Gould's Annotations

I have said it here before and I'll say it here again. Underneath the topsoil of the various books and articles that have been written on the Loch Ness Monster lies a deeper strata of newspaper clippings, scrawled notes, audio recordings, photographs and correspondence.

To the modern researcher, this rich vein of information lies largely untapped as older researchers went to their graves and their collections followed in a manner reminiscent of the treasures of the Pharaohs of old. Unlike the Pharaohs of old, many of these cryptozoological treasures looked doomed to remain buried and never make the display cabinet.

The research of Lt. Cmdr. Rupert T. Gould is a case in point. I was researching some aspects of his work recently and established contact with Jonathan Betts, author of "Time Restored", the definitive biography of Gould's life and work.

Jonathan had added a chapter on Gould's cryptozoological activities and so I asked him about the status of Gould's personal archives. Jonathan told me that when Gould died in 1948, his son, Cecil, chucked all his research notes away. Cabinets full of files on Horology, Sea Serpents and the Loch Ness Monster were simply consigned to the dump never to be retrieved again.

I'll say that again, his son dumped the lot. Decades of careful and dedicated research destroyed in the merest fraction of that time. As they say, it is easier to destroy than create. Apparently, Cecil never really liked his father, this seemed to have been part of the motive behind this large act of vandalism. I would assume from this that Cecil was also a Nessie sceptic.

You might think that if Glasgow Boy was there when this crime was happening, he would have given Cecil Gould a Glasgow Kiss. Be rest assured, I would be more likely negotiating a way to take possession of these valuable archives. But, yes, it would be the Glasgow Kiss if he refused.

Only kidding.

Doubtless, there were far worse things going on in the world when Cecil Gould committed this deed, so I won't attempt to elevate the blackness of the deed above the events of that day. However, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth and is the worst I have heard of in cryptozoological stories.

However, Jonathan offered a small crumb of comfort by sending me the scans of Gould's personal annotations to his "The Loch Ness Monster and Others" (1934) and "The Case for the Sea Serpent" (1930). These copies of Gould's work are held in the library of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich, London. Most are of a typographical nature, but some add extra information. For example, Gould comments on his map of Loch Ness on page 4 of "The Loch Ness Monster".

He says:

"This is a very poor sketch map : one of the worst, I think, that I've ever drawn. Something on the lines of the end-paper map would have been far better. RTG 18-XI-41"

Gould added that comment on the 18th November 1941, and most were around that time. More telling (for sceptics) is his volte face on the Spicers' famous land sighting.

"Were I re-writing the book, I should have omitted this case. I think the Spicers saw a huddle of deer crossing the road. RTG"

I covered this recantation in a previous article. This is an example that older Loch Ness researchers were not always a bunch of "Yes" people when it came to reports. However, you can be certain that sceptics are "No" people all ends up.

Further on, Gould makes a comment regarding manta ray fish and monster reports. A Mr. Fleming had written to the Daily Record suggesting Loch Ness now had one of these huge fish in it. Gould adds this comment.

"Agreeing with Palmer's statement (no.12) very well. I haven't noticed this till now. RTG 1-XI-45"

Gould is referring to the curious case of Mr. A. H. Palmer who saw what appeared to be a mouth opening and closing on the surface of the loch. Gould reproduced the sketch below for his book.

I suppose I can see some resemblance to the manta ray, but I will let others make a defence of this as a serious Loch Ness Monster contender!

Another interesting addition was a press clipping from The Listener from the 16th June 1938, which reviewed a radio talk given by Rupert Gould eight days previously. I reproduce it here for your interest and note that Gould is still sticking to the monster being a sea serpent (though whether mammal, reptile or fish he cannot tell). Click on the image to enlarge and read.

Finally, Gould includes some sea serpents annotations, for which I include only one which involves a Mr. Kemp, who claimed to have seen the creature below.

Gould adds the following comment: "He saw it again in 1936 or 1937. See "Cadborosaurus" file. RTG 7.III.38".

Now, wouldn't it be great to get a hold of Gould's "Cadborosaurus" file and flick through it? I know some people that would love to do that. However, as we read at the top, a sceptic got his hands on the files and destroyed them. I will restrain my words again at this point and count to ten.

Today, evidence continues to be destroyed as eyewitnesses report something to sceptics, but they are not believed and ignored. Is this as bad as filing cabinets ending up in a landfill? You decide.

Review Of "The Missing Evidence: The Loch Ness Monster"

British broadcaster Channel 5 televised the next in their series "Missing Evidence" on Monday, and Nessie was the subject of choice for their investigation. I have seen many a documentary over the years and the trend has, not surprisingly, been towards the sceptical. This programme very much continued that trend.

The program followed several threads of enquiry which were designed to lead the viewer to the conclusion that there's no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster.

THE HUNTER

Well, not quite. Arrayed against a line up of sceptically minded guests was Gordon Holmes, the one person who held out that a large creature of some description inhabited Loch Ness. Gordon's 2007 video naturally featured, but he was also filmed pursuing his latest hunting ideas. That meant a foray along the shores of the loch at night time. I like that idea, I have promoted it on this blog many a time.

Gordon trained a high powered lamp onto the loch in the hope of catching a sight of the creature. Quite how he planned to deploy the device and capture evidence was not made clear, but more power to his elbow, I say. His well known video was discussed, with the theory that it (and a nearby, similar disturbance) was the now ubiquitous seal. Gordon himself is not of this opinion. He thinks he filmed two members of a species of giant eel.

However, the main narration thread involved well known sceptic, Adrian Shine, as we were taken through a brief history of the phenomenon and Adrian's theories on it. Cue a whistle stop tour starting at St. Columba and spending an inordinate amount of time at the "Plesiosaur" and "Surgeon's Photo" stations.

Perhaps it is just my well worn familiarity with the subject, but it was a bit tedious watching the plesiosaur being trotted out again and being shot down to the exclusion of all other potential candidates. Again, no mention of the other alternatives, giving the unseasoned viewer the impression that if you disprove plesiosaurs, you disproved everything animal.

I hesitate to mention the Atlantic Sturgeon which inevitably gets mentioned when Adrian is around. But, you bet, it got the mandatory mention, but there is no evidence that such a creature has ever been in Loch Ness, and even if it had, Adrian himself admits it only forms a tiny part of the sightings database.

So, of all the various pieces of film and photo evidence that have passed our eyes, which ones were analysed? Only those which suited the sceptical theme and that meant the Surgeon's Photo and the 1972 Flipper Photo. I don't doubt this story is of interest to those unfamiliar with the subject, so I guess they are always going to turn up. My only wish is that the main man who actually exposed the photograph, Alastair Boyd, got the credit or, better still, did the talking himself.

One thing I did find interesting about the flipper analysis (by Mike Hartshorne), was his attempts to enhance the original photo using modern image processing software. Even this could not match the retouched flipper photo, which is not surprising.

ANALYSIS OF SIGHTINGS

Speaking of databases, Charles Paxton's ongoing work on a comprehensive sightings analysis was featured, and this was new to Nessie documentaries. The program promised some breakthrough evidence, which I shall come to later. I had attended Charles' recent talk on the same database work, so some of what was said was interesting, but Charles had already told me he planned to publish his findings in an appropriate science journal.

In other words, this documentary was probably not the prime place for full disclosure. Either way, Charles said his work neither proves or disproves the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. However, the multi-hump genre was mentioned as one statistical cluster than predominates in calm weather.

One may assume that was the case because multiple humps are harder to spot in rough, choppy waters, but this was taken to be a sign that all such cases were boat wakes. A seeming contradiction then ensued. The documentary switched to the FloWave machine run by Edinburgh University which can reproduce various wave effects. This mechanical tank allowed waves of various forms to be driven against each other to produce standing waves.

We were told that the topology of Loch Ness allowed for boat wakes to reflect off the loch sides to produce these effects. But I don't think that is the case, more likely the waves just dissipate as they reach the shores. Any standing wave effects are more likely to come from interacting boat wakes.

Those seals got a mention again when Charles told us the average reported length of a sighted object was 16 feet. This seemed good enough for Adrian to raise the matter of seals as a source of single hump reports and even the odd land sighting. He mentioned the creature moving in front of pony carts, which I take to be a reference to the 1919 Jock Forbes story. He had estimated the creature slithering past them to be at least 12 feet long. But seals are only a few feet long, so we are assured he was way out in his estimate - despite having the width of the road as a ruler!

A MENAGERIE OF EXPLANATIONS 

Adrian then declared there was one or more seals in Loch Ness during the manic year of 1934 to keep the story going. Again, there is no evidence that seals were in Loch Ness during that period. These inquisitive, frequent surfacers would have most surely been seen and photographed while Loch Ness was under intense scrutiny. Adrian states there were reports of seals but does not mention who and where.

But I suspect one of them was the claimed sighting by notorious hoaxer, Marmaduke Wetherell, creator of the dubious hippo tracks and the Surgeon's photograph. I would not trust his account any further than I could throw him and the seal theory was a tactic of  his employer, the Daily Mail, to gracefully opt out of the hunt after the debacle of the hippopotamus tracks.

I'll tell you what though, Loch Ness seemed to be host to all manner of creatures between 1933 and 1934. We have Adrian's sturgeon and seals on patrol but we also had Albert Jack's swimming elephants.

Why this theory was included in the program was beyond me, it is so daft that even the narrator felt compelled to argue against it. The theory was that Bertram Mills would take his circus elephants for dips in Loch Ness and fool a lot of people into thinking the back and trunk were the classic head-neck.

It's a pity they didn't try and argue against the other sceptical theories to add some balance to the program. In fact, it would have been better to edit out Albert Jack's ramblings and get Gordon Holmes (or someone else) to have a go!

MASS HYSTERIA

That brings us to a fellow called Chris French. He is Professor of Psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London and he is a vocal, ardent and prestigious sceptic. I have seen him before on other programs debunking other mysteries, so I presume the Loch Ness Monster is not his specialist subject. His assignment was to go beyond the seals, waves and elephants to add the "icing" of misperception.

First of all, he went through the expectations of our brains, false memories, the suggestibility of memory and the influence of cultural imagery. The implication of this was that the brain is not a perfect recording device and will fill in any gaps with preconceived notions about the Loch Ness Monster.

In an attempt to demonstrate how memories can be manipulated, French set up an experiment where pairs of volunteers watched a staged robbery, discussed the contents of the video and were then tested on their recall.

As it turned out, one of the pair was a "stooge" who would suggest false information to the other person. As a result, the majority of volunteers got some things wrong. They thought a gun was there when it was not, likewise somebody stacking shelves and a certain type of jacket were not there.

What was then attempted looked like a sceptic's version of "bait and switch". The robbery video was replaced by an object on Loch Ness. The stooge feeding false information was replaced by the plesiosaur imagery witnesses allegedly carry in their minds. We were then invited to accept that this is how birds, logs and waves become dinosaurs.

But in a narrative twist, Charles Paxton revealed that comparisons of retold eyewitness testimonies, often decades apart, were unexpectedly consistent and did not grow with the telling. Charles regarded this as a "mystery" and we did not get the pleasure of seeing Mr. French trying to explain this away.

My own view of this is simple. Dramatic events, such as seeing a real, large creature will burn into the memory more readily and have a greater permanence. You will know this yourselves, memorable events, be they good or bad, are retained better in our memories. Why Mr. French did not address this as a real aspect of eyewitness perception is also a "mystery" to me.

As for the attempt to reframe the experiment in a Loch Ness setting, I am far from convinced. A dark object against the back drop of uncomplicated, homogeneous water is not going to tax the memory as much as a complex robbery scene in a shop. A supposed idea of a dinosaur is a far cry from someone beside you feeding misinformation. Moreover, this theory does not explain close up sightings where opportunities for memory gaps are at a minimum. And, lastly, the theory is unfalsifiable, which is not where objective, critical thinking should end up.

FILMS

But Chris French left his most dubious theory to the end and this was our supposed revelation from Charles Paxton's database. Using an annual chart of sightings since 1933, he claimed that the number of sightings rose and fell with various monster films. The obvious one is King Kong from 1933, but I have covered that canard in a previous article.

The other mentioned film was one I had never heard of called "The Giant Behemoth" which was released in 1959. Now sightings subsequently increased into the 1960s, but we don't need a little watched B-movie to explain that coincidence. The Dinsdale film of 1960 and the arrival of the LNIB in 1962 to improve the collecting of sightings is all you need to know.

It was also mentioned that the much watched "X-Files" was responsible for an uptick in Nessie sightings. However, this run of 202 episodes ran from 1993 to 2002, which is a pretty broad spread for making any comparisons. Moreover, not many of these episodes dealt with lake cryptids. Ultimately, I would like to see his graph of supposed correlations and particularly how well it stacks against monster films which see no increase in sightings.

So, after an hour of trying to convince me that Nessie did not exist, I still believe Nessie exists. Then again, I am a diehard who will fight his corner. The man on the Clapham Omnibus may come to a different conclusion, especially if the argument was as imbalanced as it was on Channel 5.

As the program drew to a close, Adrian Shine reminded us of those three sonar contacts obtained during Operation Deepscan. He said he still did not know what they were, but that this did not mean they were monsters. This was probably the nearest admission from "Missing Evidence" that there is yet a mystery to be solved in Loch Ness.

New Dinsdale Newsletter for Archive

Paul Cropper, a Fortean researcher from Australia, regularly sends me pieces of Loch Ness information he comes across during his investigations. So, I was happy to receive another Tim Dinsdale newsletter from him which I have now added to the archive.

It is titled "Commentary No.5" and appears to date from about 1980. You can access it at this link while the general link for the Tim Dinsdale newsletters is here and for the Rip Hepple newsletters is here.

One snippet that caught that my attention concerns an alleged land sighting.

 

Now, this is a third hand account from an ex-resident of Fort Augustus Abbey. Tim attempted to contact the witness' daughter, Sandra Smith, in Vienna, but with no success. It's some story, but there is little that one can do with it except state that no one else to my knowledge has ever reported a Loch Ness Monster in such an aggressive mood. Apart, of course, from Adamnan and his account of St. Columba's life!

Tim goes through some first hand accounts of monster sightings as well as everyday life at the loch - down to how he gets on with some bumblebees!

He ends his letter seemingly taking the decisive step of selling his "Water Horse" boat and determining to go back to land based watches. He expresses frustration with not getting the evidence he wished from years on the water. He had a couple of long neck sightings, but that was not good enough. He wanted the close up film which would finally vindicate him and the other monster hunters he knew.

Off the top of my head, it is not clear how he spent the final years of his life at Loch Ness. Did he stay on land or go back to his boat? Perhaps if somebody has some later newsletters, we can all find out.

Comments Policy For This Blog

Given the recent variety of, shall we say, diverse comments I regularly receive for moderation, I thought it best to tighten up my rather loose comment policy. I first looked around at what others blogging websites do. Some are pretty tight, some unmoderated and some don't do comments (they let social media websites host the comments).

My thinking now runs along the lines of keeping comments on the topic of the post. If a comment diverges too far from the original subject of the post, then it will not be posted

For example, if a post appears on a folkloric aspect of the monster and a comment arrives about a Loch Ness Monster photograph, it is not likely to get approved - unless the comment argues a link between the two to the moderator's satisfaction.

Comments on subjects which have been discussed amply in previous articles and comments are likely to be rejected unless they can prove a new angle.

Comments which are general thanks and praise will be approved. We like those!

Comments which disagree with an article without giving a specific reason will be rejected. Note that generic reasons such as "I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster" are not good enough.

Comments which are part acceptable but violate in others areas may be rejected.

Comments which make no sense, semantically or grammatically will be rejected.

Comments which the moderator deems weak, divisive, pedantic, libellous or trolling will be rejected.

Comments judged too large will be rejected.

Comments may not be approved immediately - I reserve the right of first refusal on replying to some comments which may involve a delay.

Comments may not be approved immediately - I may be on holiday, ill or involved in more important tasks.

Comments about conspiracy theories will be rejected.

Users who begin to hog and clutter the comments section of an article will be rejected - unless the subject is deemed important by the moderator.

If a comment wishes to alert the moderator to a news item or piece of information which he is not aware of, these may not be published but may be acknowledged. It is better to contact the moderator at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com.

Likewise, if you have a genuine question, email is preferred to a comment.

If you think your comment was rejected for the wrong reasons, you can email but ultimately it's not your blog and the Internet has plenty of other spaces for you to publish your thoughts!

This blog article will be included in the "ABOUT THIS BLOG" link on the right.

Have a nice day.

A Story From Loch Morar

One great advantage of running this monster blog, is that people come forward with their stories of the weird and mysterious. But this time, it is Mhorag, the resident of Loch Morar that hogs the limelight today. 

Tricia sent me details of her experience on Loch Morar about 45 years ago whilst out on the loch with her family. She had seen our article on the Simpson account and was prompted to contact me some days ago. 

Tricia reckons her encounter happened in the last week of August 1969 between 1730 and 1830. It is a slightly disconcerting tale and I would not have liked to have been in their position. But what makes it particularly interesting is its relationship to another more famous encounter with Mhorag.

I will now let Tricia take up her tale. 

My family spent a lot of our school summer holidays at Morar Silver Sands, we would travel from West Calder in West Lothian to Morar, I remember in those days this seemed to take forever. We travelled in a Volkswagon caravanette and a Ford Zephyr. Back in those days we rented a cottage on the beach from the the MacKechnie family. I have great memories of these holidays and am the oldest of six children. 

My Dad was a great fisherman and golfer, he was self employed which enabled us to spend six weeks in Morar. Dad would go off golfing in Arisaig with my brothers in the morning and most afternoons we would go off fishing. Indeed, on one memorable occasion at the river which flowed into the Loch he spent one hour landing a very large salmon whilst being cheered on by a crowd of around fifteen folks. We ate well that night! 

Old Sandy MacKechnie hired himself out with his boat on Loch Morar to tourist fishermen. My Dad also hired his boat (without Sandy) to fish on the Loch. It was on one of these days we spotted Morag, I can tell you we had no knowledge of Morag before this particular day. In those days there was no world wide web and as we were young if my Mum and Dad had any knowledge of the monster they would never share such scary information with us and knowing my Mum she would not have allowed my Dad to take us out on the Loch!

Anyway, on this particular day myself (age 14), my sister (age 13), my brothers (ages 11 and 9) and my Dad set off to fish, whilst my Mum with my younger siblings and David and Colin from Nazareth house set off for Mallaig for the day.

We travelled for what seemed like hours to us on this small boat with an outboard motor and two oars on the Loch. My memories of this journey are very clear, I was intrigued with the scenery and how we were in such a remote, mystical area. I wondered how people got to the few houses I saw at both sides of the Loch. I do remember one very large house sitting in the trees to my right on our way down the Loch and wondering what type of folks lived there.

After what seemed like a long time we decided to stop at a shingle cove on the left as we travelled down the Loch. We had lunch and Dad and my brothers fished from the side of the Loch, I can tell you that my Dad on these fishing expeditions lost all sense of time and indeed would walk away from us and forget we even existed.

On this particular occasion, my mischievous brother untied the empty boat and I quickly retrieved it (tearing my toe nail off on a rock for my good deed). One of the oars fell from the boat and floated off before I could retrieve it. Eventually my Dad returned, I reckon this was around 5 pm. I remember while we were on the shingle beach, a fishing boat went past us and we waved to the folks on board, after a while the same boat passed us on their way back and we waved again. We packed up and started off back up the Loch to return home, my Dad was a very calm and placid man but on this occasion he was upset with my brother regarding the one lost oar.

Ten minutes or so into the journey, at which point we were in the middle of the Loch, and to my recollection both shores were equidistant, the outboard motor packed in. We as kids were not particularly concerned with this because we were used to this type of event.  My Dad regularly took us on fishing expeditions to many other lochs, sea and rivers where outboard motors would pack in and be fixed by him.

As we sat patiently while he worked on this motor I looked to my right and spotted two or three protrusions from the water, about two feet high. I thought these were rocks at first, but I remember having a feeling of unexplained fear. I turned to my sister who was sitting next to me and said "Look over there, what is that?" at which point my Dad said "Shut up, Patricia!" with gritted teeth.

This was upsetting to me as my Dad was very rarely angry at us kids and we were taught all our lives never to say "Shut up!" to anybody. This was a golden rule in our house. My Dad had, of course, spotted the same protrusions and kept this to himself,  I and my sister stared at this sight in the water in confused wonderment.

My brothers at this point were oblivious down to their age and preoccupation with trying to untangle the fishing tackle which my dad had tasked them with. I said again "Dad, what is that in the water?" to which he replied again "Shut up!" in an angry voice. This prompted my brothers to look over and join in the debate.

The feeling of fear was now with us all. Some time later, my Dad explained to us his mind was not only on trying to fix the motor but also trying to figure out how he could get us to shore safely away from this unexplained "thing" in the water. I am smiling as I write this but also empathising with his thoughts. He must have been frantic, he did however on the outside remain calm for our sake! 

The upshot is, he finally got the motor going. As we started to travel, the mysterious protrusions (which had stayed with us for the duration of time it had taken Dad to fix the motor in the same position),  disappeared below the water leaving a slight swell, which we felt in the boat.

We trundled along again for which felt like hours till we reached the jetty where we had started out from.  On landing, there was a flurry of activity and our Mum was crying and very agitated. She, of course, was witness to two fishermen relaying to a crowd of folks, including reporters, their experience on the Loch that same day, some hours before.

From my recollection, they also had an up close and personal experience with (I presume) the same "thing" we had witnessed. They however, said this "thing" had hit their boat and they hit back with an oar and a gun shot.

 As we landed, there was a boat with folks on board ready to launch to come and look for us. My Dad apologised profusely to these folks. He told us kids not to say word about our sighting as he explained later he did not want it to be seen we were jumping on the two fishermen's bandwagon, but also he did not want people thinking we were nuts.

We are an ordinary family with nothing to gain from me telling our story. Between us we are business folks, professional managers and a social worker. My mum is retired from the police force and my Dad was a hardworking, self employed electrician.

As I mentioned in your blog, watching a television programme the other night (Nessie revisited) prompted me to google for the Loch Morar Monster and your blog caught my attention. Having read the content of the blog I felt I had to join in and relay to the contributors our Morag experience. As I said previously, nothing will convince myself and my siblings that Morag DOES NOT exist.

I hope I have explained the event and also hope I have given you a good insight to our "fishing day out".

So ends our story.  Seasoned Monster Watchers will recognise that the two fishermen who said they bumped into Mhorag were Duncan McDonnel and William Simpson. According to Wikipedia's entry on the Loch Morar Monster:

The best known encounter, in 1969, involved two men, Duncan McDonnel and William Simpson, and their speedboat, with which they claimed to have accidentally struck the creature, prompting it to hit back. McDonnel retaliated with an oar, and Simpson opened fire with his rifle, whereupon it sank slowly out of sight. They described it as being brown, 25–30 feet long, and with rough skin. It had three humps rising 18 inches (460 mm) above the loch's surface, and a head a foot wide, held 18 inches (460 mm) out of the water.

As far as I can ascertain, this famous story happened at 9pm on the 16th August 1969. Sceptics have dismissed it as a cover story to hide some embarrassing or illegal activity, but does this new story add credence to its original claims? Tricia's encounter seems to have occurred about 21 hours later. She adds that the object was about 20 to 30 yards away from the boat.

All in all, an intriguing tale which doubtless is backed up by others in the boat that day. I cannot prove that Tricia did or did not see a monster that day. She is convinced, and I leave it to the judgement of our seasoned readers to form their own opinions.

New Loch Ness Monster TV Documentary

Tune your televisions to Channel 5 on November 24th at 8pm in the UK. As part of a currently running series entitled "Missing Evidence", the Monster of Loch Ness will feature in one episode. To quote one website:

This week the show looks at one of Scotland's most enduring mysteries - that of the Loch Ness monster. Tales of the monster that has haunted the river go back nearly 1,500 years, but in the last century the story has really taken off. Over 1,000 eye witnesses since the 1930's believe they have photographed a monster in the water. The evidence has never been that definitive though, so Dr Charles Paxton of St Andrews University has decided to compile each piece of evidence on the supposed beast to finally explain the truth behind the myth of the monster. The show looks at well-known photos and video evidence in a more scientific light, as well as meeting fabled Nessie hunter Adrian Shine. Albert Jack, a historian also features as he believes the first sightings were in fact a bunch of elephants. Another expert, Chris French believes that the real source of the animal comes from a mixture between media reports of hoaxes, natural phenomena, everyday animals and out own monstrous imaginations.

 

It seems we will learn new things, like Loch Ness is a "river" and not, as I was led to understand, a lake.

I also take note of the phrase "fabled Nessie hunter Adrian Shine" as if Adrian's existence was as in much dispute as Nessie herself. I am sure the program will present ample video evidence for Adrian's existence, to which I can add my own sightings of him on several occasions. But of what use is eyewitness testimony? I may have mistaken a deer for him. Therefore, each video clip of him needs to be assessed on its own merits as the use of Photoshop can never be discounted. This particular debate could rage on for decades ...

Anyway, Charles Paxton is featured and I, again, point readers to his talk on the Statistics of Loch Ness Monster Sightings at the Edinburgh Fortean Society tomorrow (11th). Gordon Holmes should also feature, which is just as well, because everyone else mentioned does not seem to believe in the Loch Ness Monster. That would make for a pretty boring program. But who this Chris French is, I cannot say. Another fabled Nessie hunter?

I look forward to seeing this documentary when it transmits and will review it shortly after.

New Nessie Video

Monster fever mounts that little bit more as a new video purporting to be of Nessie appears in the Scottish Daily Record. It was taken by Richard Collis on Thursday, 6th November as he was motoring about a mile north of Fort Augustus. He caught sight of an unusual object 150-200 metres out in the loch and got out to take the mobile phone footage which you can see on the Record website. I post an image from that clip above.

I have not had much time to look at it at all, but it has the classic head-neck pose beloved of monster researchers. The object appears to rise and fall in the water. How much of that is due to increased wave action or the object itself, I am not sure, but it looks to me like part of it is due to the object moving and not the water. Whether the object itself is moving across the loch is hard to tell, but there is a branch in the foreground which can help further analysis. Certainly, at that distance out, the depth is easily 200 feet, so we would expect the object to be at the mercy of the rough waves - unless it had it own form of propulsion.

But what is it? Branch, bird, debris or monster. You decide!

POSTSCRIPT: I got an email from Jonathan Bright who was on site that week who took the image below while he was there.

He adds the following:

I have seen this during my investigation of the Loch the previous week -on 6th afteroon to be exact, as I was coming back from a cruise from Fort Augustus- and as I have also said to the editor of the article, I can assure you that it's not the Loch Ness 'monster'. It looks like a tree log or branch, most possibly put there deliberately (it's just across the road from a lodge), either as a reference to the Surgeon photo, or, just a prank. (it would be interesting if it was not 'man caused' though)

We stopped and filmed this for sometime as an example of potential misidentifications...

It seems really strange that the photographer did not realize this, since the object was clearly fixed at this position and was not getting carried away by the waves and current but only moving up and down...

Steve Feltham also sent me this photo of the stick from the other side. It was taken by Marcus Atkinson from one of his cruise boats which comes out of Fort Augustus. You can see it to the right.

I would also note, against the backdrop of recent discussions about mobile phone evidence, how poor the quality of the image is. In fact, too poor to make informed judgements. The photographs are better but a video with the crispness of such pictures is always better.

From the Daily Record:

TREE planter Richard Collis captured this amazing video on his iPhone after he spotted something unusual while driving alongside the loch last week.

AN Astonishing new video claiming to show the Loch Ness Monster has surfaced.

Tree planter Richard Collis captured this amazing video on his iPhone after he spotted something unusual while driving alongside the loch last week.

He said: " I was travelling along the side of Loch Ness, saw something out the corner of my eye, pulled over and went down to the Loch and took some photographs.            

“As I was watching, I was thinking what the hell is that!    

         

“The loch was quite rough and I wanted to get as best a picture that I could possibly get because I knew it wasn’t going to last forever.

“It was about roughly 150-200 metres out in the water on a stretch about a mile from Fort Augustus heading towards Invermoriston.          

  

“It’s quite difficult to know how long it lasted but it felt like a couple of minutes.”

The footage Richard shot was filmed last Thursday and appears to show a creature swimming through the choppy water.

The photographs taken last week look eerily similar to the famous Surgeons photograph of Nessie which was later exposed as a hoax in 1993.

Richard, 58, was so shocked by what he saw he immediately called his wife Vibeke.

He said: "She thought I was having a joke and I said ‘No no, I’ve got mobile phone footage of it’ then when she saw it she said that’s strange.

“It’s similar to the Surgeons photo, that’s what I thought was weird. To me it looks like a long neck and a small head. Like a serpent - the old highland name of it was sea serpent or water horse.            

“What do I make of it? I just think it’s an anomaly that I can’t really explain. I’m a bit of a doubter of a lot of things until I see it myself and I wouldn’t have believed what I saw if someone else was telling me.            

“I’ve fished the loch man and boy and I haven’t ever seen anything like that. As I say I don’t really believe in anything like that until I see it but what I saw was obviously what the Loch Ness Monster is - I’m not saying it was a fire breathing dragon and I never saw teeth or anything like that, but I must have thought there was something there if I stopped to take pictures.

“It’s like seeing a UFO or something like that. I’ve seen what potentially could be the Loch Ness Monster. I’m excited about seeing it and I’d like to see it again.”       

     

Richard’s wife Vibeke, 60, added: “I’ve been here 37 years and my husband has been here his whole life, so we are completely aware of how unique this is.    

“I couldn’t believe it and laughed when he showed me because I knew he could never set that up. He’s not very technical or not very computer wise either.           

“I couldn’t believe it because when you live here everyone wants a shot, even if it’s a log, but the thing is it does not look like a log.            

“It’s definitely not a seal because it’s got a really long neck and it’s too round and smooth to be a log and why would it bob the way it does and then just go away.”      

      

She added: “I can’t believe that my husband managed to get this. It is amazing.”