Deer Swimming in River near Loch Ness

Filmed recently at Inverness. But if it had been at Loch Ness? Sorry, but those ears (or is it horns?) ain't fooling anyone. Shown at BBC website here.

A Tale of the Sjo-Troll

I had an unexpected surprise when I was recently perusing one of my copies of "More Than a Legend" by Constance Whyte. Once you get to the index, that is normally that, but one of the previous owners had written a curious account in the final blank pages. The front pages of the book had the name of a Mr. Mather of Wigan written on it. It may be that he was the author of the notes.

The story was lifted from the book "Hampton on Pike Fishing" published in 1947. However, when I consulted the book at the National Library of Scotland, it turned out that this story had been further lifted from the first volume of an earlier work entitled "Scandanavian Adventures" by Llewelyn Lloyd, published in 1854. The book is no longer in copyright and can be accessed here. The quote below is taken from that earlier book:

"My brother, Captain Axel Westfeldt, Lieutenant J. Lekander, and the fisherman Modin," writes a friend, on whose word I place every reliance, "were one day fishing with Lang-ref, that is a line of great length, with several hundred hooks attached - of which more presently - in a large lake in Fryksdal, in Wermeland. When they had proceeded a considerable distance from the land, Modin suddenly pulled the boat right round, and in evident alarm commenced rowing with all his might towards the shore. One of the party asked the man what he meant by this strange conduct? 'The Sjo-troll, or water-sprite, is here again,' replied he, at the same time pointing with his finger far to seaward.

Every one in the boat then saw in the distance something greatly resembling the horns of an elk, or a rein-deer, progressing rapidly on the surface of the water. 'Row towards it,' exclaimed Lekander; 'the deuce take me if I don't give the Sjo-troll a shot; I am not afraid of it.' It was with great difficulty, however, that Modin could be prevailed upon once more to alter the course of the boat, and to make for the apparition. But at length the man's fears were partially allayed, and the chase commenced in good earnest. When they had neared the object sufficiently, Lekander, who was standing, gun in hand, in the bow of the boat, fired, and fortunately with deadly effect. On taking possession of the prize, it was found to be a huge pike, to whose back the skeleton of an eagle was attached. This fish, or rather the bones of the bird, had been seen by numbers for several years together, and universally went under the above designation of Sjo-troll.

The later Hampton book suggests that algae would have covered the skeleton, adding to the dramatic effect. They base this on other stories of birds meeting untimely ends when taking on pike. So, not quite a monster and not quite your standard misidentification explanation either. I don't anticipate this one being trotted out to debunk Nessie sightings.

As an aside, Lloyd goes on to discuss the Silurus Glanis, the catfish that was recently the focus of Nessie debates. Regarding its introduction to British waters, he says:

Through the indefatigable exertions of Mr. George D. Berney, of Morton, Norfolk, the silurus was last year introduced into England, and consequently is now included in our Fauna.

So the Wels Catfish was introduced into English waters in 1853. Sadly, no reference to Loch Ness or Scotland is made in this regard.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

The Sceptics Call Time on Nessie (again)

 An article appeared recently on the sceptical blogosphere by Sharon Hill. You can read it here, but suffice to say the summary of it was that the Loch Ness Monster mystery has been solved and why keep looking for a mythical monster when science and logic has laid this to rest? This was followed by the retort that people couldn't give up on monsters because:

"Several of those who have pursued these topics are so invested – monetarily and emotionally – that they can’t be objective and see the reality"

Is that true or is this another of those overstated articles by sceptics that I have read too often over the years? Well, let me first of all state that going by the response of various sceptics since this blog started in 2010, I would not agree that emotion is the monopoly of the "believers". In fact, if insults and pejoratives are the outward expression of an inward emotion, the sceptics take the gold medal every time. 

To put it mildly, the kind of scepticism one comes across is far removed from the Mr. Spock genre where the eyebrow is raised and the word "Fascinating" is uttered before we are told "Captain, the odds of the Loch Ness Monster existing is 132691.2 to 1 against.".

Of course, emotion plays it part and that is to be expected when it comes to people - on both sides of the debate. As to the accusation of being over-invested, perhaps Sharon ought to name names so we can put her assertion to a proper test?

Is the mystery solved? Is Sharon familiar with the critiques of her own and others' critiques? After all, when sceptics dictate suggest that two people who saw a 15 foot, two humped, grey creature from only 20 yards away that was "hideous" and "not a pleasant experience", only saw a common deer, you will forgive me for not taking them seriously.

Or when another sceptic decrees speculates that an experienced angler who claimed to have seen a thirty foot animal at a similar distance, only saw a cormorant; again if this is how sceptics go about "solving" the Loch Ness mystery, may I suggest they are the ones who are over invested in their theories so much they can't be objective!

There are, of course, other such cases I could call upon which leave sceptics floundering like a landed sturgeon or catfish. They could just say everyone is lying, but where is the fun in that? As for the other reasons Sharon gives for why no one could ever have possibly seen a large, unknown creature in Loch Ness:

"Sparse food supplies"? Yes, that has been covered (one sceptic rubbished this, but strangely never came back when I asked him to explain why). 

"Does not breathe air"? Just exactly why does it have to be an air breather, Sharon?

"Doesn't die"? Can you quote me on who exactly says this?

"Doesn't have babies"? I think Sharon is now letting emotion rather than logic drive the keyboard! Again, who is saying this?

"Avoid detection during thorough scans of the water body"? Excuse me while I take this one with a pinch of salt. They only recently found the similar sized Sherlock Holmes prop monster after 45 years. So tell me how these "thorough scans" managed to miss this? Even when interesting sonar scans are produced, the experts have no idea what they are looking at and one leading sceptic even declared that sonar is useless in establishing the presence of large animals in Loch Ness due to its ambiguities.

Which brings us to the main point of the article. Basically, we are being told that Nessie should have been found by now. We are told that science has probed the world of the subatomic and found planets beyond the Solar System. Surely establishing the presence of such an animal in Loch Ness is not rocket science?

Sadly, this is another non-sequitur. The particle smashing Large Hadron Collider project only cost $6.4 billion while the planet finding Kepler telescope was a snip at $600 million. Yes, Sharon, science works when enough money is thrown at it. Remind me how much has been spent on investigating the Loch Ness Monster with state of the art technology?

To assert that a Nessie should have been found by now is, of course, a subjective statement. How was this deduction arrived at? Because someone has found a quark or an exoplanet, they should have found Nessie?

As Mr. Spock would say, "That is illogical, Captain".

 

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

New Picture of Nessie?

Gary Campbell, on his register of Loch Ness Monster sightings publishes a photograph taken on May 1st this year by a tourist. The account runs thusly:

1 May 2016 - a visitor from Texas took pictures of a dark creature just under the surface following the boat she was on. The sighting was at approximately 1330 hours and lasted 30 seconds. She said that she initially thought it was a shadow but then realised that there was nothing behind her that could cause such a reflection.

Now I must admit, I am struggling to see what is in the picture. I can see a shadowy form, but it is too inconclusive to form an opinion. Others may be able to see something I cannot.

By the way, congratulations to Gary Campbell on the 20th anniversary of his sightings register. That milestone is covered in a Daily Record article today. Gary had his own sighting of something like a "mini-whale" with a "black shiny back". Clearly he thought it was no seal (which always seem to turn up at Loch Ness when an explanation is required), and this prompted him to start his register.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Followup on Webcam Photos

Going back to our interesting "head and neck" webcam shots taken by Diana, another reader, Michael sent in a comparison shot of a bird perched on the top of the tree closest to the object. In the light of the suggestion that the picture is just a bird, I show that here with the original picture for comparison. The bird picture is first.

The object is clearly bigger than the bird from an image point of view. Also, the bird is more squat and less pole like than the object which interests us. Where that leads us is largely in the eye of the beholder, but it is extra grist for the mill.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Monster Hunting Season Approaches

The snow is gone (almost) and the sun is beginning to shine that bit longer. Loch Ness begins to beckon and so does its most famous inhabitant. So, to get into monster hunting mode, that means thinking ahead and preparing for some more trips up north; looking out the camping equipment, binoculars, cameras, night vision equipment and so on.

Also, to conform to the sceptics' monster hunter stereotype of somebody who is mentally challenged and socially dysfunctional; perhaps a bit of the wild eyed look, messed up hair and drooling would also be required. Then again, maybe not. As a quiz, can anyone remember where the quote "It's My Monster!" comes from?

I am currently on the lookout for new equipment, but one item remains a staple of the modern monster hunter's diet and that is the game camera. As you can see from the picture above, I have purchased two more and intend to grow that as I plant them along the loch shore. These particular ones are cheaper cameras, mainly because I expect to get through a lot of them! However, I won't be sticking to one make and model because if a fault presents itself in one unit, it will probably present itself in all of them and eventually render the entire batch a rather short term investment.

If you know these devices, you basically strap them around a tree facing the loch, switch them on and walk away. The proximity and infra-red sensors will do the work for you as they wait for something to move within their field of sensitivity. When that happens, they can be configured to take a quick succession of still pictures or video clips of varying duration, frame rate or resolution which are then stored on an SD memory card.

The other consideration is battery life. If you place a camera at the loch and leave it for a number of months, you hope that it will run for most of that time to deliver the best opportunity of photos. Some cameras can work on eight batteries, some up to twelve and the battery type is also influential. Moreover, battery life can be reduced by the number of pictures or video clips taken. I have returned to cameras which have taken thousands of pictures triggered not by monsters, boats or birds, but just the continuous wave action below the camera or the fluttering of branches beside them. This makes the placement of the device of particular importance.

But how effective are these devices in the hunt for the Loch Ness Monster? Let us do the maths on a typical device. Two parameters are important and these are the sensor sight angle and the sensing distance. These typically come out at 100 degrees and 20 metres and this forms an arc of detection on the loch in front of it. Note it is important to place the camera as close to the loch as you can lest the sensing distance is wasted over the land in front of it.

So a bit of arc geometry gives us a maximum coverage of about 350 square metres. This is to be compared to the entire surface area of the loch which is 56,400,000 square metres. So our example camera's coverage of the loch is a mere 0.0006% of the loch surface! In fact, if we planted cameras side by side just outside each others arc of sensitivity along the entire perimeter of the loch, the total coverage of the loch would still only be about 3% of the loch.

To put it another way, if the creature randomly surfaced once a day anywhere on the loch, the odds of it appearing in the arc of a single camera would be about 160,000 to 1 against. Note this does not take into account the shallowness of the loch near the camera. However, if you plant ten cameras around the loch, the odds "only" drop to 16,000 to 1 against! That would mean a wait of 16,000 days or 43 years to be in the zone of that single daily surfacing. A hundred cameras drops it to a mere 4.3 years but maintaining that amount of cameras becomes a team effort.

Clearly, these are example stats since it is not known how many surfacings of the creatures(s) occur only a daily basis or whether they are more inclined to surface near the secluded areas I seek to plant these cameras by. But I hope these cursory statistics demonstrate the size of the task.

So why bother? The motivation is the potential prize. As monster hunters are painfully aware, there are photos that are claimed as proof of the Loch Ness Monster, but next to none can really claim to be close up and detailed. But any large creature that comes within 20 metres of such a camera is going to give us an exceptional picture. Consider the photograph taken below with one such trap camera I recently retrieved from the loch. Look at the object in the centre bottom. Can you see the eye to the left and the open mouth? What could this be?

Well, don't get too excited as it is only a rock, but I wanted you (through the illusion of simulacra) to get an idea of what kind of picture these cameras can get if a large creature surfaces near them. It is, of course, a long shot given the statistics just mentioned, but what has one got to lose? Consider Tim Dinsdale, who spent many hours, days and weeks at Loch Ness for twenty seven years and failed to get the game changing picture or film. Consider Ted Holiday, who spent many hours at the loch between 1962 and 1980, without a single photo to show for it (despite having four sightings). Other monster hunters were luckier, but they got nothing to the standard of our imagined photo above. 

The lesson for me is obvious. I don't intend to spend thousands of hours staring at the loch with camera and binoculars at my side. Call me lazy, but given the failure of previous Nessie men and women, one is just as well strapping these cameras around the loch and heading home to do more productive things (like watch football). That does not mean I discourage others from doing the good old fashioned stuff. Somebody may yet get lucky one day with that technique and produce that convincing footage and I will be as ecstatic as anyone else.

But as you can see from the rain lashed night shot below, these cameras will stand in silent, uncomplaining solitude, immune to boredom, undistracted, watching and waiting for something to pass in front of them that may just change the way people look at this legend. For me, that may take years or it may never happen. One thing is for sure, if you do nothing, then nothing is certainly going to happen.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

More Webcam Photos - Head and Neck?

After the recent offering of webcam photos, I got an email from another webcam user who had some pictures to tell about. Here name is Diana and they are quite an interesting sequence. If one was bold for Nessie, you may think you were looking at a long neck which appears, begins to submerge and is gone in the third picture, all in the space of 27 seconds. The pole like object can be seen just left of centre above the third tree from the left.

A zoom in of the object in its two aspects are shown below. The first image certainly has that pole like quality that is reminiscent of Loch Ness Monster sightings. What it actually is becomes another matter. You may notice the strange looking pixel structure to the bottom right of the second image which likes a square with four smaller squares at each corner. 

What is that? Can this artifact bring a charge of photoshopping or is it just a cursor in an inconvenient spot? Remember those childhood puzzles where you had to find small objects in complex pictures? Feel free to locate this cursor in the first picture (as I did)!

Is it actually in the water? I would say it is.  How big is the object? One foot, three foot, six foot? That is not so easy to determine, but as a comparison photo is shown below of a passing boat as supplied by our previous webcammer, Joaquin. The boat could be about thirty feet long, but note its perceived length is foreshortened due to it being turned towards the camera.

As ever, webcam photos can be frustrating due to the distances involved. As a consequence of this, opinions are again invited. Further information on pole-like Nessie sightings can be found here.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com