The Folklore of An Niseag

Where does folklore end and reality begin? What is the overlap between these two planes of "existence"? This was a question obliquely asked in a recent article by “Dr. Beachcombing” when he reviewed my book “The Water Horses of Loch Ness”. You may wish to read his article first before proceeding here.

 

The Doctor (as I will call him) holds the article in tension between two schools of thought. On the one extreme, there is my view that these old tales had a biological basis in truth. That is, An Niseag (the old Gaelic for Nessie pronounced "An Nee-Shack"), was a real creature hidden under the various layers of folkloric accretions. But in opposition, was the dismissive view of Daniel Loxton, co-author of “Abominable Science”, who viewed all folklore as irrelevant to the question of what is the Loch Ness Monster. I reviewed that book from a Nessie perspective back in September.

He ultimately is sceptical of any real creature beneath the folkloric or real waves and sides with Loxton in that respect. However, he sides with this author in regards to Loch Ness folklore and opposes "Abominable Science". There was a tradition of a beast in Loch Ness which people believed to be true.

Delving further though, he had issues with some of the stories I presented. He though I was indulging in "special pleading" regarding the Richard Franck story of the 1658 "Floating Island". He does not say why, but given what I know about Loch Ness, I highly doubt Franck's mass of vegetation has any mileage. I refer him and readers to my article on that subject here.

DAVID MURRAY ROSE

There is also the issue of historian David Murray Rose's letter to The Scotsman on the 1st January 1934 which gives various known and unknown pre-1933 monster stories but (infuriatingly) without the name of the original sources. Another article by the Doctor which I covered here, partly vindicates Mr. Rose on another old story, but sadly progresses us not an inch on finding these particular old sources.

Indeed, I recently found another letter from Mr. Rose to The Scotsman for 30th November 1934 when I was looking for references to crocodiles at Loch Ness. The relevant portion is below and refers to dates around 1828 and 1850 but what quite prompted David Murray Rose to mention those dates, I have no idea (though he refers to his "notes" further in the letter). 

Moving on, the Doctor is hesitant to accept stories from witnesses before 1933 but only made public after 1933. He feels there may be some form of Nessie "contagion" introduced into these accounts. I agree the possibility is there in theory but I do not accept that this invalidates all these accounts (though the Doctor does not do this either). Sceptical researchers can either dismiss them as fabrications or as people who genuinely saw something they could not explain years before (to which the usual boat wakes, birds and otter explanations are retro-fitted).

With the introduction of the Nessie genre in the 1930s, those witnesses may well have applied the monster template onto them, but that by no means lessens the degree of mystery they attached to what they saw. Hence, they should be assessed each on its own internal evidence, in the same manner as a more modern report.

THE ROOT

But it is then asked why one should accept the Kelpie tradition as being an indicator of something physically unknown anymore than the equally prevalent tales of fairies in the Highlands? Now, I may not believe in a race of indigenous fairy folk inhabiting the North of Scotland, but does that mean one must dismiss all Highland tales as having no tangible basis in reality? If people, outside of the Highland traditions, had not continued to report strange sights in Loch Ness, perhaps we would have. 

Actually, this is where things dovetail into my separate paranormal studies. Since the days of Jacques Vallee's "Passport to Magonia" and John Keel's "Operation Trojan Horse", there has been a growing school of thought that many strange phenomena from centuries past up to this present day are merely different manifestations of the same underlying cause.

From diminutive fairies to Adamski's blond Venusians to today's skeletal grey aliens, none of them cohere together at the surface but they are all the same stuff of folklore both ancient and modern. The underlying cause is a matter of speculation and ranges from Charles Fort's "Cosmic Joker", to the Collective Unconsciousness of mankind to another intelligence. Or one could play it safer and speculate on something that emanates from our deepest psyche. I have no fixed opinion on the matter.

But as to the accretions of folklore, be it green-jacketed fairies or talking kelpies; these can be discounted as man's attempts to reconcile these shady phenomena with man's surroundings. The Doctor correctly points out that Kelpie folklore was important in providing part of the "kindling" that ignited a new level of story telling at Loch Ness, one which changed into a dinosaur (for me the same creature, but a different representation).

PERCEPTIONS AND CYCLES

The way I see it is represented in the diagram below which was part of my Kelpie talk at last year's "Nessie at 80" Symposium. In this we see two parallel but similar worlds. There is the ancient and modern branches which have a common root called "The Reality". From this springs what witnesses claim to have seen moving in the waters of Loch Ness. Here we have the first level of perception.

The next level of perception is the local group perception. Here the accounts of the witnesses are recounted, either to the local community of old or the researchers today who record the stories as faithfully as possible. 

The final level of perception are the storytellers or their equivalent in the modern media. They take the recorded accounts and turn them into stories compatible with the culture of the day. So, in the diagram above, that transforms to the Kelpies, Water Horses and Water Bulls of fireside raconteurs. Today, it translates to the various green and fierce monsters of films, books and artists.

Finally, we have the downwards arrows feeding back from media and storytellers to community and researchers and finally to witnesses. These represent the cultural and scientific ideas of the time which shape to varying degrees how future generations will feed back up the loop. That in itself is a controversy as some say this is sufficient to form a positive feedback loop that can disengage from "The Reality" while I say there is no such thing as a free lunch in this matter and has to be sustained by whatever lies beneath the waves to propel it, else the whole cycle collapses after a short time.

Moreover, I would suggest that An Niseag was the "seed" for other Water Horse tales that sprung around ancient Scotland (perhaps Mhorag also helped). One proof of this is the higher than usual concentration of Kelpie lochs around Loch Ness. However, unlike An Niseag, these derived lochs have no underlying reality and hence peter out over time. 

There is also a modern parallel to this when other aquatic cryptids gained prominence when Nessie appeared and a lot of modern sea beasts are often referred to as "The Loch Ness Monster of ...". 

That much seems certain to me, but the root cause called "The Reality" which has no resolution because it is yet to be unambiguously observed foments controversy. To the skeptics it is simply a collection of unremarkable, everyday events. To others it is a creature of more interesting proportions.

THE GREAT FISH

One of the items from that time proved most interesting to the Doctor (as it does to me). The article in question was printed by the Inverness Courier on the 8^th October 1868 and is reproduced below.

A STRANGE FISH IN LOCH NESS

“A few days ago a large fish came ashore on the banks of Loch Ness about two miles to the west of Lochend Inn. Neither the name nor the species of the strange visitor could be satisfactorily explained, and large crowds of country people went to see and examine for themselves, but left without being able to determine whether the monster was aquatic, amphibious, or terrestrial. Some of the most credulous natives averred that a huge fish, similar in size and shape, had been occasionally seen gambolling in the loch for years back, and with equal determination protested that its being cast dead on the shore boded no good to the inhabitants – that, in fact, its presence presaged dire calamities either in pestilence or famine, or perhaps both.

At last, however, an individual better skilled in the science of ichthyology appeared on the scene, and ascertained that the strange visitor was nothing more or less than a bottled nosed whale about six feet long. 

How one of the denizens of the ocean came to be cast ashore at Loch Ness was the next question, but, this too, has been set at rest, for it was ascertained that the blubber had been taken off! 

The fish had, of course, been caught at sea, and had been cast adrift in the waters of Loch Ness by some waggish crew to surprise the primitive inhabitants of Abriachan and the surrounding districts. The ruse was eminently successful.”

This the story where folklore ends and reality begins. No longer the Kelpie of fireside ceilidhs, but a huge fish seen for years back. A great fish that coexisted with dark tales of aquatic horses was now in the process of decoupling from the legend. Let us take a closer look.

The background is a strange carcass found on the shores of Loch Ness near Abriachan. Being as yet unidentified, some of the local natives presumed it to be the Kelpie of old. We know this because of the supernatural construction they put on it by predicting calamity for the community. If you are familiar with this genre of folklore, it was known that bringing harm or imprisonment to a Kelpie was a sure path to ruin.

However, the correspondent seems to get his local natives mixed up as he also quotes them talking of a great fish. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Kelpies will know they were never likened to  fish. Nevertheless, the author of the report assigns the label "credulous" and "primitive" to these people.

These derogatives very much explain the attitude of the Inverness Courier to any talk about strange creatures in Loch Ness and why we rarely heard anything about them. Quite simply, such tales were regarded as nonsense and superstition by the editors of the newspaper. With the Industrial Revolution transforming Scotland and Victorian academics assuring everyone that such tales were mythology, Highland newspapers were jumping on the progressive bandwagon.

So, any story you are likely to meet on this subject is going to be framed in a sarcastic way that not only entertains but very much advertises the modern, dismissive stance of the newspaper. This is corroborated in at least two other Loch Ness newspaper accounts of the time which leave the reader in no doubt about how the newspaper treats such a subject.

The other interesting point is why the Inverness Courier does not simply dismiss the tale of a great fish as yet another sturgeon story? A casual search of digital archives reveals various stories of sturgeons being caught around the Moray Firth and the River Ness. Why not state this as such a case? After all, the carcass was stated as being six foot long, which is a typical sturgeon size (though it is unclear how the locals decided their fish was six foot long - unless they were saying that six foot was visible at the surface). I would suggest the way the "great fish" story was related by locals to the journalist precluded such an explanation.

HOAX

And, finally, the reporter says the carcass was dumped "by some waggish crew to surprise the primitive inhabitants of Abriachan and the surrounding districts". Why did they do this? The phrase "primitive inhabitants" is linked to the previous phrase "credulous natives" and their great fish. I would suggest the crew were aware of the local tales of this beast and decided to pull off a hoax.

But you may say "A monster hoax at Loch Ness in Victorian times?" and I say "Yes". There was a sufficiently strong and contemporary belief in a large creature in Loch Ness to put the "progressive" newspapers in sarcastic mode and those itinerant fishermen into hoaxing mode. Or to put it another way, if there is a monster hoax, it presupposes a monster belief. 

CONCLUSION

Did nothing more than waves, logs and birds cause the modern and ancient legends of the Loch Ness Monster? Are even modern stories just a continuation of the folkloric traditions which themselves will be discussed and pored over centuries from now? Or does it take more than the mundane to kick start these strongly held beliefs? 

Regular readers will know this blog's answer to that question.
 

Here Be Mermaids!

I am just finishing off a folkloric post and received a link from fellow cryptozoological researcher, Scott Mardis. It concerns the tale of the Cromarty mermaid which was not far from Loch Ness. The 18th Century broadsheet proclaims:

"A strange and wonderful Relation concerning a Mermaid that was seen and spoke with on the Cliff of Cromarry, near Inverness in Scotland, by a young gentleman, a Merchant, named Lauchland Mackintosh, who was tossed on the main Ocean for four Days and Nights. Together with an account of his wonderful Dream, and the strange Conversation he had with the Mermaid, and how he was preserved after his Return to Inverness." 

Now I had been aware of this story whilst researching my book on Scottish Water Horses a couple of years back, but ignored it along with the various sea serpent stories as I was more interested in land locked waters and rivers.

However, this blog has put up a couple of pieces on these fair, aquatic females. The first concerned the mermaid like creature of Loch Morar as related by folklorist Carmichael Watson:

  “The Morag dwells in Loch Morar. She gives her name to the lake and still appears when any of the old Macdonalds of Morar die. Like the other water deities she is half human half fish. The lower portions of her body is in the form of a grilse and the upper in the form of a small woman of highly developed breasts with long flowing yellow hair falling down her snow white back and breast. She is represented as being fair, beautiful and very timid and never seen save when one of the Morar family dies or when the clan falls in battle."

The second account concerns Loch Duntelchaig which is a satellite loch of Loch Ness: 

"The hill side which sloped down to the lake had the name of being haunted, and the waters of the lake itself had their ghostly inhabitant in the shape of what the Highlanders called the water-bull. There was also a story of some strange mermaid-like monster being sometimes seen, having the appearance of a monstrous fish with long hair."

I do not recall coming across any other such stories of loch mermaids, so they are in even shorter supply compared to their companions, the Kelpie, Water Horse and Water Bull. The old Victorian sceptics mused that the long strands of kelp that dotted the Scottish coastline may have reminded natives of the Kelpie mane and I don't doubt some would have speculated likewise concerning the long hair of the mermaid. 

The trouble was that Kelpies were freshwater creatures, but why let the facts get in the way of a good theory?

 

Jonathan Bright on his Loch Ness Monster Photograph

I have already covered Jonathan's picture taken in 2012 in a previous post. But Jonathan now brings his own story and thoughts to the table in this blog posting. He has also put up an accompanying YouTube video (below). Jonathan delves into the paranormal aspects of Nessie theorising, of which I am sure there are plenty of advocates. I used to believe in this theory (since I believe in paranormal phenomena in general), but have since decided to pursue the biological side of things. 

Of course, we hear of strange things going on around Loch Ness which are suggestive of such things. We read of the strange events that Tim Dinsdale recorded which were not Nessie related (I would love to see that journal). Also, Ted Holiday's strange goings on surrounding the 1973 exorcism of Loch Ness also raises the eyebrow.

Though Jonathan brings in the magician, Aleister Crowley, it is a fact that monster reports and legends preceded his arrival at Loch Ness in Edwardian times by a long stretch. But paranormalists may argue that what ever "portal" attracted Crowley there, was the same progenitor of Nessie. Indeed, it is a bit unclear why Crowley selected Boleskine House at Loch Ness. The house configuration he demanded could have been fulfilled in any number of areas, but why this particular area?

Interesting questions, but again, just at the edge of reality's peripheral vision. The hunt continues, I hope to be at Loch Ness in about a month's time!

Concerning Mobile Phone Cameras

I would like to visit a subject that seems to have convinced sceptics that they have a strong argument against the Loch Ness Monster. It concerns the ubiquitous mobile phone camera and the idea that their increased presence should produce more photographs of Nessie and more convincing ones at that. This article addresses both of these issues.

Now it cannot be denied that access to a camera in one’s pocket has increased greatly in the last decade or so. As far as I can ascertain, the camera feature on mobile phones first appeared in 2000 with the Japanese J-Phone. Since then, you could argue that almost everyone carries a camera with them wherever they go. There is one graph I saw which sceptics referred to which shows a steep curve of mobile phone take up in the last 10 years. It is shown below with the dismissive, arrogant tone you sometimes encounter from a small number of sceptics.

So the argument runs that with all these mobile phone cameras jostling around Loch Ness, there should be more pictures of the creature. The sceptics say there are not; therefore the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. But is the argument that simple? Let us take a closer look.

First off, let us try and create a graph of films and photographs taken at Loch Ness over the last 80 years which purport to show Nessie. I include films and videos here because mobile phones now have video recording capability too (though that feature did not come to the fore until about 2007). Of course, the issue here is what constitutes a photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

As a colleague pointed out to me at my recent Loch Ness Monster talk, there is no such thing as a “confirmed” sighting that satisfies both believers and sceptics. So with that in mind, it is best to include all claimed images and take it from there.

THE FILM AND PHOTO RECORD

Looking around the literature and recent research, there are plenty of images ranging from water disturbances to the more incredible. I have filtered some out on the basis of a few assumptions. Firstly, the photos I consider fakes are left out and also the results of large scale organised searches such as the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau during the 1960s. What I am interested in is the tourist or local with his camera. The graph below is denoted in decades rather than years and film and photographs are combined into a "BOTH" count (thanks to Charles Paxton for help with the database). The right axis denotes the film/photo count.

As an aside, the first thing that will strike you is the drop off in reported sightings since the 1960s and reminds us of the recent "Is Nessie Dead?" flurry of news articles. In reality, the drop will be down to a combination of the factors listed below.

1. People are less easily fooled by natural loch phenomena.

2. People are less motivated to report sightings in a sceptical age.

3. People find it harder to find an "official" centre to report sightings.

4. The media does not report as many sightings as it used to.

5. The creature(s) is surfacing less often either due to population decline.

6. The creature(s) is surfacing less often due to aversion to increased surface activity.
7. Reports from recent years have still to filter through to researchers.

These can be argued about as to validity or priority, but it would seem clear that a decrease in sightings should lead to a decrease in photographic opportunities and hence images. But as you can see, the number of images captured in rising. However, the graph gets more interesting if the images captured are expressed as a percentage of total sightings for that decade. 

As you can see, the number of images as a proportion of sightings has been increasing even more rapidly since the 1980s and it is reasonable to deduce that a component of this is due to increasing availability of not only mobile camera phones but also earlier devices such as the camcorder.

So it seems the sceptic's objection is answered, image count is up. It should also be noted that though the use of mobile phone cameras was on a steep rise, this does not necessarily apply to Loch Ness which is not a general population case. It is clear that Loch Ness has always had a higher proportion of lenses on it than your typical statistical scenario and that means the expected rise in images will be less pronounced.

Another factor which eats into the supposed steep curve expectation is group dynamics. As I looked over these cases, it became apparent that in group situations, there only seemed to be one image produced. What appeared to be happening was that in cases where a group is witnessing an event on the loch, one person undertakes the recording whilst the others just keep watching.

I would suggest that even if there are 5 or 6 mobile phones in pockets or bags, there is a "deferring" to the person with the best recording equipment (e.g. a camcorder). Also, since a better view is obtained with the naked eye rather than looking through a viewfinder, people would rather make the most of the situation by just watching and let the other guy do the image capture.

That won't be a hard and fast rule, but I am not aware of cases of multiple, independent images per individual case. Again, we have a Loch Ness specific situation here which dampens the curve. I hope that answers the first case of alleged inadequate image counts.

COMPARING CAMERAS

One point that came to mind when thinking through this issue was camera quality. The quantity of cameras has increased, but what about the quality of cameras? To get a handle on this, I took a series of comparison pictures with a mobile phone camera and an ordinary digital camera.

The mobile phone used was an iPhone 3GS. The specification of its camera is as follows:

• 3.2 megapixels resolution
• 5x digital zoom
• VGA video at  30fps

In the other corner is my Canon PowerShot A450 with the following spec:

• 5 megapixels resolution
• 4x digital zoom
• 3.2x optical zoom
• 13x combined zoom
• video at VGA/10fps, 320x240/30fps, 160x120/15fps

Note that both the iPhone and the Canon are not top of the range for their class and so can be regarded as a good approximation to the "average camera" at Loch Ness. Here are some of the comparison images with the iPhone displayed first.

The next four pictures were taken at Lochend where boat traffic is more dense.

You can see the advantage that the ordinary digital camera has in terms of light capture due to its larger aperture. The problem is further exacerbated when further detail is sought by zooming into the object of interest. As you can see, the Canon digital camera wins hands down over the iPhone. The iPhone can only do digital zoom which does not add more information to the image. The Canon's optical zoom will always win out here. There may be more cameras focused on Loch Ness, but what do they bring to the table in terms of quality?

As regards videos, it is often a complaint why witnesses do not switch to video mode in order to produce a more convincing set of images. But how true is this? I photographed a rainbow over Urquhart Bay last August and I also switched to video mode to record that too. Though this was taken with the digital camera and not the iPhone, the difference in quality is there for all to see (below).

Indeed, unless the video recording device is mounted on a tripod, I am not sure that running in video mode is a better option. The camera shake can render the footage useless and even if one has a stable hand that can overcome the excitement of seeing the monster, the witness may attempt to zoom in on the object and increase the shake to intolerable levels. Needless to say, tripods are not mandatory items in the tourist's suitcase.

 

THAT PERFECT PICTURE

The second argument is that all these mobile phone cameras should not only produce more images but also that definitive, close up image. As just stated, the quality of such devices is inferior to the produce of more traditional cameras. But the general rgument is statistical, the greater the distribution of cameras, the higher the probability of a close encounter picture.

However, there are mitigating factors that make no difference to how many cameras are present. For example, on many stretches of the loch, the road is quite far from the loch or obscured by trees. In other words, the creature may appear, but the witness is several hundred yards from it. Clearly, nothing conclusive is going to be pictured in that situation, no matter how many mobile phones are around. In the case of foliage obscuration, you are not going to spot something so easily, and so the camera stays in the pocket or bag.

So the situation demands the witness to be around 100-200 metres from the creature. Perhaps on a road close to the shore (for example, the Dores to Foyers road) or perhaps as a passenger in a boat. After that, it is a matter of waiting for the monster to appear at the right distance over the 24 square miles of the loch surface.

But as we have just noted, sightings are down while camera presence is up. To put it another way, if sightings are down to a quarter of what they were 15 years ago but camera presence has also quadrupled, then they cancel each other out! There is no expectation of more quality pictures. But the image count is up, so there is yet hope for that elusive, quality image.

In fact, good images of the monster are extremely rare. Over the last eighty years, I would count only at most ten as good images in still or movie format. That is one every eight years and based on what I have said about factors cancelling each other, I have no reason to believe that will improve despite the protestation about numerous low grade cameras "flooding" the loch.

But, again, is not the image count up per decennial sightings? Yes it is, but the quality images that rank with MacNab or others still occupy a low percentage of the total image count (about 15%). So, I am optimistic that better pictures than the recent Rowe or Bright ones will come out before the end of this decade.

The caveat is always the same though. A good image will turn up but the sceptics will dismiss it right away. Damned if you, damned if you don't. That is why I don't take these sceptical arguments too seriously as there is a hint of duplicity in them.

RESOLUTIONS OLD AND NEW

Related to this question is that oft mentioned derogative "grainy, old, black and white photographs" when referring to pictures of the Loch Ness Monster from decades past. If you think this is an invitation to regard modern photography as vastly superior in terms of image capture, then decline the invitation!

The "grainy" adjective has nothing to do with the quality of the original negative and, in fact, refers to the all too common method of blowing up the print of a monster picture to the point of graininess. The modern equivalent would be enlarging a digital image until individual pixels are resolved.

The "old" is irrelevant so long as the the image is preserved for future use. Unfortunately, negatives get lost copying degrades the image. However, this is an argument equally applicable to digitial images. Original image files are lost or replaced by inferior JPEG images.

Is a colour image superior to a black and white image? Clearly it is as it contains more information. However, how important is the difference in capturing that conclusive picture of the Loch Ness Monster? A colour image would be more desirable to researchers such as myself as it adds information on the skin colour and shades. But is it any use to sceptical viewers? I suggest that if a black and white picture of a claimed monster does not convince a sceptic, then neither would the colour equivalent.

Finally, were the old analog 35mm cameras, 16mm cameras or Hi8 camcorders inferior to the digital equivalents of today? In terms of the silver based films, you will this old medium was as good as if not better than what has been on offer digitally over the last decade or so.

The debate over the megapixel equivalent of 35mm film continues but though its theoretical limit has been suggested as 50 megapixels, a working number somewhere near 20 megapixels has been touted with cameras such as the 21MP CanonSLR EOS 5D Mark II being suggested as being as good as the old 35mm SLRs. You can buy the new Mark III for a mere £2,000+ on Amazon.

Likewise, the 16mm films were as good as many of the the Hi-def camcorders out there based on the same arguments. There is no argument when comparing old films to lower spec mobile phones and digital cameras in video mode. So, the argument really boils down to how many cameras and cine cameras people were taking to Loch Ness up to the 2000s compared with the new digital years. I am not sure anyone can speak authoritatively on that question.

In regards to capturing video footage, InfoTrends conducted a survey in 2012 asking European comsumer what their preferred means of video capture was. The chart below is most informative.

Nearly a quarter said they don't do any video recording, less that a fifth used the superior camcorder and the remaining 55% were split between the inferior video modes on cameras and mobile phones. It seems the prospects for getting that 1080p camcorder footage of Nessie has diminished somewhat.

THAT GRETA FINLAY MOMENT

On the subject of close up pictures, I had that "Greta Finlay" moment when taking a lunchtime walk on the Fife coast some months back. I glanced into a farmer's field and noted a deer was walking neck high amongst the crops. This was an opportune time to do a test I thought to myself. I whipped out the iPhone and snapped the picture you see below.

After the animal had taken off, I measured out just over thirty paces to the spot it had occupied when photographed. That worked out at about 25 yards compared to Greta Finlay's 20 yards. So you may have wondered how good a picture she would have got if she had a mobile phone camera on her person? Wonder no more, the answer is not that good an image.

However, the zoomed image below is certainly sufficient to identify it as a deer. If it had been something more mysterious, I am not sure we would have got very far in making further identification. So, the argument that good, close up pictures should be more prevalent with all those mobile phones around looks even more rough round the edges.

I didn't think to record a video with the iPhone at the time, but I returned recently to record the same area to compare the quality. Click on the image below to see that. Again, I am not sure what is to be gained by switching to this lower resolution image unless a stable platform can be achieved with a good optical zoom.

CONCLUSIONS

Sceptics supply arguments aimed at destabilising believers, but it is not always the case that they proof read their own theories before they are hurled in this direction. This happens to be one of those cases where a generalisation is framed upon a specific situation (i.e. Loch Ness).

Photographing the Loch Ness Monster is an extremely hard task. The lack of good images speaks of a creature that has no need to break the surface unless it really has to. The wide expanse of the loch plus the starting distance between the witness on the road and the shoreline adds to the difficulty. What is needed is a creature surfacing less than 100 yards from the witness with his good quality camera.  

As it turns out, that combination of events is the exception rather than the rule.

Review of "River Monsters" Loch Ness Special

Though I suspect most readers have seen Jeremy Wade's "Legend of Loch Ness", the two episode special may be viewed by British viewers for a limited time at ITV's online catch up website. The obvious spoilers will now ensue.

The first episode focused on Loch Ness as Wade attempted to form a picture of what he was looking for by pouring over old reports, speaking to contemporary witnesses (Val Moffat's account from 1990, reproduced below by the show) and local expert, Adrian Shine.  However, the analysis began to take a turn in a certain direction as Jeremy discarded all long necked sightings as irrelevant to the investigation.

Now I have spoken in the past about cherry picking the data to suit one's theory. Admittedly, the sightings database is not a perfect representation of the mystery. It includes unrevealed hoaxes and misidentifications; but it also contains real experiences by people of an object unclassified and unknown. Add to that mix, inaccurate descriptions of the creature (as opposed to misidentified birds, waves, etc) and you see the magnitude of the work.

To this we can add the second unmentioned but discarded class of land sightings. With apologies to Oscar Wilde, to lose one class of sightings may be regarded as a misfortune; but to lose two looks like carelessness. But we defer to Jeremy as he develops his argument.

Having decided the Loch Ness Monster has no long neck, it opened possibilities to our renowned fish catcher. But first, he indulged in a spot of fishing at Loch Ness. Casting his line more in hope than realism, he pulled up a few eels. That surprised me somewhat as I was more expecting char, trout or something else. But a sturdier form of rod would appear later as Jeremy moved on.

Seeking a more ancient route, Jeremy looked at the well known but unknown Pictish Elephant of Highland symbol stones (below). What this might represent has always been a matter of debate, but in this program it is linked to the St. Columba story and then to Norse Mythology. Quite how I am not sure, but it provided the stepping stone to the next episode.

In episode two, it was off to Iceland as Mr. Wade linked the Loch Ness Monster to Norse monsterology. He surmised something that lurks in the cold depths of the North Atlantic could be a creature known to the Vikings and somehow made its way to Loch Ness.

That creature is the Greenland Shark, a twenty foot plus, two thousand pound plus brute that wouldn't think twice about snacking on a polar bear. It is a life largely mysterious to science but it is believed to grow at a slow rate due to the cold and who knows how long it lives for. Armed with sonar and a sturdy 2000 foot line, he attempted to catch one over an indeterminate number of days.

The small dorsal fin is seen as an advantage in Loch Ness Monster morphology as it allows a more hump like appearance on the loch surface. However, the picture above suggests a rather flat back on this shark which does not look capable of presenting the classic "upturned boat" presentation.

One interesting aspect of this creature as they fished for it was its invisibility to their sonar systems. The Greenland Shark possesses no swim bladder to register on sonar and it was plumbing depths of up to 2000 feet below. That made me contrast and compare it to our sonar shy quarry in Loch Ness. Does Nessie have lungs or a swim bladder? Perhaps not, though those flexible humps may contain gas of some description at various times.

Eventually, a smaller 400 pound Greenland Shark was pulled up but was too big to land on the boat. After looking it over, they let it go back. Again, because of its lack of a swim bladder, it was a creature that could be pulled up from the depths without suffering the equivalent of the bends and a ruptured swim bladder.

With that the search concluded. A Nessie sized animal from the seas surrounding Scotland had been suggested and in some ways it was not too dissimilar to the Atlantic Sturgeon theory favoured by more sceptical researchers. Apart from issues around long necks, how would such a creature get into Loch Ness?

This was not discussed, but I would presume they may favour a smaller, juvenile creature swimming in the River Ness. Only seals (and perhaps porpoises) have been proven for sure to make it into the loch from the sea, but no evidence for sturgeons or sharks is forthcoming.

Do I think the Greenland Shark is a credible theory? No, I don't, but in terms of size, weight and cold adaptability, it is perhaps the one animal in the region that comes closest to the large creature that occupies the attention of this blog.

A New Sighting from 2012

The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports today on Gary Campbell's recent comments about the lack of Nessie sightings since 2012. In response to this, a retired Royal Mail worker by the name of Ken  Ross, contacted him to recount his sighting and his four photographs from October 25th 2012. His story begins as he was driving from his home in Inverness to Fort William and as they passed the village of Inverfarigaig.

"My wife said she could see something strange in the loch so I stopped in a lay-by and took four photographs. It looked like a boat wake, but it wasn’t wide enough to have come from a boat, was about 200ft long and travelling at a fair speed for a while then stopped – there wasn’t a boat to be seen for miles. I don’t know what caused it and didn’t give it a great deal of thought until I saw Gary’s appeal to get in touch.”

I can't really add much more at this point. The location itself is a highway for cruise boats, but the witness says he saw none and was convinced it behaved in a way different to a wake. Indeed, boat wakes don't just stop, they just dissipate slowly. I have seen a couple of videos like this recently which show some unusual surface activity without anything solid revealing itself. 

I refer readers first to a video below from April 2010 which I highlighted some months back by way of comparison. Also, there follows a strange water disturbance filmed from the tower of Urquhart Castle filmed on the 24th August 2010 near the location of the first video. What these could be is a matter of conjecture and may all well be classed as having the same cause (hat tip to jimmy_sher for second video).

And for those in the comments section, this photo was requested.