The Jennifer Bruce Photograph

You may have noticed this photograph on various Nessie related websites but despite this not a lot is known about this picture taken over thirty years ago. The first mention in the Loch Ness Monster literature is from Rip Hepple in No.54 of his "Nessletter" which was published in October 1982. The archive link for this issue is here but we show the relevant extract below (click on image to enlarge).

It is presumed that the picture was taken in August but there is no certainty about that. The location is the north side of Urquhart Bay, and it looks like it was taken at or near Temple Pier. And that is really it in terms of further information. I tried to obtain the original clipping from the owners of the Calgary Sunday Sun but without success. I will ask Rip Hepple, but if anyone has a copy of this article, it would be great if they could scan it and email it to me as it could contain relevant information.

The problem is that this photograph appeared in the post-Nessie hunter era. The books by Dinsdale, Holiday, Mackal and so on had been largely written and so it missed the bus, so to speak. However, Henry Bauer mentions it in passing in his 1986 book, "The Enigma of Loch Ness" but had little to say about it.

In the same year, Steuart Campbell's sceptical book, "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence", did briefly cover the picture but makes no conclusion about it. Meanwhile, Paul Harrison's excellent book, "The Encyclopedia of the Loch Ness Monster" does not give it an entry.

BIRDS

So, as you can see, this article is in some sense starting from a low base, but let us see what can be discovered. The zoom in below was obtained from the Criptosito website and will be used for comparison analysis.

Let us look first at Rip's suggestion that this was merely a bird swimming or floating on the surface of the loch. Having looked at the birds mentioned, the best candidate in terms of long neck is the cormorant of which a representative picture is shown below.

If we superimpose this picture over the Bruce image with a view to equalising the width of the neck bases we see a problem with the bird interpretation. Basically, the bird's head is too big by a factor of at least two. The Bruce image lacks the sharp beak and is an altogether smaller head than what would be expected. Whether a cormorant could also achieve the sinusoidal contours of the Bruce neck is also a matter of debate.

In that light, the bird explanation seems forced and, as I shall point out later, there is another good reason to doubt this interpretation.

SEAGULLS

But another explanation has been suggested by researchers such as Dick Raynor and that is the idea that Jennifer Bruce merely caught a snap of a bird such as a seagull in flight across the loch. Below is a picture of a seagull in a pose not dissimilar to the one suggested (original link here). To see the suggested bird, the head-neck is the upturned wings in flight and the horizontal base is the tail to beak of the bird.

Let us superimpose this bird over the zoomed in Bruce image to help you see the proposed configuration. Now having seen it, can you see what is wrong with this alleged bird?

Looking at some further pictures of seagulls in flight (below), one is struck by the abnormal nature of the Bruce "seagull". The first abnormality is the position of the mid-wing joint which is too high up. The joint should be nearer the middle of the wing as you can see from the various gull pictures below. This suggests that this is not in fact a seagull at all.

The second problem is the sinusoidal nature of the "wing". Basically, it just does not look right. When a bird is in flight the lower half of the wing does not curve back like the Bruce "wing".The "wing" is also thinner compared to the pictures below.

Thirdly, the Bruce "wing" is disproportionately longer compared to the "body" when compared to the sample gull pictures. All in all, if this is a gull or any other bird, I suggest it is a deformed one which as a consequence is not capable of flight! There are too many problems with this interpretation and the burden of proof lies with the proposer to prove we are looking at a bird.

To see what real seagulls look like at Loch Ness, check this link. Overlaying the gull in flight at that link over our gull picture produces a nice, proportioned fit.

 

original link here

DETERMINING SIZE

So, taking the position that this is not a bird in flight or at rest on the water, what further can be deduced about the object? Fortunately, I was able to find a similar photograph with a known object in the foreground. The picture below was taken in 1979 at Temple Pier and is reproduced here under the Creative Commons license from the panoramio website.

 

From this we can estimate the size of the object in the water by superimposing the Bruce image over the boat image and resizing it to fit the general background contours. As it turns out, there is a person feeding two swans in the centre of the boats who is about the same height as the object. This would mean the proposed head and neck is at least five feet out of the water. The two overlaid images below are to the same scale. As hinted earlier, this is the other reason why this could not be a bird in the water as no bird at Loch Ness has a neck five feet long.

The two relevant sections of the images at the same scale are isolated and shown below for your inspection. If the Bruce object is indeed in the water, it is huge.

As a further confirmation of the scaling, eagle eyed readers may have noticed the two blobs to the far right of the Bruce image. These are most likely two buoys and by a fortunate coincidence, there is a buoy to the right of the boats. When the two pictures are scaled, the buoys in the two pictures are the same size. The shadows on the two Bruce buoys also suggests the photograph was taken around 2pm if we assume mid August as the date. In contrast, the lighter buoy in the boat picture suggests an evening setting.

NOW YOU SEE IT ...

One further consideration is the claim by some commentators that the photographer was not aware of anything unusual when the picture was taken. This is then used to reinforce the case that it was just an everyday object that was ignored at the time (such as a passing bird). However, the Nessletter reference above does not say that the Bruces were unaware of any object at the time. It merely says that when they developed the pictures, a head and neck image was visible.

That is why I would like to see the original source before commenting further. But, if we assume for the sake of argument that they were not aware of anything at the time, it is entirely possible that the photographer did catch a glimpse of something under the restrictions of the viewfinder but it had gone by the time she scanned the loch with the naked eye. Meanwhile, the other two persons may not have even been looking that way as Jennifer Bruce quickly snapped the castle.

Either way, the object, in my opinion, is not a bird. If it was the Loch Ness Monster, then evidently it surfaced for only a short time before submerging again. Flash sightings are not uncommon and the Monster is often been and gone before its audience even realises what is going on. From a Nessie perspective, this would appear to be the case here.

As for the morphology of the creature, the sinusoidal nature of the "neck" is not unusual either. The witness database certainly points to a neck (or whatever the appendage is) possessing a high degree of flexibility. Some witnesses also refer to something akin to musculature rippling or changing though it is unclear what is actually changing under that monstrous skin.

My views have already been published elsewhere on the supple and subtle nature of what is traditionally considered the head and neck of the Loch Ness Monster. This type of photograph only reinforces that view.

MAKING WAVES

Since this is an object surfacing, one would expect some kind of concentric ripple to emanate from the centre where the object is located. Though the quality of the picture is poor and there are other waves moving up the loch and interfering, I think the ellipse caused by the object is visible as this hand drawn picture tries to demonstrate.

If that is the case, then the ellipse suggests an angle of viewing of 10 degrees and if the observer's eye level is three to four metres above the loch surface then that suggests the object is 17 to 22 metres away. However, this all depends on the accuracy of the ellipse and the elevation of the observer.

The radius of the ellipse is about 9 metres based on our 2 metre neck which suggests the ripple from surfacing has not been travelling very long which is consistent with the creature not being long visible. I would not know for sure how fast such a ripple travels on Loch Ness as it is dependent on the depth of the water at that point and how much force was applied to the water as the object surfaced.

CONCLUSION

So do I consider this a genuine picture of Nessie? Yes, I do. Do I consider explanations about birds inadequate? Yes, I do. Such explanations may have been suggested in good faith, but I fear there has been little in the way of critical analysis of such suggestions.

The internal evidence points away from basic birds towards something big and unidentifiable. There is only one thing big and unidentifiable in Loch Ness ... and we know what that is.

Nessie Tourism War Ramps Up

From today's Press and Journal:

The owner of a Loch Ness Monster visitor centre has been charged with stealing a rival tourist attraction’s advertising sign.

Donald Skinner, 70, of Nessieland Castle Monster Centre in Drumnadrochit, has been accused of taking the sign belonging to the neighbouring Loch Ness Centre – also dedicated to the loch’s famous monster – earlier this month.

But he claims he did not steal the sign. He says he “took custody” of it because it was blocking a sign advertising his centre from being seen.

I am not sure who the accuser was but this comes on the back of the recent war of words over how the locals should present the Loch Ness Monster to tourism.  So what is next? Drive by shootings with Tommy Guns? Probably not, but someone needs to step in and end this before it grows legs.

The Daily Record updates the situation by stating that the Nessieland owner, Donald Skinner, has been arrested over the incident.

NESSIE wars have broken out in a Highland village – leading to a visitor centre owner’s arrest for theft.

Donald Skinner, who runs Nessieland Castle in Drumnadrochit, admits taking a sign belonging to the rival Loch Ness Exhibition Centre.

But he denies breaking the law and insists he “took custody” of it because it was blocking one of his own signs.

Mr Skinner, 70, said yesterday: “I have an official sign opposite their place, saying, “Nessieland 300 yards ahead”.

“They put another sign in front of it. I asked them to move it and this went on for three or four weeks.

“So I warned them if they left their sign there, I would have to take it into custody. They didn’t move it so I took it.

“I did not intend to keep it and I have told the police that. It has been given to the police. ”

A police spokesman said: “I can confirm the theft of a sign belonging to the Loch Ness Centre at Drumnadrochit was reported. A local man was charged and will be reported to the procurator fiscal.”

The Loch Ness Centre, which has been run by Robbie Bremner and his family for 30 years, declined to comment.

The two businesses have a long-running history of disputes.

Mr Bremner sued Mr Skinner three years ago, claiming he had lost £1.3million because his rival called his business The Original Loch Ness Exhibition Centre.

The case was settled out of court after Mr Skinner agreed to change his centre’s name.

There have also been previous disputes relating to signs pointing to the two attractions.

Superman and the Loch Ness Monster

In recognition of the latest Superman blockbuster, "Man of Steel", it may interest readers to know that Nessie gets a mention in at least one Superman comic of old. It is Action Comics No. 497 published in July 1979. Ever wondered how to get the definitive proof for the Loch Ness Monster?

"This is a job for Superman!"

  

 

Now if you read the speech bubbles, you may have noted that Superman mentions the Loch Ness Monster, but this is actually the Loch Trevor Monster he has bagged! What on earth is the Loch Trevor Monster and who ever thought of that ridiculous name for a Scottish loch? Indeed, does it outdo the outrageous "Hoots Mon!" Scotsmen in the comic for laughability? Well, it may have something to do with this earlier Jimmy Olsen comic drawn by the late, great Jack Kirby.

 

And last but not least DC Comics' resident "Nessie" also made this appearance in May 1990. Well, at least Superman informed us that Nessie is not the survivor of alien experiments. Just in case any of you guys were toying with that idea! 

BTW, I enjoyed "Man of Steel" and though it was better than "Superman Returns" but that original Christopher Reeves "Superman" film still wins it for me!

Nessie, UFOs and Sceptics

 

Original picture at this link

I was watching the National Geographic channel recently and came across something that resonated within me as regards the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster.

I have just had TalkTalk's TV box installed which allows you access to subscription channels on a month by month basis. So I guess in some ways, my TV viewing experience has ratcheted up a notch from the standard fayre on Freeview (or "Council TV" as they say in Central Scotland).

Anyway, I got to watching a series of documentaries NG made which focused on UFO files of European governments. One of the top stories was the well known case that occurred in Rendlesham Forest in 1980. You can read more about it here but the gist of the case was strange bright lights and a metallic object being seen in the forest twice over the space of several days by base officials and servicemen.

Now whatever you may think about the case, the parallels with handling Loch Ness Monster accounts came to light when sceptics were asked for their opinions on the case. One such contributor was Nigel Henbest, a writer of popular science books. He suggested they had seen a combination of a meteor, the star Sirius and the local lighthouse at Orford Ness.

Could those witnesses have been so duped and stupid? I watched what a Colonel Charles Halt had to say and he denied it was the lighthouse which he was familiar with. In fact, he uttered these words:

"I think I will scream if they mention the lighthouse again!"

Or words to that effect but the word "scream" certainly was there to emphasise his frustration with these sceptical explanations. So do sceptics just plain ignore feedback from witnesses? Do they in fact seek or bother about witness feedback? There are two important aspects to examining what witnesses say.

The first is the need to demonstrate the witness' observational incompetency in the context of the incident. We talk about the "professional" witnesses who we place greater stock in such as locals, water based workers or hobbyists, regular monster hunters and so on. 

But how does one prove observational incompetency in an given case? I would suggest in the case of scepticism, it is assumed rather than proven. It should be the other way round.

Secondly and related is the witness feedback. When a sceptical explanation is offered, how often is witness feedback sought? If it is ever done, I see very little evidence of it. Now I understand that not every witness can be sought out and engaged with but surely there is more to this than just publishing a possible explanation and that's that. No further debate, no feedback, nothing.

To put it bluntly, I do not consider this a holistic approach to witness analysis and it is something all Loch Ness researchers should engage in according to the proportion of time and resources available.

So what shall we say to this? Or rather what would the witnesses of old say to this?

Would Greta Finlay have said: "I think I will scream if they mention that deer again!"

Would the Spicers have said: "I think I will scream if they mention those otters again!"

Would Aldie Mackay have said:  "I think I will scream if they mention standing waves again!"

I don't know how those individuals would have reacted but I am sure there are plenty of other witnesses who would react in such a way!

  

P.S. The Godzilla in the picture is for EKM!

 

New Nessie Facebook Page

A new facebook page has been created as a forum for debate on the Loch Ness Monster. You can find it at this link. 

So far, we have seen various contributions from people knowledgeable in the Loch Ness phenomenon and I hope everyone keeps a civil tongue in their heads as the subject can often descend into friction. That I always found a bit strange as we are not talking about a subject that impacts on the human condition such as health care, wars, human rights or poverty. Go figure.

Anyway, check it out and join in if you have something to say.

AD 1658: The Floating Island of Loch Ness

Take a look at some ancient maps of Scotland and you may notice a strange phrase inscribed beside Loch Lomond which goes something like this: 

“Loch Lomond famous for its floating island its fish without fins and being frequently tempestuous in a calm.”

Thus did cartographer Hermann Moll annotate his 1712 map of the Scottish county of Dunbartonshire (below). Cryptozoologists have speculated on whether these phrases refer to a strange creature residing in Loch Lomond or have a more mundane explanation.

In my book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness", I go into further detail which suggests there is a more natural explanation for the floating islands of Loch Lomond. But what of the floating island of Loch Ness which on examination looks like a stranger proposition?

RICHARD FRANCK

The source for this story was Richard Franck, a Cromwellian soldier who at some point visited or was stationed near Loch Ness during the 17th century. As a result of his military and angling pursuits in Scotland, he published in 1696 a travelogue of his experiences called "Northern Memoirs" which in the tradition of the time carried a long winded sub-title. The front page shown below is from that first edition.

Though the initial book was written in 1658 with additions into 1685, it took 38 years to be published. I suspect this was due to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 which would have led to a suppression of any literature which smacked of the Cromwellian until the more favourable ascent to the throne of William of Orange in 1689.

The book itself is written in a conversational style between three fellows called  Arnoldus (Franck himself), Theophilus and Agrippa. But what do we know about Captain Richard Franck? According to Brown's "Early Travellers in Scotland" (1891):

Of Richard Franck we know little more than he has himself casually told us in the book from which the following extracts have been made. It has been conjectured that he was born in 1642, and that he died in the year 1708. From himself we learn that he was a native of Cambridge, that he received "a slender education" at its university, and that the impending civil wars drove him for a time to make his residence in London.

We have it also from himself that he at one time resided in Nottingham, though in what capacity, or whether before or after his visit to Scotland, he does not specify. His first acquaintance with Scotland was made as a trooper in the army of Cromwell in 1650. It was probably in 1656 or 1657, however, that he made the northern tour of which his Memoirs is the record.

FRANCK'S FLOATING ISLAND 

But let us now look at what Richard Franck said of the floating island of Loch Ness. First he speaks of Loch Lomond:

The large and spacious Loemon, so generally discours'd for the floating island; but it floats not here in these solitary Western Fields, as fictitiously supposed by the ignorant reporters. But our travel will reform that error in time, when we  come to trace the mountains beyond Badanoch.

As far as Franck is concerned, the action is to be found at Loch Ness 

The famous Lough-Ness, so much discours'd for the supposed floating island; for here it is, if any where in Scotland. Nor is it any other than a natural plantation of segs and bullrushes, matted and knit so close together by natural industry, and navigated by winds that blow every way, floats from one part of the Lough to another, upon the surface of the solid deeps of this small Mediterrane.

 The relevant page from the first edition is shown below.

To which he adds a final poetic flourish:

Where the Tritons and Sea-nymphs sport themselves on the slippery waves, sounding an invasion to her moveable inmate; supposed by some, the floating island.

You will perhaps have noted that Franck is the first recorded Nessie sceptic in the history of mankind as he immediately bats down any notion of monsters with his own explanation that the whole thing is just a mass of dead plants floating around the loch. The aim of this post is to debunk this Cromwellian debunker. 

The first thing to note is how the floating island of Loch Lomond is "generally discours'd" about meaning there is a degree of general talk concerning the subject and this is certainly borne out by the previously mentioned map references.

However, Franck says that the floating island of Loch Ness is "so much discours'd" about which suggests that at the time of writing in 1658, this phenomenon was the talk of the town, so to speak. Who it was "much discoursed" amongst is a matter of debate. Was it amongst the angling circles that Franck shared a common interest or a wider audience who were keen to follow the journal of a tourist?

Whatever the audience, it seems evident that Franck expected them to have some familiarity of this story and even notes the phenomenon is "supposed by some, the floating island" in contra-distinction to his more mundane view.

It seems a search of 17th century literature may yet produce further information about that then popular subject. News papers or letters were sporadically published back then (Cromwell banned them for years) and so good luck if you fancy embarking on such research.

BULLRUSHES 

But going back to Franck's sceptical stance on this phenomenon. The first thing we deduce is that he is formulating an explanation based on guesswork. How do we know this? The fact that he suggests our Floating Island is an entanglement "of segs and bullrushes" proves it. No serious or even diehard sceptic of the Loch Ness Monster would suggest such an explanation today. This can be demonstrated from the list of explanations that the Loch Ness Project suggests for monster sightings.  

Twenty different objects and effects are given but not one could be interpreted as the explanation offered by Franck. Debris such as logs are mentioned but these are a far cry from the vegetable mats that were once promoted by the leading sceptic of the 1960s, Maurice Burton.

In 1960, he published "The Elusive Monster" which placed a lot of weight on this explanation. The problem was that no one was seeing these elusive vegetable mats and this theory soon lost favour when the various expeditions to the loch took a closer look at the loch and its environs.

Furthermore, Franck suggests bullrushes as the main component of his floating island. As it turns out, not only are vegetable mats exceedingly rare on Loch Ness, but ones made of segs and bullrushes can be dismissed out of hand. I consulted a local commercial gardener at Loch Ness who told me bullrushes do not occur naturally at Loch Ness and any clumps found around the loch have probably "escaped" from nearby gardens.

It is further deduced that Franck had not even seen this floating island else I am quite sure he would have regaled us with further tales of what he personally saw. So, anyone thinking that Franck had rowed up to this phenomenon and examined it will be sadly mistaken. I would note that other travellers to the Highlands do not mention these vegetable floating islands at Loch Ness so I deduce they were unknown as a natural phenomenon - as they practically are today.

LOCH NESS WINDS

Richard Franck further assures us that the Floating Island is

"navigated by winds that blow every way floats from one part of the Lough to another ..."

However, this appears to be guesswork again as the main prevailing wind at Loch Ness is from the South West. This is due to the warm Atlantic air being channelled up the Great Glen which acts like a wind tunnel and can increase the general wind speed. Notice also how Franck implies that our Floating Island seems to have a habit of appearing all over the loch. In reality, any debris mats will tend to be blown up the loch to be caught on the shore again or simply sink.

Two further speculations on this point may be in order.

Firstly, it is likely Franck's main source of information were the Cromwellian soldiers stationed near Loch Ness. It is known they had a garrison at Inverness and also had a large ship on the loch. Apparently this ship was moved to the loch via the strenuous task of rolling it along on logs across land. It seems the Caledonian Canal was over a hundred years too late!

Further research suggests that it was unlikely the locals were the source of information since their superstitious dread of the Loch Ness Kelpie dissuaded them from talking about it since they regarded its appearance as a bad omen. So their silence was a given, especially to invading "sassenachs". Cromwell's soldiers would have held no such inhibitions and would have readily talked about their experiences to a fellow Cromwellian such as Franck.

In fact, I may be so bold as to state that without these "Roundheads" we may have never heard of Richard Franck's Floating Island. I say that because of the stony silence foreign travellers tended to be greeted with by fearful natives in these supernatural matters.

Secondly, I would suggest the term "Floating Island" was a phrase applied by Franck rather than the garrisoned soldiers. Did the witnesses to this strange phenomenon on Loch Ness call it a floating island themselves or was Franck keen to link it with Loch Lomond for conversational effect?

I have no particular objection to that literary approach except that readers may automatically infer that the two floating island phenomena are related not only in name but also in solution. I don't think Franck's use of the terms necessarily implies that.

OTHER ISLANDS

So what could the Floating Island of Loch Ness have been? 

Another suggestion is that it could have been Eilean Muireach or "Cherry Island" which is an artificial island built on a crannog but now deserted and overgrown. The problem, of course, is that this island does not float and is very much rooted to the spot. As an aside, I read that Cherry Island was once much bigger due to the lower loch levels before the Caledonian Canal was built and indeed there was a smaller, now submerged island called Eilean Nan Con or the "Dog Island" but the same argument applies.

May I suggest another explanation which is consistent with what people have claimed to have seen and written about at Loch Ness for centuries? You guessed it, a large animal exposing its large back to an audience which described it with a useful metaphor - an island which floats.

This is the most common aspect of the Loch Ness Monster - the single hump and is exemplified in a few drawings here from Gould's 1934 book, "The Loch Ness Monster and others". From top to bottom, Alex Shaw on the 11th May 1933, Mrs. Garden Scott on the 16th August 1933 and Mr. W.D.H. Moir on the 26th august 1933.

CONCLUSIONS

Three hundred and fifty years ago, Richard Franck had returned from Loch Ness with strange tales of an object he likened to a floating island. He though it was a mass of vegetation being blown around the loch. The Puritans of his day were very much rationalists who spent much of their time debunking the supposed miracles of their nemesis, the Roman Catholic Church. It is no surprise therefore that this scepticism overflowed into explaining away strange sights at Loch Ness.

Richard Franck is the earliest example of a thread of scepticism towards the Loch Ness Monster that continues to this day. The other thread is the continuing belief in a strange creature in Loch Ness. That line can be traced back to Saint Columba but existed before it.

Will the two threads continue to draw out another 350 years from now? That wouldn't surprise me at all.







 

George Edwards, Others and Nessie

I heard it on the grapevine recently that George Edwards has been making some news again, albeit at a more local level. You may remember that George grabbed the Nessie headlines for 2012 with his photograph of a hump like object in the water. As it turned out, he was not generally believed as the headline above shows.

Returning to the present day, the Drumnadrochit Chamber of Commerce held their AGM last Monday and George sent a letter to them bemoaning the scepticism expressed by Adrian Shine and others towards the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. He felt that this would be bad for business and the businesses around the area should be making more of Nessie.

It seems that this letter was met with a robust reply from Tony Harmsworth (who is also sceptical of the traditional view of the Loch Ness Monster) along the lines of fakes doing more harm to the cause than expressing a sceptical view. Tony was also confident that business in general was up in the area.

So that was that and I don't know how that AGM went but it got me thinking about how the Loch Ness Monster is presented to the many tourists who pass by Loch Ness. I have already posted some observations on a recent visit to the Loch Ness Centre which was designed by Adrian Shine but I have not been along to the competing "Nessieland" exhibition centre for years and so cannot give an up to date opinion on that.

However, George's pessimism regarding sceptical exhibitions should not be so burdensome. The debate regarding the existence and nature of the Loch Ness Monster requires the participation of both sceptics and believers. If the debate is dominated by one side, then one tends to get a stagnant silence in terms of pushing the subject forward. Lively discussion always requires at least two sides and this subject is no different.

So the solution for George Edwards and any others who are like minded at Loch Ness is simple. The Nessieland Castle Monster Centre just down the road from the Loch Ness Centre claims to be pro-Nessie. That place is run by a Donald Skinner and George's boat trips are based there.

If they are indeed pro-Nessie and a bunch of 100% resolute believers in a monster then their exhibition should be geared towards promoting that cause. In that way, tourists will have a perfect balance at Loch Ness between the sceptical view and the traditional view.

Does the Nessieland Castle Monster Centre live by that creed? I will tell you next time I visit it but if they are wanting someone to offer them advice on how to present the traditional monster view and critique the sceptical view, I am at their service. Just email me at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

POSTSCRIPT: Loch Ness researcher, Dick Raynor, has posted further details of the aforementioned letters at his website - link (scroll to bottom of page).