge that once was my daily office.

Anyway, it was one such day while I was on my way to inspect the old site that I saw the Loch Ness Monster!

It was a crystal clear sunny day and Loch Ness was the calmest I'd ever seen. Like a mirror with steep green forested mountain sides reflecting above the dark depths below.
I was about half way down the side of the 37km loch and the car was climbing up from the loch side road where it meets the hill at Inverfarigaig. As I looked down admiring the calmness of the loch, something looking very alive, dark, solid and large broke through the glistening surface rose up for a second, then was gone!
I had stopped the car and watched with disbelief as the rings from the wake crept out not so slowly from the centre of the loch and spread far, reaching each side of the 3km wide loch within only a minute or two!

Now I have never believed in Nessie, but what I saw that day was bigger than any other creature that could possibly be there! Seals occasionally make it up the River Ness and can be seen where the river runs through the city of Inverness, but that is close to the sea! Where I was when I saw what I did was 25km from salt water, and anyway it was larger than any Seal!

So there is my story which is factual. The only question is ... what was it I saw??????

I asked Chris for more details and he essentially said it was a "single lump" which sounds reminiscent of the most common type of sighting which is one hump breaking the surface. What could surface and then submerge again so quickly? Some sceptics suggest some sightings can be logs floating to the surface from gas eruptions below. However, Adrian Shine's work at the Loch Ness Centre proves that very little gas deposits are produced from the sediments at the bottom of the loch. There is an area in Urquhart Bay which produce some gas from decaying material deposits but the sighting did not occur there. Besides, one would only anticipate small objects such as branches, etc being driven up and that from shallow areas.

In other words, it looks like Nessie had surfaced again in one of her fleeting appearances.

Owning the Loch Ness Monster

An old story from 2009 caught my attention recently and made me ask the question: "If Nessie was captured, who would own her?". The story was an article on how bookmakers William Hill and the Natural History Museum had an agreement where the museum would provide expert advice on verifying the existence of the creature but also in return having the option of displaying the beast.

The story is here.

The article seemed to imply that William Hill would somehow have property rights on the carcass or live animal else how could the museum gain access to it? One doubts that such an event was likely or even legal. If a carcass was found by myself or anyone then the same procedure that applies for finding treasure trove should apply. Since Loch Ness is in Scotland then common scots law would apply (unless superceded by EU Law which we assume not here).

In such a case, if the item is regarded as precious or of national importance then the Crown of Scotland would have first claim on it. A panel from the Crown Office will ejudicate the matter and normally offer the trove to the appropriate museum or institution. Since the Crown Office will normally allow a reward to be paid to the finder, it is then up to the museum to raise the funds to purchase the items at "market value".

What is the "market value" of a live or dead Nessie? I doubt the Scottish Parliament would allow such an iconic item to leave the nation and hence outside bids would be disallowed unless they agreed to leave the body on show in Scotland.

I would suspect given William Hill's offer of £1 million in 2007 for positive proof of Nessie, that such a figure would be the starting bid!

A Strange Loch Ness Monster Report?

I found this piece in a newspaper comment section following on from a none too exciting Nessie article. Apparently it occured around 1979 and involved a "James" from the town of Lewes:

Well I for one believe in the monster. Some 30 years ago I moored my boat on the shallow water shelf at Urquart castle about 100 feet or so from the abyss where the shelf ends and plunges 700 feet or so into eternal night. At dusk there was a huge disturbance in the water just off the edge of the shelf and a flock of 50 or so seagulls were sucked down and all vanished all in less than a second. So yes I believe that there is at least a huge predator living in the loch.

Now whether this was the monster is a debateable point, I have never read of such behaviour in all my time reading the literature. Could it have been a whirlpool? Though I am no expert on how water currents interact, this seems unlikely and is not a phenomenon I have read about at Loch Ness.

Could it have been the actions of underwater gases? Again, one would expect such an event to cause an explosion rather than an implosion of water.

A curious incident for which I have no ready explanation. Whoever you are James, tell me more!

More on Greta Finlay

As suspected, current skeptics put Greta Finlay's sighting down to a common roe deer or similar. In my opinion, this is a nonsense theory as too many things have to come together to make it sound believeable.

Let me tell you about my recent deer experience. Not at Loch Ness but in a wood near my place of work where I sometimes go for a lunchtime walk. As I walked I noticed something moving to my left and I stopped to look more closely. It was a deer with two more at about 50 yards away. In fact, it was a deer side on to me but face towards me (in a Finlay like pose). The fact that it took me less than a second to identify it as a deer should come as no surprise. The only surprise was that I did not expect to see any deer near this semi-built up area. As it faced me side on, the ears were very much pricked up in an alert condition (after all, it knew I was there). After some seconds, I moved and they then trotted off in the direction they were pointing.

So this is all pretty much matter of fact, it is very unlikely in those conditions I will mistake a deer for anything else. But suppose there was a legend of a big cat in that forest which is occasionally claimed to have been seen by some but in general has never harmed anyone and is just regarded as creepy. How would that have affected my deer episode?

So, if I had walked the forest with that at the back of my mind, would I have been fooled into thinking the deer was now a big cat? Since I know what a big cat looks like, it is again not very likely. On seeing the deer, one's brain may add the extra processing option of "Big Cat" to the list of possible identifications but the match would fail. The deer is a better fit.

Likewise with Mrs. Finlay at 20 yards from her creature. Various possible contendors would flash through the brain. The "deer" and "nessie" templates would be fitted against what is seen and the winner would be the deer. Obviously, at further distances where visual data becomes less accurate then no identification may be possible and guesswork becomes involved. But at twenty yards - no.

So, to repeat the unusual sequence of events from a deer perspective:

1. The Finlays turn round to see a deer standing in the water 20 yards away.
2. Both fail to recognise it is a deer because they "want" to see the monster.
3. The deer obligingly keeps it ears pinned back to avoid obvious detection.
4. It covers itself in mud to appear black and slimy.
5. It also hides any facial features like eyes, nose and mouth.
6. The appearance of this common deer somehow strikes terror into the witnesses.
7. The deer manages to stay faceward towards the Finlays so they do not see
the giveaway muzzle of a deer (and ears).
8. The deer decides to become a furry submarine and submerges never to appear
again. OR
9. It gave the impression of sinking but was actually making it way to the
shoreline to complete the deception by bolting to the trees.

Now let's talk about logic and the scientific technique as sceptics love to apply. If a theory does not adequately explain the data then it should be discarded. Occam's razor applies - find the simplest explanation that requires the least assumptions. That seems obvious but sceptics persist in this theory rather than the more obvious one from their point of view - the testimony was fabricated. That is, the Finlays were liars.

Now perhaps sceptics just don't like to go around libelling and defaming people as liars. After all, this is a litigious age. It would be "kinder" to say the witness was just deceived by an unusual set of circumstances.

Unfortunately, in this case, I don't think this applies. The deer theory does not fit. That leaves them the following options:

1. The witnesses lied.
2. Someone deceived them in a "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" scenario.
3. It was an unidentified large creature largely as described.
4. Don't know.

Which one shall be picked? if they are true to their logic, option one seems the best choice.

I personally go for option three!

As a final aside, why don't Nessie believers apply Occam's Razor as well and come to the same conclusion that all close up accounts are lies? The reason is because such a theory again requires too many assumptions - despite all the varying characters, it requires that every witness had an abnormal propensity to lie and stick to that lie despite the potential criticism and ridicule they may receive - from their peers and of course sceptics in general.

Classic Sightings - Greta Finlay

Date: August 20th 1952
Time: noon
Location: Aldourie Pier
Witnesses: Mrs. Greta Finlay and son
Type of sighting: Head, neck and back in water

Greta Finlay was an ordinary housewife of Inverness who had an extraordinary experience - one of the closest encounters with the Loch Ness Monster. Here is her sighting in her own words (reproduced in Tim Dinsdale's book "Loch Ness Monster"):

I was sitting outside the caravan when I heard a continual splashing in the water. After several moments passed and realizing this was not the usual wash from a boat I walked round. To my surprise I saw what I believe to be the Loch Ness Monster. My son and I stood looking at this creature in amazement. Although I was terrified, we stood and watched until it submerged, which it did very quickly causing waves to break on the shore. We had an excellent view as it was so close to the shore. Its skin was dark in colour and looked very tough. The neck was long and held erect. The head was about the same width as the neck. There were two projections from it, each with a blob on the end. This was not a pleasant experience. I certainly never want to see the Monster again. My son had drawn several sketches, one of which I enclose.

This can be compared with the account given to Constance Whyte (author of "More than a Legend") just two days after her sighting:

I was so taken up with the strange appearance of the head and neck that I did not examine the rest of the animal at all closely. There were two or three humps and the total length visible would be about 15 feet. The neck was held erect, and where it met the water it enlarged to join a bulky body. The head and neck together were 2—2.5 feet in length, the head alone being about 6 inches long and of about the same width as the neck. What astonished me, apart from the hideous appearance of the head, was that there were two 6-inch-long projections from it, each with a blob on the end. The skin looked black and shiny and reminded me of a snail more than anything.

Mrs. Finlay's experience was first recorded by Constance Whyte in 1957 for her book but Dinsdale interviewed her about eight years later while he was researching his book. Here is the drawing her son Harry sketched for Whyte's book.



The reaction of Mrs Finlay to the sight of the creature was one of being terrified and paralysed with fear. Now the critic who thinks Mrs. Finlay only saw a deer would merely retort that once someone has convinced themselves that they are looking at something unusual then such a reaction will naturally follow. This may well be true but the fact that her son reacted in the same way diminishes that argument. In fact, according to Dinsdale, the lad gave up fishing after this episode.

The episode is placed about half a mile south of Aldourie Castle at the old pier and the creature was about twenty yards out in the water.

This kind of sighting is much loved of debunkers. It gives them a chance to dismiss a dramatic sighting and then turn round and say "If such a close up report can be dismissed, then what about the more distant ones?". To that end, the three sceptics I normally consult (Binns, Burton and Campbell) are unanimous that it was nothing more than a reddish brown deer. They cannot pass up on this opportunity to bolster their case.

In fact, Maurice Burton was so convinced that he also reproduced a drawing in his book of what a young buck with short stumpy horns would look like at that distance. Not surprisingly, the drawing he executed looks exactly like the Finlay drawing but with the eyes, nose and folded back ears. He even tries to explain away the grey, leathery appearance of the creature's skin with reference to the water's glistening effect.

Now finding an image of a deer on Google Images that looked like Burton's was totally fruitless. The best I could find was the two images below.




Note the height of the neck is shorter than that of the Finlay sighting. Also the ears are a bit of a stick out problem. Ears are important to a deer and are constantly rotating around like radar assessing any potential dangers. This would be especially true when they are in a vulnerable environment like water. The other problem is that these deer are standing in the water and not in the act of swimming. A swimming deer looks more like the picture below:



Note the head and neck are much lower in the water and stretched forward in the act of swimming - nothing like the Finlay account. This I presume would force the sceptic to admit that for the deer explanation to have credence then the animal must have been standing in the water. In that case, given the dimension of a typical roe deer, the depth of the water could not have been much more than 3 or 4 feet. Burton takes this up and claims that this is indeed the kind of depth at that place but the facts say differently. Consulting the 1903 bathymetric survey of Loch Ness (maps held at National Library of Scotland), the depth is more likely to be nearer 20 feet as this zoom in of the map shows:


The "22" near the centre is where the pier is drawn and indicates a sounding depth measurement done by the survey. It has a depth of 22 feet just over twenty yards out. In other words, too deep for a deer to stand in.

This is to be expected because there is a pier here and some kind of depth is required for boats to safely approach the mooring point. The "6" (6ft) to either side of the pier is perhaps what Burton intended but a deeper depth is required when deciding where to put a pier.

Apart from this problem, there is the other issue that the creature is reported to have submerged after some seconds. Not one of the three sceptics addresses this point. Deer do not submerge and disappear under the surface (unless dragged under the surface by the Loch Ness Monster). If this was a deer then it would have remained in sight for a long time or clambered onto the shore. Either way, it's identity would have quickly become apparent.

Perhaps the deer was having a heart attack and fell dying into the water? This is one ridiculous interpretation I have heard and again we see how on examining the sceptical case, things begin to fall apart. What Greta Finlay saw terrified her, her son gave up fishing because of it. If it was a deer, this would have become apparent fairly quickly as the deer did its normal thing in water.

As additional information, here is a Google Earth zoom of the pier with the circled area where I believe the witnesses were and the general direction of the beast. No options for a deer to covertly disappear behind an outcrop or dash onto shore.



Again with skepticism, it is the plausible versus the possible. A deer sounds plausible but given an examination of the facts not probable. Some may suggest a strangely floating deer fooling someone 20 yards away whilst having a coronary is still more probable than a large unknown creature in Loch Ness. At least the monster theory does not involve some strange gymnastics to force the deer to fit the data.

So the Loch Ness Monster again submerged back into the waters leaving people perplexed and mystified as to what it is that lies in those dark depths.

The Blighting of Loch Ness

Approval was given by the Highland Council yesterday for both Jacobite Cruises and the Loch Ness Centre developments to go ahead near the Clansman Hotel.

BBC Link

More details are HERE.

Now I hoped that only one at worst would be approved especially considering both sites are only a few hundred yards apart. But in a typical example of local government inefficieny, they pick both. Clearly (to me at least) this means that one of them will eventually go under as there will be too few customers spread over such a short distance. Competition dictates one will win in the end and millions would have been wasted as the other folds. Of course, I may be wrong on that score but we shall see how this pans out in the years ahead. My bet is on the one with the most cash reserves to sustain loss leading products in undercutting the competitor.

One presumes there are two reasons why the Highland Council choose both. The first is to create local jobs in this time of economic uncertainty. But that will be a temporary effect when we consider the other reason and that is increased tourist numbers to the Highlands. Once again, economic duress and high oil prices dictate that more people will currently stay in the UK for their holidays.

That too will be temporary. As people's disposable income recovers and oil prices stabilise, they will be off once again to foreign climes and our two cheek-by-jowl centres will be at each other's throats slashing prices to the bone and laying off staff in a desperate dash for a dwindling customer base.

Political expediency versus economic common sense. When did the two ever meet? Of course, there may be a third reason they were both chosen and that is a lawsuit from the losing party because their plan was just as good as the other one. That won't happen now.

Meanwhile, the third big player in the area, the Nessieland Castle Monster Centre, perhaps fearing that some of that lovely lolly may be slipping from their grasp, have jumped on the development bandwagon and submitted their own plans:

Nessieland Plans

And all this during a time when Nessie sightings are down and Nessie skepticism is high which proves to me that the main reason for all this is to cash in on a temporary increase in visitor numbers. I for one will avoid all three like the plague and support smaller businesses in the area.

Meanwhile, the beautiful shore line of Loch Ness is blighted just that bit more in the pursuit of profit ...

Nessie and Logs

There is no shortage of theories to explain the range of sightings claimed for the loch ness monster. In a series of blogs over time I will explore the various explanations put forward. But first we start not with the Loch Ness Plesiosaur or the Loch Ness Squid but the Loch Ness Log. A very unexciting and uninspiring explanation for sightings but one that is undoutedly true for a certain percentage of sightings. That this was an explanation as old as the Loch Ness Monster media sensation is clear from this 1933 photograph.



The question one needs to ask is what constitutes a sighting? For our purposes, it is a claim that something large and inexplicable was seen by one or more people in the loch (clearly a log will not explain land sightings). Inexplicable implies that the observer thought there was no explanation beyond the normal (waves, known animals, boats, etc) for the event.

However, in the domain of sightings, there are ever decreasing circles in which the inexplicability of the object increases and the gamut of normal events available to explain the event becomes increasingly improbable.

The seminal work on analysis of sightings is Roy Mackal's The Monsters of Loch Ness published in 1976. He stated that there were over 10,000 known sightings reported but not necessarily put down in print. His estimate of sightings making it onto paper was about 3,000 of which he only accepted 258 as suitable for his computer analysis. That did not mean the other ~2500 were all misidentification, but rather he felt they could be accounted for by other known effects. He preferred to take an over cautious approach in his analysis so any doubt about a sighting was given a natural reason. If there is a large creature in Loch Ness (yes there is), then it is clear that sometimes a sighting of it will be indistinguishable from logs, waves and other items. In such cases, one is obliged to go with the natural explanation even though it may not have been the actual cause - we do not know in such cases.

Now how he came by the number 10,000 I am not sure since most of it was only verbal. But we will assume that the quality of those sightings was not much different from the 3,000 that made it onto print. It is that range of 10,000 sightings (or over 270 per annum between 1933 and 1969) that we refer to in accouting for what for the phenomemon may been been.

Now it is clear even to the most ardent Nessie believer that within these thousands of sightings that some people mistook parts of trees for the monster. One may then say "How can anyone be so easily deceived?"

The answer is that normally they should not and I only expect logs to form a small part of sightings for reasons laid out below. Firstly, where do the logs come from? They in the main flow into the loch from the large number of rivers and streams that feed the loch. The tree parts could have come off their source trees naturally or by the action of men. Then they usually drift at the mercy of tides in a slow sedate manner until they are washed up on shore or sink as they slowly absorb water over weeks.

During this time, it is clear that a suitably shaped branch in certain circumstances could deceive someone expectantly looking for a monster. I don't doubt that but normally this should fool no one. A log drifts at quite a slow speed and the exceedingly long time during which the log can be observed should over time dispel any notion of a strange creature. It is in that light that log explanations normally need some other event to reinforce their credibility. They are:

1. The witness did not stay long enough to verify it was a tree.
2. The Loch Ness seiche.
3. Underwater gas eruptions.
4. The log drifts out of sight.

In the first case, if the witness(es) is driving past in a car or for some other reason cannot stay then it is possible that a log could explain what they say. Though one would normally expect an excited witness to stop and stay to watch such an event, it is conceded that some people for some reason will not stop to watch.

In the second case, there is a phenomenon common to certain bodies of water called the seiche in which wind actions on surface water will force the water to one end of the loch upon which it flows back in such a way that a standing wave may form at the surface or above the thermocline (an underwater boundary between colder and warmer water). This has the effect of making a surface object such as a log move against the prevailing wind and give the impression that the object is alive. Note however that this does not preclude the log remaining sight a long time unless reasons 1 and 4 kick in.

Thirdly, in attempting to explain some long necked sightings, it was suggested that eruption of gas from fissures or decaying material could force an underwater log to the surface, stay visible for some seconds and then sink again with no time to verify the true nature of the object. This we consider an event so rare as to be a very specialised explanation.

Finally, if the log simply drifts out of sight into a bay then again there may be no time to identify the tree but note that this is dependent on the witness' position and how quickly it drifts out of sight (which will not be quick). Note that the loch's long dimensions and lack of big bays make this witness-log-bay configuration uncommon. The deatils of each individual sighting should determine if such a theory is possible.

In summary, tree debris may sometimes look like unknown beasts but by and large will not fool people unless some other event intervenes such as the object not being in sight long enough for verification. It is expected that claimed sightings of monsters which endure for a long time are open to such an explanation but those that last less than minutes require further analysis.