ABOUT THIS BLOG

The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.

Proverbs 18:17

If I had to compose a mission statement for this blog it would probably go along the lines of "To reclaim the Loch Ness Monster". Because when it all boils down, there are essentially two competing theories to explain what people claim to see in Loch Ness. The first is that there is a large, unidentified creature (or creatures) in Loch Ness and the second is that all witnesses have either misidentified natural phenomema or have hoaxed their story. It's as simple as that and you take your position accordingly.

Since the 1980s and the publication of "The Loch Ness Mystery Solved" by Ronald Binns in 1984 and "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence" by Steuart Campbell in 1986, things began to turn more towards the "natural" theory as opposed to the "monster" theory. The excitement of the 1970s with the various pictures and expeditions was over and the vacuum was filled by a more skeptical line of enquiry.

This began to gain some extra impetus with the arrival of the likes of Richard Dawkins last decade and his polemic style against the general belief that he may call the "incredulous" or "unscientific". Though targetted at supernatural beliefs, Nessie also became fair game for the "logicians".

This is reflected in the stance of those who are willingly or unwillingly defined as experts on the subject by the media whenever a photograph, film or sighting is reported. They explain it away as something perfectly natural and that is the end of the subject.

So this website comes in to that general environment with several aims.

1. Demonstrate the inadequacies of the "natural" theory when examined against various cases.

2. Promote and discuss the "monster" theory where possible in its various aspects.

3. Keep up to date on the latest sightings and ideas.

4. Provide information on the historical aspects of the Loch Ness Monster going back to the genre of folklore.

5. Examine the cultural aspects of the whole phenomemon.

Now this does not mean that the aim of this website is to try and prove that every photograph, film and witness report is of a large unknown creature. Clearly, misidentification and hoax has played its part in the Loch Ness Monster story and it would be fanatical to pretend otherwise. It goes without saying that "evidence" such as the photographs of Frank Searle are hoaxes. I also accept that the 1975 Rines photographs are misidentification. I accept (with some reservation) that the Surgeon's Photograph is a hoax. That list is not exhaustive and regular readers of this blog will know that evidence that has been classed as hoax or misidentification has been challenged already here.

So, the evidence is there. It is a matter of challenging the assumptions and explanations proffered by skeptics and prove that there is more to this subject than mere waves, logs and otters.

The head shot of Nessie in the Gray photograph symbolises the clash of theories for me. It's a dead swan's arse, it's a trick of the light, it's a wave. Look more closely though and you will see a fish like head looking at you with its beady eye, mouth open in a laughing manner almost saying "Catch me if you can!" to all of us whichever side of the debate we are on.

Those who wish to contact me on this subject can do so by email at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

LEGAL STUFF

Various third party images and quotes are used under fair use legal guidelines. In other words, in such instances the permission of the copyright owner is not required. However, out of courtesy, the blog endeavours to attribute the image or quote the author with an appropriate reference. Any such lapses, please email me to sort out the attribution.

Where it is felt that permission of the copyright owner is required, we do so. However, note three circumstances where this is impractical:

1. The provenance of the work is not known.

2. The presumed author is known but there is no practical way to contact them.

3. The author has been contacted but has not replied in a reasonable time.

In those three circumstances, the blog uses the work anyway. If an owner of a copyrighted work feels fair use is not applicable then please contact me. Note I may ask you to prove you are the copyright owner!

Finally, the blog's policy on moderating comments can be found here.

Strange Blue Object Falls into Loch Ness?

The BBC are reporting a strange event at Loch Ness as a blue object falls near or into the Loch. Perhaps Nessie is an extraterrestrial? That would explain a few things or perhaps it has a perfectly natural explanation - unlike the many Nessie reports over the decades. I would not have thought weather balloons were blue - more likely highly reflective silver material.

Did the object sink into the loch? If that is the case, we can forget about any further headway in ascertaining what happened (unless someone is reported missing). For now, we watch this space for further details. Perhaps Steve Feltham who lives at the Dores beach at Loch Ness saw something?

On the subject of UFOs, they are not an unknown subject at Loch Ness. Frank Searle claimed to have photographed one over Loch Ness. I am surprised he didn't manage to catch Nessie in the same shot!

Another dubious event was Jan Sundberg's close encounter of the third kind at Foyers in the early 1970s.

Nessie hunter F. W. Holiday claimed to have seen a Man In Black near Urquhart Castle (see link) and finally I recall reading a UFO book in which a "contactee" claimed to have met an alien Nessie at Loch Ness and held a conversation with it!

And just to add a folklorish flavour, Kelpies were often associated with strange lights.

It all happens at Loch Ness!

BBC LINK

Loch Ness search for mysterious balloon-like object

The emergency services undertook a night-time search of Loch Ness after reports a balloon-like object had fallen from the sky.

The police, coastguard, lifeboat and an RAF search and rescue helicopter scoured the area but found nothing.

The alarm was raised at 20:00 on Saturday after members of the public said they saw a blue object fall on the south of the Loch, near Dores.

Police thought it might have been a hang glider or microlight.

However, following a three-hour search the emergency services could find "nothing untoward".

Loch Ness RNLI crew member, Vivian Bailey, said: "Speed of arrival on scene was essential and we were able to link our search efforts with those of the Coastguard and RAF, something we practise regularly.

"We believe the reports were based on sightings causing genuine concern and we commend the actions of the members of the public that contacted the emergency services."

STV News adds some more information (LINK):

A mysterious flying object above Loch Ness sparked a large-scale search by emergency services.

Police, coastguard officers, a lifeboat crew and an RAF search and rescue helicopter scoured the around Dores, on the southern shore of the loch, following reports of an object falling from the sky at about 8pm on Saturday.

Northern Constabulary said the object was described as being "round, balloon-like in shape and blue in colour".

The search was carried out amid fears that a parachutist or hang-glider could have crash-landed in the remote area, but after three hours no trace of an aircraft or parachute could be found and the search was stood down.

One local resident, Denise Rooney, told STV's Facebook page she had noticed an object in the sky while having a barbecue in the hills above Dores.

She said: "I pointed out a white globe that I thought was a star initially but it moved across the sky. It was very far away. Could have been anything and it was on a steady path.

"I just remembered thinking I could see it but not hear it and it was an unusual flight path from that direction."

Rescue workers said the alarm was raised in good faith and commended members of the public who called out the emergency services.

Loch Ness RNLI crew member Martin Douglas said: "A member of the public reported seeing a hang glider or microlight descending into the loch.

"The RNLI lifeboat crew spoke to people on the shoreline who stated that they had seen a balloon-like object just above the tree line near Dores."

His colleague Vivian Bailey added: "Speed of arrival on scene was essential and we were able to link our search efforts with those of the Coastguard and RAF, something we practice regularly.

"We believe the reports were based on sightings causing genuine concern and we commend the actions of the members of the public that contacted the emergency services."

A police spokeswoman said: "Northern Constabulary and HM Coastguard responded to a report of an object falling from the sky on the south side of Loch Ness approximately two to five kilometres south-west of the village of Dores.

"The object was described as being round, balloon-like in shape and blue in colour.

"An extensive search was carried out by police, coastguard, Loch Ness lifeboat and RAF search and rescue helicopter 137, with nothing untoward being found."

Anyone with information relevant to the sighting is asked to contact Northern Constabulary on 01463 715555.

NESSIE PICTURES OLD AND NEW

Here is the place holder for the various famed Nessie photographs and films that have been discussed on this blog plus the newer ones. The list will grow as our attention turns to each of these iconic images in turn. Click on the links to view the relevant past blogs.

The Surgeon's Photograph - here, here, here, here, here, here and here.




The Hugh Gray Photograph - here, here and here and here and here!





The Peter MacNab Photograph - here and here.

The Peter O'Connor Photograph - Part I, II, III and IV.

The Lachlan Stuart Photograph - here, here, here and here.






The Dinsdale Film - here

The Jennifer Bruce Photograph - here

A picture from 1938 - here

The G.E.Taylor Film - here

The Mysterious MacRae Film - here

The Gordon Holmes Video - here

The Jon Rowe Photograph - here, here and here.

The Jonathan Bright Photograph - here

The Problem with Nessie Photos - here.

A Photo of Nessie (probably not)? - here.

Fake and Real Photos - here.

The LNIB Films - here.

A 2014 Photograph? - here.

The Herman Cockrell Photo - here.

CLASSIC SIGHTINGS

This is a place holder for our occasional look at famous Nessie sightings from decades past. Some familiar and some not so familiar but sharing the common theme of seeing Nessie up close and personal in such a way that (let's face it) there is not much room for error. Well, some do persist in some odd explanations but you can click through the links and make your own mind up.

The Spicers' Otterly Amazing Land Sighting - link, link, link, link, link, link and link!



Marjory Moir's Flexible Nessie Sighting - link, link.



Greta Finlay's not so en-deer-ing Sighting - link and link

John MacLean's Expanding Nessie - link





Alex Muir and the Obstinate Nessie - link


Gordon Powell's speeding Nessie - link





Robert Badger and the underwater Nessie - link

Robert Wotherspoon's salmon hunting Nessie - link









The Mackays open the modern era of Nessie - link

Margaret Munro and the "sunbathing" Nessie - link







Michael McCullough's Caterpillar - link


The Day Nessie was seen the most times - link

The problem with recent sightings - link

WHAT IS THE LOCH NESS MONSTER?

This is a place holder post for the series of blogs entitled "What is The Loch Ness Monster?" which are listed below with appropriate links to discussion. This post will appear on the right hand side of the blog and I aim to add to it as time goes on until, well until I run out of ideas!

Peruse the various ideas and see which one makes sense to you!

Nessie the Plesiosaur - link

Nessie the Misidentified Log - link and link

Nessie the Paranormal Entity - link and link

Nessie the Giant Eel - link and link

Nessie the Giant Catfish - link

Nessie the Sturgeon - link 

Nessie the Long Necked Seal - link

Nessie the Elk - link and link

Nessie the Viking Boat - link

Nessie the Extraterrestrial - link

Nessie the Non-existent Monster (The Skeptic View) - link

Nessie and that long neck - link

Nessie the long necked turtle - link

Nessie and tales of mulitple creatures - link

Ted Holiday's Little Monster - link

Nessie the horned beast - link

Nessie the Underwater UFO - link

Is Nessie a Giant Eel?

As part of our continuing "What is the Loch Ness Monster?" series, we come to the idea that Nessie is some kind of giant eel.

Now when biologist and Nessie hunter Roy Mackal wrote "The Monsters of Loch Ness" in 1976, he produced a table of thirty two Loch Ness Monster features and ranked six varieties of possible animals against them in a check list fashion. When the tests were added up, it was found that a variety of eel which he called the "thick bodied eel" came second in the rankings of animals.

Now this theory certainly ticks a lot of boxes but clearly eels as we commonly understand them cannot fulfill the role of the Loch Ness Monster and even a modified "Nessieel" has issues. The largest known eels are the moray eels (pictured above) which have been known to reach up to 4 metres (nearly 12 feet) in length whereas a typical Nessie sighting suggests a creature up to 10 metres (about 30 feet) in length. The girth of eels versus nessies is also problematic as eels tend to be serpentine in appearance whereas Nessie has a bulky middle portion. Nevertheless, some form of giant eel would stand well against competing theories and would not tend towards the ridiculous as the various features of the Loch Ness Monster are reconciled with what is possible in the animal world.

First, by way of background, it is well known that Loch Ness is teeming with eels. No one knows accurately how many eels inhabit the loch because of their behaviour. This is because eels are classed as benthic or "bottom feeders" in that they tend to live on or close to the surface of a sea or lake bottom. Therefore, sonar devices which can be adept at picking up fish in open water cannot easily pick up eels which stay close to the sloping sides of Loch Ness.

In fact, some eels have been observed half buried in the silt which raises the interesting question as to whether a larger Nessie type-eel could hide unobserved under the 20 square miles or so of loose sediment that permeates the bottom of the loch? The ultimate depth of this silt is not known but up to 20 metres deep has been suggested by sonar and a 4 metres depth has been achieved from core samples before the device hit the clay layer below. Apparently, there is plenty of silt for a large eel like creature to lie in beyond the scans of sonar hunters...

What seems apparent however is that there are more eels in Loch Ness than all the other fish combined. Renowned monster hunter Tim Dinsdale suggested the population was in the millions but so far all photographs obtained of eels on the sediment floor of the loch showed only normal sized specimens. The question for this post is whether something larger relies on this population for a good part of its diet or perhaps even sprung from them?

Stories of large eels form part of Highland story telling as well as newspaper reports. Loch Ness researchers recount tales by locals of 10ft plus eels being caught in the loch when eel fishing was more popular. Focusing on written evidence for large eels in that region of Scotland produced some items of interest. These accounts are taken from local papers:

Inverness Advertiser, 11th November 1851: An enormous eel of 7 feet length, 3 feet 4 inches in girth and 70 lbs in weight was found on the beach of Newton in Aird.

Inverness Journal, 29th January 1813: An eel of 5ft 9in was caught at the pier of Clachnaharry. Two eels of similar dimensions had also been caught in the Medway River.

So large eels have been caught in this region but obviously not as big as required for Nessie. Stories such as the giant eel-like creature found in the Corpach lock at the other end of the Caledonian Canal in 1900 and various other apocryphal tales are tantalising but do not really progress us in the hunt for giant eels.

But what would be the pluses of the giant eel interpretation (assuming a thick bodied variety)?

1. Water breathing animal
This would account for the scarcity of sightings over the years. An eel is not predisposed to regularly venture to the surface of the loch.

2. Bottom feeding animal
Again, this would explain why sonar contacts, though they exist, are not numerous. Our giant eel is a bottom dweller by nature.

3. Lower diet requirements
Not being a warm blooded creature, the energy requirements of an eel are smaller than a mammal and hence suits it more to a smaller body of water like Loch Ness. Also, eels tend to be quite varied in their diet and are opportunistic feeders in that they tend to wait for the food to come to them hence requiring less energy hunting on the move.

4. Humps
Eels tend to have an extended dorsal fin running along their back which could give the impression of humps at the surface depending on how the fin folded along its back. It is even possible though not certain that a pliable dorsal fin could account for reports where the number of humps are seen to change. The whole back of this thick bodied variety of eel surfacing could also suffice as a single hump (though it may require some contortions on the part of the entire body invisible to the witness).

5. Land Sightings
Eels have the ability to travel short distances out of the water which is linked to their migratory behaviour. This could account for some claims to have seen Nessie on the land (though not all claimed sightings look particularly eel-like).

6. Eels live a long time
A useful feature if one goes for the single Nessie theory or minimising population numbers. It is claimed that one eel in Sweden has been alive for over 150 years since it was dropped into a well in 1859 by a kid called Samuel Nilsson in Brantevik.

On the downside, practically all Loch Ness authors rejected the idea of Nessie being an eel. The idea was first addressed by Rupert T. Gould in his 1934 book "The Loch Ness Monster" but was dismissed by him on the grounds that it could not explain the upturned boat effect of many single hump sightings and the long arched neck. Constance Whyte briefly considered it in her book but again rejected the idea (though she mentions that Maurice Burton in his earlier days was favourable to it).

Here are some of the minuses:

1. Eels migrate and die
It is a wonder and mystery of the natural world how eels on their 10th year or older leave their European waters to swim the thousands of miles to the Sargasso Sea near the Bahamas where they breed and then die. It is a mystery because no one seems to have actually seen the eels breed. However, if the Loch Ness Monster is an eel then does it make the journey too? One may assume so but it would not return and who can say that its offspring in the Atlantic Ocean even go back to the same place?

There have been purely speculative suggestions that such a large eel may have somehow become an indigenous breeder and indeed by doing so would extend its lifetime and possibly trigger increased growth. This sounds plausible but alas there is no reason to believe it. But a homebound eel would seem to be prerequisite amongst this unusual eel's adaptions.

2. Eels cannot display a long neck and head
Well, they could if they were about 80 feet in length according to Gould. For an eel to protrude its upper body out of the water would help explain a proportion of this class of sighting. How the eel achieves it I am not sure and I could find no image of an eel doing it. Some adaptions to our Nessieel are required to achieve this. Perhaps an enhanced buoyancy mechanism which for some reason raises the eel more efficiently from its normal benthic domain. Apart from these, I would consider this the weakest part of the giant eel theory.

3. The upturned boat effect
As mentioned by Gould above, some hump sightings require a body much thicker than any known eel possesses. In response to this, Mackal suggested the thick-bodied eel which along with its dorsal fin could achieve this effect.

Now on the general theme of a thick-bodied Nessieel a process of thickening is not unreasonable. As we look at the shape of eels as they increase in size, one does notice a progression from the tubular to something less proportioned. The Moray Eel for example has a thicker front part and given the variety of shapes and sizes amongst sharks one should not be surprised if something out of the ordinary should turn up in the eel world. For our discussion that "something out of the ordinary" requires a thicker middle section and a thinning of the front head-neck section to begin to look like witness reports. Roy Mackal himself envisaged an eel looking like the one below (copyright C. S. Wellek):


Is such a scenario possible? Given the plausible stories we often hear about how one species evolves into another given enough time and resources, one would be tempted to say "yes". What the real world in reality produces is another matter entirely. However, I would not discount the giant eel theory on that basis. In this case, another tick box is required which is common to all Nessie theories and that is the "Credible" tick box.

Apart from one theory, all proposed theories fail to tick all the boxes and fall short in at least one area. In that respect, the eel theory is not alone. But proponents of a given theory may tend to stretch things a bit as they try and make their theory accommodate the data (though the more common tactic these days is to discard inconvenient data). There is nothing wrong with that so long as they can make themselves sound reasonable and that is where the "Credible" tick box comes in.

If a particular theory begins to make too many assumptions or even one assumption which is just too big a leap then the "Credible " box should not be ticked. Using the giant eel hypotheses as an example, should we tick that box?

Personally and until something comes in to change that (that is, new data comes in or my lack of understanding of biology) I would tick the credibility box on giant eels though I would not commit myself quite yet to the theory. I was not so disposed to this theory until I saw the eel like head with open mouth in the Hugh Gray photograph which suggested a piscean explanation for the Loch Ness Monster.


I flipped the Mackal eel head to match the Hugh Gray head for comparison. Note also that for a creature that inhabits darkness, smaller eyes would be expected which is what this picture suggests in contradistinction to the Mackal eel eyes.


In summary, Nessie may be a giant eel but modifications are required to the morphology which could be attained given the large variety of morphologies we see in other orders of fish. But whether this is credible is largely down to the opinion of the reader. Comments are welcome!

Follow Up on a Recent Nessie Sighting

In an earlier post I relayed what was then the latest sighting of Nessie by the Hargreaves of Foyers back in June. The link is here.

Subsequently, I have been to Loch Ness and visited their shop to have a chat with them about their experience. Firstly, they said the Inverness Courier article was an accurate enough account of what they had seen. I then asked them if there was a possibility it could have been a boat or some other familiar vessel seen on the loch to which they replied no.

Both witnesses came across as people who thought they had genuinely seen something and were not practical jokers or liars. They also rejected with a sigh the accusations levelled at them by anonymous comments on the Courier website that it was the tourist season and so it was time to put out some lies to boost trade. I quite agree with them, it is a nonsensical and libellous thing to say and unfortunately whenever a sighting is claimed from March onwards, this tired excuse is wheeled out by cynical observers. However, I did buy some stuff in their store and before anyone plays that cynic card, I was intending to buy some food for the drive home and theirs was the most convenient place to stop!

I then left the store and crossed the road to the Fall of Foyers milestone to have a look at the loch. The picture below is from Google StreetView but it underestimates what is visible from there to the unaided human eye.




As stated before, there is plenty of surface area visible for Nessie to put in an appearance. From my vantage point, I could clearly watch one of the white Caley Cruiser boats travelling up the loch and I managed to photograph it as it disappeared into the trees.




Assuming it was one of these boats then it would be 30 to 39 feet in length and 11 to 13 feet high. With those rough dimensions in mind, my own estimate of what I could easily see as a vertical neck like object would be at a minimum four feet. Below that may still be discernable but I do not have 20-20 vision even with glasses on, it depends on how good the observer's eyesight is.

My visit therefore reinforced my view that what the Hargreaves saw back in June was no optical illusion or misperception but a genuine sight of the Loch Ness Monster. Keep up the appearances, Nessie old girl!