Strange Skeleton in Lake Labynkyr?

Something is afoot in the remote Siberian lake called Labynkyr as a diver has claimed to have found the skeletal remains of a large creature. We covered this monster lake back in September and so await with interest any further developments.

From the original article:

A Russian scientist has made the first deep plunge in the waters of Yakutia’s Lake Labynkyr which claims to be home to a 'Siberian Loch Ness monster'. The fact has a real chance to be registered in the Guinness Book of Records, a statement of the Russian Geografical Society (RGO) has said.

Head of the RGO underwater research team Dmitry Shiller went down to the bottom of one of the world’s coldest lakes located in the remote Yakutia region of Russia’s Siberia. This was the first time a man plunged to the depths of the lake.

In winter the air temperature here drops down to minus 89 degree Celsius.

According to members of the team, the expedition’s aim was to take video footage of the lakes’ bottom and collect samples of water, flora and fauna.

Moreover, according to the scientists, with the help of an underwater scanner they discovered jaws and skeletal remains of a large animal.

Lake Labynkyr is known for its geographical characteristics, the depth of its cracks reaches 80 meters. Evenk and Yakut people, Yakutia natives, claim an underwater creature, a "Siberian Loch Ness monster", lurks in there.

UPDATE: Another article came out from a Russian news outlet, but it makes no mention of any bones!

Nessie Symposium and Edinburgh Science Festival

The 2013 Edinburgh International Science Festival has just published its brochure and the Symposium on the 80th Anniversary of the first modern sighting of the Loch Ness Monster gets a slot on page 42. Further details can be had at the official "Nessie 80" website and I add some words of my own here.

I am beginning to gather my thoughts for my own talk on the pre-Nessie era prior to 1933. There is a spot of "limbering up" as I currently engage Dick Raynor in a little exchange on Richard Franck's  "floating island" at Loch Ness. But that will expand into other areas such as Ulrich Magin's sceptical study on pre-1933 sightings written for volume seven of "Fortean Studies" (published by Fortean Times). What doesn't get used at the lecture will still be used on this blog for your interest.

One of those Damned Logs

Ever mistaken a piece of floating wood for a prehistoric monster? No, nor have I, but apparently some do. This kind of faux pas has been touted as an explanation for Nessies for decades as this picture from the Daily Express of the 15th December 1933 demonstrates.

The text reads:

It bobbed up and down travelling at a fair pace - a tree trunk carried by strong currents at Foyers, Loch Ness. France has now heard of the "monster" - "It has the body of a diplodocus and the head of a horse" one Paris newspaper told its readers.

Clearly the Loch Ness Monster in its two humped aspect!

What Is Nessie? The Long Neck Problem

Steve Plambeck has updated his "The Loch Ness Giant Salamander" blog with further thoughts on how a salamander of suitable size can be harmonised with the sightings record. The article is here. 

One major block to a salamander interpretation is the traditional long neck of the creature. Salamanders do not have long necks. Steve however suggests that the long tail of the salamander can account for this apparent problem. I can see merit in that idea and have no problem believing that a long tail can be mistaken for a long neck by eyewitnesses. The main question is whether this theory can account for all (or a persuadable majority) of such sightings and so we await his next instalment.

Having pointed out the eel-like head in the Hugh Gray photograph over a year ago, I have to admit I have presented myself with a problem as the picture does not seem to offer the possibility of a long neck. The part of the body where the neck is presumed to be is actually obscured by a water cascade shooting upwards. However, the obscured region between head and main body is not wide enough to accommodate a long neck anyway.

So how does that reconcile with long neck sightings and how often are long necks reported by eyewitnesses? Tim Dinsdale in his 1961 book "Loch Ness Monster" conducted a study of 100 reports of which 45% had head-neck descriptions. However, 15 years later, Roy Mackal conducted a more extensive study of sightings for his book "The Monster of Loch Ness". He analysed 233 sightings from 1933 to 1969 and I estimate 70 or 30% were classic head-neck.

The problem here is cherry-picking and I believe there may be a tendency for long neck sightings to be placed ahead of other types of sightings. Over Mackal's sample period of 1933-1969 there is at least 600 documented sightings across the literature. A simple calculation suggests that at worst head-neck sightings would be about 12% of all sightings but it is probably more.

But on the short neck versus long neck issue, one speculation I had was that the neck is somehow extensible. Some vertebrates can extend their necks (or give the impression of it) but it is pretty limited. There are exceptions such as turtles which can extend their necks out to a good proportion of their main body length. Check out this Jeremy Wade clip where the turtle's neck goes out an amazing length!

A truly extensible neck or equivalent is more to be found with invertebrates due to the obvious lack of impeding vertebrae. So can the Loch Ness Monster retract its neck into its body? The answer is "yes" if some eyewitness reports are to be believed. Going back to the invertebrate theory as espoused by F. W. Holiday,he wrote an article for "The Field" magazine of February 1976 entitled "The case for a spineless monster". It's a fascinating read and you can find it in our Rip Hepple archive in the June 1976 issue (No.16).

Holiday mentions two cases thus:

"It's neck went up and down as if on elastic" someone told Commander R T Gould. The head changed shape while you watched. Two Scottish visitors who had binoculars on the monster near Dores told me "From the end of the neck sprouted a head. One second it had no head; then it did have a head".

An intriguing and virtually unknown aspect of monster lore you may well say. I investigated further. The Gould sighting that Holiday refers to is taken from page 96 of the 1934 first edition and recounts the sighting of a Miss K. MacDonald between Lochend and Abriachan on the 1st May 1934. The actual quote is:

The head was quite small. Head and neck undulated up and down "as if by elastic".

That left me slightly confused as Holiday may have somewhat misquoted the text. Was the elastic movement of the neck an illusion brought on by the up and down movement in the water or an actual physical change? The interpretation is ambiguous to me. I could not find the source for the Dores sighting so it may be there in the literature or The Field magazine was its public debut. Perhaps a reader could help here.

However, the saga of the elastic neck does not end there as I stumbled upon another sighting of this genre elsewhere. It comes from the book "The Great Monster Hunt" by David and Yvonne Cooke written in 1969. On page 61 a previously undisclosed sighting is unveiled as Mr. Cooke interviews a man by the name of Kenneth Ross who recounted a strange experience on his boat opposite Invermoriston in 1936.

As they were motoring in their boat they presumed to see a boat nearby but as it approached to within 200 yards a head and neck of several feet was noticed. Taking up his story:

Then all of a sudden this huge glistening body came out of the water and the neck disappeared into the shoulders or into the body of the creature. Then the monster struck the water with one of its floppers and there was a whirlpool and it disappeared.

So in Holiday's account, a head sprouted from the neck and in this account the opposite happens as the head-neck retracts into the body. What are we to make of these two extraordinary and unique reports? Is this a display of retractibilty akin to our turtle above or something completely different? I say that because there does not seem to be much of a head to speak of. If we had more details on the two sightings, a better picture may emerge but two models present themselves. The head-neck retracts like a turtle or this is not a head-neck at all.

The first model appeals but if it is not a head-neck then what is it? I see no reason why this should be a retractable tail unless someone can point to a known precedent in nature? Neither do I think it is a phallus and paranormal advocates could have a field day with subconscious archetypes here (I think of Tom Bearden's work here)!

Could it be a retractable appendage such as a flipper? The Ross sighting above describes a separate flipper but it is possible though I cannot quite think what the advantage of such an ability is apart from protection. The problem here is that the witnesses are presumably correct in placing the "neck" where the neck would normally be in the creature morphology.

So a mystery within a mystery presents itself. Add to this curious feature of humps changing appearance before witnesses' eyes and one wonders how malleable and flexible this creature is (but such wondrous "floating islands" are for another day and another article).

Comments are welcome and if any can find similar instances of retractable appendages send me a comment.

Review of a Recent Nessie Article

Articles on the Loch Ness Monster come and go, some support the idea of a large creature in the loch whilst others dismiss the very notion. In the interest of the human fascination with mystery, others leave the door slightly ajar for future enquiry.

The latest one comes from Benjamin Radford who is a contributor to the LiveScience website. You can find his article at this link. The aim of this article is to critique his article.

Firstly, in reference to St. Columba's well known encounter with the monster in the River Ness, Mr. Radford says that the story is merely:

One of many church myths about righteous saints vanquishing Satan in the form of serpents and dragons.

In fact, the creature in the story is not referred to in any supernatural way and is merely called a "water beast". Doubtless, it is in the interests of Mr. Radford's argument to mythologise the story via the expediency of demonising the animal mentioned but the story offers no such latitude. The suggestion being that this animal is no more mystical than the other animals such as a boar and whale that are mentioned in the same hagiography of Columba. Do we doubt these were animals because something miraculous was associated with them? Of course not. Doubtless the story has embellishments but the animal referred to is presented as real enough and how curious that it appears connected to a loch destined for bestial greatness.

Thus dismissing this story, Radford continues:

In fact, there are no reports of the beast until less than a century ago.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Apart from Columba, a "floating island" was stated by Richard Franck to frequent the loch in 1658. A "great fish" was reported in Loch Ness in 1868 by the Inverness Courier and various references to water bulls which should not be presumed to be mythical. After the beast became international news in 1933, various people came forward with their stories of strange sightings going back into the 19th century. Clearly, something strange was believed to inhabit Loch Ness going back over 140 years and beyond. Meantime, Mr. Radford's statement is simplistic to say the least.

Moving onto the Nessie era, Radford talks about the first modern sighting by the Mackays and says this:

The Loch Ness monster first achieved notoriety in 1933 after a story was published in "The Inverness Courier," a local newspaper, describing not a monstrous head or hump but instead a splashing in the water that was described as appearing to be caused "by two ducks fighting."

This is not a true statement. I quote the original article from the Inverness Courier of the 2nd May 1933:

There the creature disported itself, rolling & plunging for fully a minute, its body resembling that of a whale ..

No head? I suppose. A hump? Sounds like one to me. Mr. Radford may wish the reader to draw a "quack" solution, but this blog won't "duck" the issue. Namely, hump like object and big. You know, this article is beginning to annoy me.

The article then mentions the staple diet of debunkers - The Surgeon's Photograph. It get a couple of sentences but a big reprint of the Daily Mail article outlining the hoax. In terms of word count, it's the main feature of the article. I'll concede that one but a pattern is emerging, debunk the most well known pre-Nessie story, debunk the very first modern Nessie sighting and then debunk the most famous photograph. I guess if you shatter the symbols, you hope everything else will follow in the reader's mind. That might work with those who don't seek a second opinion, but not here.

The article ends with the implication that we should have found this creature by now. Sonar searches, photographs, overwater and underwater surveillance have yielded nothing that would satisfy the author of the article. Reading this gives the impression that science has satisfactorily "scoured the lake". A 2003 sonar survey of Loch Ness is made much of, but when I contacted the manufacturers of the sonar equipment, Kongsberg, about the survey, they said only sections of the loch were surveyed and

what should be noted is that we did not get to survey the entire loch ... there is no system which could survey the loch in one pass ...

In other words, if Nessie is sensitive to sonar (we know dolphins and whales are), it is no problem to step aside from it. As for the non-appearance of Nessie bits and pieces, I'll address that in another article.

After eighty years of continued sightings, a small article like that is not going to end the story (even if it got the facts right). However, another small article like this is more than sufficient to counter it.

Some Thoughts on The Surgeon's Photograph

Another cryptozoological blogger, Dale Drinnon, has put up a post recently on the Surgeon's Photograph which can be found here. As readers may know, this photograph was exposed as a hoax by Alastair Boyd and David Martin in their expose book some twenty years ago as a model neck attached to a toy submarine.

Though most accept this (including myself), others continue to raise questions about the book's theory. Loch Ness researchers such as Henry Bauer and Richard Carter have questioned the theory and Dale is the latest to offer his thoughts and claims that the model would be unstable if fashioned in such a way.

Now I admit that I have my own questions against the theory, but accept that the pros for the case significantly outweigh the cons. But let us look first at Dale's claim that the model would simply tilt over. The picture below (not from the Boyd and Martin book) is a suggestion as to how the model may have looked.

The first thing to note is that the neck is made from a substance called "plastic wood". It was initially suggested that such a substance did not exist in 1934 but this advert from page 103 of the March 1928  "Popular Science" shows it was around and popular as a DIY substance. Looking at the page, it reminds me of the modern "Polyfilla" as an aid for filling in cracks and holes but I am sure it had properties which also made it useful as a modelling substance. In fact, the advert below states that it was useful on model boats "for moulding figure-heads".

Dale describes the head-neck construct as "solid wood" but this is where things get confused. If it was a solid mass then I too would wonder whether the model could remain stable. My own take is that the model was more likely to be hollow in some fashion. In other words, a head-neck was moulded from a handful of this substance which we are told in the above advert "handles like putty" before it "hardens into wood".

But if the model is hollowed too much then (assuming it is a watertight attachment) buoyancy becomes an issue and the submarine would not be able to drag the head-neck underwater. It seems that some trial and error would be involved in finding the right density and the lead ballast strip mentioned in the picture would have been part of the solution.

Was this actually achievable? The problem is no one to my knowledge has tried to reproduce the original construct of plastic wood neck and toy submarine. In fact, modern reconstructions use modern technology in the form of very lightweight Styrofoam to float the object but clearly would not be able to mimic the submerging toy submarine.

However, I don't think such a modern model was intended to mimic such a scenario but rather used to reproduce the original "as you see it" photograph. Could a more 1930s reconstruction act as Christian Spurling said? Nobody knows for sure as I am not aware of any such experiment. I doubt plastic wood is available today but a substitute of similar properties should not be difficult to source. Finding a metallic submarine that submerges underwater may be more difficult. Until then, the door of doubt is left slightly open.

Others have raised questions such as why Wetherell did not expose the Daily Mail after publication and extract his revenge. 

The other open question is the mysterious second photograph. The head in that picture is clearly different to the famous first pose. I speculated whether the hoaxer may have remoulded the head into a "diving position" but since our advert says it hardens into wood on setting, that does not seem possible without snapping off the head. It is pointed out that the wave patterns on the surface are very different to the one in the first picture. This is conceded, but it is also conceivable that a sudden gust of wind can rewrite the surface of the water. The argument peters out to the conclusion that it was just another hoax picture.

Who knows, but to this day I have seen no satisfactory explanation of how this second picture came to be and the expose book offers no clues. The arguments are more to disassociate from the first photograph and then ignore it. It seems we have a mystery within a mystery.

Now I am not suggesting the first picture is a fake but somehow the second is genuine. That would be silly. But there is a "crack" in our knowledge here that need some "plastic wood" to fill it in. It is a given that Alastair Boyd would have asked Spurling about the second photograph. The absence of quotes from Spurling on this subject suggests he knew nothing about it (In Spurling's defence, this suggests he is being truthful about the first picture. After all, if you are going to lie about the first photo, you will keep on lying about the second one.).

So what is the story behind this second photograph? Comments are welcome!

Loch Ness Monster Symposium April 2013

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the first sighting of the modern age of the Loch Ness Monster and to mark this milestone a symposium is to be held in the city of Edinburgh on the 6th of April 2013. A variety of speakers have been lined up to talk on various aspects of this enduring story ending with a panel discussion on what the Loch Ness Monster is and is not. The speaker roster is below and the official website is here and if this is not yet up and running try the website of co-organise Gordon Rutter at this link.

Adrian Shine - The biology of Loch Ness and an overview of geography.

Roland Watson - The pre-1933 history of Loch Ness Monster and its folklore.

Paul Harrison - Loch Ness Monster History 1933-1971.

Tony Harmsworth - Loch Ness 1972 to present.

David Martin-Jones - Nessie on Film.

Charles Paxton - Statistical analysis of eyewitness reports.

Gordon Rutter - Photographic evidence of the Loch Ness monster.

Panel Discussion - Hypotheses for the Loch Ness monster: different explanations for the Loch Ness monster as both a non-monstrous and monstrous phenomena: (panel includes Adrian Shine, Paul Harrison, Steuart Campbell and Roland Watson).

The event will be sponsored by Kraken Rum and will be run under the umbrella of the Edinburgh International Science Festival which runs from the 23rd March to the 7th April. The venue will be The Counting House and further details of the event can be found again at the aforementioned websites.

Ticket purchase is essential to attend. To buy tickets, send a paypal transfer to co-organiser Charles Paxton (cgp2@st-andrews.ac.uk) for £20 – no physical tickets will be issued but the printed Paypal receipt on the day we be matched to the attendee list.

While we are on the subject of Loch Ness Monster symposiums, I would say this is the fourth event to bear that title.  The word "symposium" itself comes from the Greek word for a drinking party which seems appropriate considering the event is sponsored by a rum manufacturer and some form of alcohol will no doubt flow later. These ancient events would be held to debate, recite or celebrate events or works. I guess the drink lubricated the smooth running of the event and the "symposiarch" would decide on the strength of the drink served up depending on the type of event. Who will have that task in April is uncertain!

As far as Nessie is concerned the most famous symposium was the one that never happened in 1975. The word was out that Robert Rines and his team had got close up head, neck and body pictures of the creatures and various people from scientific and academic backgrounds were to be invited to a symposium in Edinburgh under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Scott and the sponsorship of the Royal Society to discuss these images.

Unfortunately, the media interest began to move into hyperdrive and it was felt it was not possible to conduct such a gathering in the midst of such clamour and it was cancelled. The pictures were finally shown to the world at a meeting in the Houses of Parliament to a varied audience. I remember it well and the press description of the body and long neck as looking like "bagpipes in a snowstorm"!

Personally, I like the look of the body-neck picture as evidence but the gargoyle head never struck me as being in accord with eyewitness descriptions of a small head that was almost a continuation of the neck.

After that, the first real and best symposium was held at the Royal Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh on July 25th 1987 which was organised by the Society for the History of Natural History and the International Society for Cryptozoology. The proceedings of the meeting were published in two parts in the centenary edition of the Scottish Naturalist and contained contributions from various leading lights of the Loch Ness mystery including Tim Dinsdale, Henry Bauer, Adrian Shine, Roy Mackal and Robert Rines.

But it was not for another twelve years that the next symposium was held at Loch Ness itself. This was held on the 10th July 1999 at the Drumnadrochit Hotel and was hosted by Gary Campbell of the Loch Ness Monster Fan Club. the speakers over that weekend were Gary Campbell, Loren Coleman, Henry Bauer, Gordon Rutter (who is co-organising this latest event) and Ian Cameron (witness to a famous sighting in 1965). An article from the BBC news website of the time is at the end of this article (original link).

Unlike the other symposiums, this one has a distinct local flavour as all the speakers reside within Scotland. However, no such restriction applies to the audience, so all are welcome in April if they can make it - and get one of those limited tickets!

I will be speaking on the pre-Nessie era of the Loch Ness Monster (prior to 1933) and will be drawing on the research that produced my book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness", but expect some new material as well!
 


Nessie hosts hunters
 

The shores of Loch Ness play host this weekend to a major gathering of monster hunters from around the world. 

Delegates from as far afield as Japan are flying to Scotland for Saturday's first formal gathering of Nessie hunters. 

One of the most controversial debates will be on the famous - or infamous - Nessie photograph that became known as The Surgeon's Picture.

This classic image taken in 1934, showing what appeared to be a long serpent-like neck and head coming out of the water, was later proved to be a hoax.

But respected US cryptozoology researcher Richard Smith will argue that the evidence used to prove the alleged hoax may be flawed. 

Gary Campbell, President of the Inverness-based Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club said: "It should lead to a lively discussion. 

"Richard's findings don't agree with the analysis carried out in 1994 so it might be that the surgeon's photo was real all along." They are complemented by Edinburgh based zoologist Gordon Rutter and retired Highland detective Ian Cameron, who witnessed the longest Nessie sighting on record. 

 The conference, "Loch Ness 1999, an International Cryptozoology Symposium", aims to find a new way forward in the search for creatures like the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti. 

Mr Campbell added: "I am delighted at the numbers coming for the conference. We have delegates attending from all over the world as well as a good turn out of local people as well." 

Delegates will hear from top US Bigfoot author Loren Coleman and Professor Henry Bauer or Virginia State University.