Video on Nessie Hunting "Basics" III

Back to my short series on monster hunting. I actually have not posted for months on this series so must make them more frequent. This is part III and part II can be found here. This goes back to my last "expedition" in July 2010. I hope to be back up this summer but plan to approach the whole monster hunting from a new angle which I have not heard from anyone else before. Well, perhaps they did do it but it was a complete failure and it wasn't worth mentioning to anyone else ...

Note in the video my brief sighting of a boat. Now going by the google map below, I estimate it was about 1,500 yards away or pretty similar to the distance that Tim Dinsdale saw his hump at. Even though I thought it was a boat with the naked eye, I applied the binoculars and this was confirmed. Once again, I don't think Tim would have been so easily fooled either. The only difference was that I was at loch level and he was about 300 feet up. Make up your own mind whether that makes a whit of difference at such a distance - I don't.

Classic Sightings - Alec Muir

Date: 1930s

Time: Spring day

Location: Narrow road just south of Dores
Witnesses: Alec Muir and Alastair Mackintosh
Type of sighting: Land

Land sightings of Nessie are fascinating and no doubt to some are the biggest challenge to forming a theory of the Loch Ness Monster. We have already covered the Spicer land sighting in previous posts but here is one from the same period in the 1930s and an unusual one in some respects.

It was taken from the autobiography of Captain Alastair Mackintosh entitled "No Alibi" which was published in 1961 and came to my attention in F. W. Holiday's book "The Great Orm of Loch Ness". Without further ado, we reproduce the account below.

Loch Ness was so much a part of my boyhood and youth. Its beauty and splendour apart, there has always been—for me—a belief in the existence of its monster. Loch Ness remains one of the great geological mysteries. Since the waters receded from the earth it has put on minor atomic displays without any assistance from scientists. The monster is usually observed in the summer. It was many years later that I missed seeing this monster—always supposing it to exist—by a matter of minutes. Oddly the occasion was linked with the British Aluminium Company since it was Alec Muir, the estate carpenter at the works, who had allowed his ‘T’ Ford to block the narrow road just beyond Dores. Bubbles were to be observed on the loch water. As I greeted Alec warmly, I thought he looked distinctly peculiar.

The way a person is said to appear after seeing a ghost. ‘What’s the matter, Alec? What are you stopping for, eh?’ He regarded me with his round, blue eyes and said portentously: ‘I've just seen the Loch Ness monster, Mr Alastair. It crossed the road in front of me not a wee while back. It came as high as the top of the bonnet of the car and was so long it took ten minutes to pass. I went round to the front of the Ford. Sure enough, there was the track of the monster where it had entered the loch. Alec alighted and we followed the marks on the other side of the road and into a wood of birch trees. It was spring.

Our feet sank softly into a carpet of moss and primroses.We had gone hardly a hundred yards when we came upon a clearing in the trees. Showing in the moss was an immense depression, where the monster obviously had lain down to rest. Augustus monks professed to have seen the monster actually swimming in the loch. Could it all be a matter of hallucination? I doubt it! Too many have had similar experiences.

Thus ends the account leaving perhaps more questions than it answers. For a start, practically nothing is said about the appearance of the monster itself. It is said to have reached as high as the bonnet of a model T Ford which I estimate to be about four feet seven inches.

It left a trail leading to the loch by which means broken and depressed flora. The immense depression suggests that the beast had some girth - I would assume it was at least as wide as it was tall - nearly five feet - but this "immense" depression suggests more.

The bubbles on the loch surface is also interesting. Does this imply the monster is an air breather or that is discharges air for some reason after a land excursion (e.g. decreasing buoyancy)?

The most extraordinary feature is that the creature took ten minutes to cross the road! From this we infer that Alec Muir had one of the clearest views of the monster in the annals of Nessie sightings - yet we have practically no details. If we assume the road was seven feet wide (it was a narrow road) and the creature was just appearing onto the road as Muir saw it until it's 30ft bulk was clean across, then it was travelling at an average speed of 0.04 mph. From this ridiculously slow speed we suspect that the creature had actually stopped in the middle of the road for some period of time.

Why would the Loch Ness Monster simply stop on the road? If it did this today, we would have a carcass on our hands and the mystery would be solved. One can only guess that something had captured the beast's attention just over the loch side of the road. It also seems it nonchalantly continued on and stopped again near the shore leaving this "immense" depression before finally entering the loch.

All in all, the monster seemed rather blase about what was going on around it and saw no threat from Mr. Muir and his model T Ford. A curious case for which one wish there was more detail!

What is the Loch Ness Monster? (part 2)

In a previous post I began to explore the various possible explanations to account for sightings of Nessie. That first post rather mundanely looked at misidentification of tree debris which though inadequate as a sole theory does explain some claimed sightings.

One might gently move onto deer, birds and otters in the loch, but for this post we go as far as one could possibly go in another explanation of Nessie. This is a theory which came into vogue in the early 1970s and it is the paranormal interpretation of the Loch Ness Monster.

The first proponent of this theory was Ted Holiday in his book "The Dragon and the Disc" which attempted to incorporate Nessie into the increasingly popular idea that most unexplained phenomena were paranormal in nature. This "Theory of Everything" approach had begun when some UFO researchers speculated that flying saucers were not the nuts and bolts spacecraft that many had presumed but may have more surreal origins.

Though Holiday still held to the invertebate theory of his first book ("The Great Orm of Loch Ness") he made a clean break prior to his death in 1979 with a radical theory which was expounded in his third and posthumous book "The Goblin Universe". This theory essentially borrowed from the obscure work of a Professor Harold Burr in positing that Nessie was a three dimensional form which could be formed and held by something Burr called Life Fields which were electrical in nature and had some organic organising properties.

Burr proposed this as a biological principle but Holiday took it further in suggesting that a mind could control the process and cause unexpected forms to materialise. Indeed, he proposed a universal mind akin to God as the controller of these phenomemon though the discussion also included the human mind and the collective subconciousness of the entire human race. How these three "minds" interacted if at all was not clear to me and there is no evidence to support such a theory. In some sense it is a hypothesis looking for data.

Why would Holiday abandon more reasonable flesh and blood theories for something that is speculative in the extreme? The answer is that Holiday believed the old superstitions surrounding dragons and water horses had a large grain of truth to them - these creatures were indeed magical in some way.

He also thought that a lot of the strange coincidences he witnessed during his time at the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and as a private Nessie hunter went beyond coincidence. Things such as cameras malfunctioning, the monster appearing out of LNI camera shot, plus what he thought was a general malevolent atmosphere about the place. Add some unusual paranormal encounters around Loch Ness including a meeting with what we would call a MIB (Man In Black) in Foyers and you can understand where he is coming from even if you do not accept his views.

Do any other Loch Ness Monster hunters advocate this hypothesis to some degree? One was Anthony Shiels who took the (in)famous photos of Nessie near Urquhart Castle in 1977. He believed in a psychic aspect to these sightings but his discussion on this in his book "Monstrum!" is unclear as he also adhered to an invertebrate interpretation of the creature.

There is also a suggestion that Tim Dinsdale believed in a paranormal aspect to the Loch Ness phenomemon but this is less clear cut. I will mention that in a later blog posting.

So, all in all, this is the most exotic theory concerning the monster. Yes, it explains a lot of things about the beast but at the same time a major shift in one's perception of reality is required. Of course, if someone is already inclined to believe in supernatural events then perhaps the leap is not too great. In fact, I dabbled myself with this theory in the 1980s, but took a step back to let outwardly simpler theories have priority.

Indeed, the fact that such a theory should gain some prominence does point to the realization that no one theory seems to explain everything about witness sightings (and that includes the the log/deer/wave/birds/hoax theory of sceptics). One may suggest some identity for the creature but it falls short in explaining some aspect of behaviour or morphology.

For this paranormal theory, there is a solution is available but at the expense of some big assumptions.

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.