That Dorsal Fin Photograph

It is now over two weeks since a photo of a mysterious fin like object was taken at Loch Ness. The picture was published in the Daily Mail the following week, and one week on from that there has been debate but no unanimous conclusion as to what is in the picture.

The opinions vary from a live dolphin swimming in Loch Ness, a hoax fabricated by digital manipulation software (usually referred to as "photoshopping"), a gull flying low over the water, debris, a predator bird struggling to rise from the water with its prey and, finally, some attempts to see a long neck of the Loch Ness Monster from a view of  forced perspective.

Now, it is often opined that we do not get clear enough images from Loch Ness. Well, we have one now, but still people can't agree as to what they are looking at!  My own definition of a "clear image" is one that you don't need an "expert" to tell you what you are looking at and I think that applies here. My guidance on this is simple - if this picture was taken in the nearby coastal areas where we know dolphins and porpoises swim, I suspect there would be near unanimity that it showed a dorsal fin. However, it was taken at Loch Ness and so a different mindset kicks in and some near Orwellian attempts to tell you what you are "really" looking at have ensued.

So, to restate my own opinion, it's a dorsal fin. The only argument is whether it is a real dorsal fin or a fake dorsal fin. A fake one could be someone swimming with a model fin on their back, but that is a theory I don't think anyone is taking seriously. The other is a digitally manipulated image.

PHOTOSHOPPING?

Having been granted access to the original image, I ran it through some tests in order to find any signs of manipulation as well as consulting a photographic expert (with thanks). For those of you interested in that sort of thing , the device was a Samsung Galaxy S5 smartphone with a 16mp camera, using the equivalent of a 31mm focal length and shutter speed of 1/1100 of a second (therefore motion blur unlikely).  Some experiments taking shots outside suggested a one foot high object would be 160 metres from the observer.

I ran the original image through a suite of analysis functions available at fotoforensics.com. The first was an ELA or Error Level Analysis. This works on the principle that a JPEG image should uniformly and roughly have the same level of data compression (JPEG is a process which compresses the original image to a smaller file size but usually with the loss of information). Any differences in compression rate in an image is suggestive of digital modification.

What I was looking for was the object's ELA to stand out more from the rest of the surrounding image. The result was pretty inconclusive, mainly because the object occupies a very small portion of the image. In fact, it only occupies 0.01% of the image which I do not think lends itself to accurate metrics (screen grabs shown below).

However, as a comparison, I ran a photograph of the derelict pier at Dores Bay through the ELA as well. I picked this because the dark, distant posts in the picture offer similar dimensions and tones. The result was pretty much similar to the fin picture, so I conclude there is nothing suspicious from the ELA point of view. The top picture below is the relevant portion of the original photo.

The second analysis tool is JPEG Quality. Each time an image file is opened in a graphics editor and resaved, there is a potential loss of image quality (this depends on the quality level selected). The loss of quality can be estimated and compared to other images. The JPEG quality came out as 96% which is pretty high and suggestive of a lack of image editing. The comparison photo from Dores came out at a lower percentage.

Each digital picture is accompanied by a metafile called the Exif file which contains information about the picture. On examining this, the date and time was set to 14:04:10 on the 22nd August 2016, which is consistent with the report. Steve Feltham said he examined the image the day after and he confirmed that the Daily Mail's "lady in the tea room" who saw it on the day it was taken was the Waterfall Cafe at Foyers. These facts are consistent with the image not being tampered with.

The other point regarding digital manipulation is that some have observed an area around the fin which it is claimed points to the image being added to the picture. You can see this above the fin in the zoomed in picture below.

What I would say is that this blurriness occurs elsewhere on the picture and may be there in combination with possible spray from the blowhole of the dolphin as the pictures below show. By the time the blowhole has submerged in the picture, the water droplets are dropping around the dorsal fin.

Another possibility (perhaps in combination with the first) is that the smudging is a result of the approximation of the data or noise reduction. Of course, the analysis could be more thorough and we could be up against a master photoshopper, but I doubt that.

 
BIRDS

A quick word on the idea that we are looking at the back of an osprey here. These birds of prey have dark backs and a whiter head. This loose connection with the white tip on this dark fin as a whole has been overegged to present us with the opinion that it is such a bird trying to drag a fish out of water. I compare two images here.

 

Now one could spend ages finding the best fitting image for these, but they are not the same creature to me. There are no detail of feathers or colour changes on the Loch Ness image; indeed the object in the loch looks too dark to be an osprey. The only reason for this osprey interpretation appears to be that part of the osprey's head is white.

If one claims that the light levels were too low, the uncropped picture shows a sunny day with blue skies and some cloud while an analysis of where the sun was on that day gives us the yellow line on the chart below indicating that the observer was between the object and the sun suggesting that there was plenty of sunlight to illuminate detail such as plumage and tones. We see none and the colours are more consistent with that of a dolphin's drab dorsal fin.

 

SO WHAT IS IT?

It's a dorsal fin. I know one cannot state such things with 100% certainty, and perhaps all that you have just read is "McScience" as some critics claim of this blog. But I would rate this interpretation higher than strange birds or curiously shaped debris. The problem is of course evident (and why some have forced other interpretations upon the picture); dolphins do not live in Loch Ness and all would agree it is exceedingly difficult for one to get into Loch Ness. I emailed the Lighthouse Field Station which is a base for research and training in marine ecology in the Cromarty Firth near Inverness and got this reply:

Would need convincing this isn’t photoshopped – and even then am not convinced it’s even a bottlenose dolphin – certainly not one we know.

That email made me wonder what I was looking at if even a local expert was not convinced it was a local dolphin or even a bottlenose. The other issue is lack of corroboration. A dolphin should be active enough on the surface to be seen again and hopefully recorded. So far, no more images have turned up. I say that with the proviso that I have no idea how long a saltwater beast like the dolphin can survive in the colder, freshwater environment of Loch Ness. For all I know, it could be dead by now and at the bottom of the loch.

The dolphins proposed in 1979 by Robert Rines of the Academy of Applied Science (shown below) to hunt Nessie were trained by being acclimatised to the loch's colder waters and would only have been released for a few hours a day. Today's dolphin (if indeed that is what it is) has no such advantage.

Steve Feltham told me that there were two reports by locals who witnessed something that could have been the same object. However, what was really desired was more footage of the animal photographed by other tourists. These may exist and it requires the owners to take a closer look at their footage. The best hope here may be someone getting in touch with the Daily Mail.

But, is it really that difficult to spot a dolphin in Loch Ness? Without another case to compare with, we don't know. The best comparison would be seals which occasionally get into the loch. Studies of a seal which entered the loch in 1983 concluded it would be very difficult to spot it unless you spent many hours close to the water. Even then, the seal under study confined itself mainly to the quieter south side of the loch away from tourist boats.

CONCLUSION

Something was swimming about in Loch Ness in late August. The photograph suggests a dolphin, but even that particular identification has been questioned by a local wildlife expert. This photo has been treated a bit like photos of Nessie and challenged because dolphins simply cannot get into Loch Ness under their own steam. Hence the reason why Steve Feltham suggested a rogue fishing boat dumped the animal there.

It's a theory that resolves a conundrum, but no one has come forward with a confession (if they were that bold). One could semi-seriously suggest the cetacean got in via the notorious underwater channel attributed to the Loch Ness Monster, but that is explaining one mystery with another.

Could it be our monster after all? As explained in my previous article on the Adams/Lee picture, reports of fin-like objects tend to be of the triangular variety and are assumed to be humps. That interpretation could be wrong, but no one I am aware of has reported a thin fin.

Ultimately, this episode has proved to be no more than another opportunity for debate and a chance to exercise some photo analysis tools. Unless more information is forthcoming, we know a dolphin from beyond the Moray Firth somehow got into Loch Ness and will likely makes its grave there.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Whatever Happened to Alastair Boyd?

In between discussing the latest news, theories and old stories from Loch Ness, this photograph was emailed to me by eBay as part of the auto-search I have set up with them. It is a photograph of monster hunter, Alastair Boyd, taken in 1985. As the title says, what happened to this great stalwart of the Nessie hunt from the 1970s and beyond?

Alastair is perhaps best known for his co-authored work on the expose of the Surgeon's Photograph, published in the 1990s which sent ripples through the cryptozoological community. However, what some may not know is that Boyd was an ardent believer in the monster, despite this expose. He had his own sighting of the creature back in July 30th 1979 as he related in the 1999 documentary, "The Beast of Loch Ness":

NARRATOR: Boyd's experiment shows that a one-foot model can produce an image much like the surgeon's photo. The picture might be a hoax, but Boyd has no doubt that the creature in the Loch is real.

BOYD: I know that the thing I saw was not a log or an otter or a wave or anything like that. It was a large animal, it came heaving out of the water, something like a whale. I mean the part that was actually on the surface when it stopped rolling through was at least 20 feet long. It was totally extraordinary. It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen in my life. And if I could afford to spend the rest of my life up here looking for another glimpse of it, I would.

The pictures below are sketches of what he saw (with thanks to Scott Mardis) as well as a picture of Alastair and his wife, Sue.

From this we see there were two types of monster hunters who came out of the 1960s and 1970s. Those who saw the Loch Ness Monster and those who did not. Some of the latter came out of that era frustrated. That frustration begat disappointment which begat anger which begat contempt and even hatred for those who still dare to hold to the "old ways".

And that includes those in the former category, who are neither sceptic or believer, but I would more liken unto "knowers". To that exclusive band we include the likes of veterans Alastair Boyd, Roy Mackal and so on. They saw it and that is all that matters.

Where Alastair is now is unclear to me. I have an inkling as to towns and so on, but if he has an Internet presence, he keeps it well hidden. Like other researchers of old, he has tended to step back in these days of online social media. Whatever the reasons, Alastair, if you're able, drop me a line. I'd love to hear from you!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Fascinating Photograph

A very unusual picture taken on the 22nd August when NHS worker, Kate Powell, snapped this finned object in the loch. A slightly better picture in the Aberdeen Press and Journal shows the spray suggestive of an object moving in the water.

Naturally, when such a picture arises, you think of the F. C. Adams picture from 1934 which I wrote on here and which I speculated was indeed taken at Loch Ness.

Today's picture looks to all intents and purposes like a cetecean's fin. Dolphins or porpoises had also been claimed to have been sighted in Loch Ness before as the newspaper article below from the very same Daily Mail on the 16th September 1914 shows. However, the controversy about whether such creatures could get into Loch Ness was not conclusive. 

Steve thinks this is a reproduction of the 1868 hoax when fishermen dumped a bottlenose dolphin into the loch to fool the locals. However, can dolphins or porpoises indeed get through the River Ness complex to Loch Ness? Another thought is that dolphins regularly break surface and so where are the other pictures of this creature? Steve Feltham has posted that another person may have seen it, but a regular surface breaker such as this should turn up in further photographs. We shall wait and see (and I suspect that the seagull explanation will soon be winging its way in the same fashion as Jennifer Bruce's famous picture).

The account from the Daily Mail follows.

The uncropped picture has now been put online which is certainly suggestive of Loch Ness. A further examination of the Inverfarigaig shoreline via Google Street View confirms this picture was indeed taken where it was claimed.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Gareth Williams at the Edinburgh International Book Festival

Just a quick note for those in or near the Edinburgh Festival that Gareth Williams, the author of the recent "A Monstrous Commotion", will speak on his book this coming Monday. Further details can be found here.

The Loch Ness Monster in 1896 (Part II)

It must be one of those nerdy things. Most people will prick up their ears at a Nessie story if it is a new photo, film or some exciting testimony. Here we like to get into the minutiae. Previously, I had addressed the puzzle of John Keel's 1896 Nessie. I now address something mentioned by Peter Costello in his 1974 book, "In Search of Lake Monsters". I quote from the recently released Kindle edition:

The animals in Loch Ness were even well known enough to be mentioned in the Glasgow Evening News in 1896.

No more is said by Costello and since then I have been left somewhat in limbo wondering what was said in those times about Nessie? Henry Bauer, in his "Enigma of Loch Ness" expresses frustration that Costello did not provide more information while arch-sceptic Ronald Binns, in his "Loch Ness Mystery - Solved", dismisses it as another example of so-called poor research by Nessie believers.

I had not resolved the issue in my book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness", but by chance, the matter came to the fore during a visit to a bookshop on the Isle of Lewis in July. As is my wont, I went to the relevant section of the shop to check out publications relevant to folklore, legends and cryptids.

There the matter resolved itself as I flicked through a book published in 2006 called "Strange Things" written by John Campbell and Trevor Hall. This book is subtitled, "The Story of Fr Allan McDonald, Ada Goodrich Freer, and the Society for Physical Research's Enquiry into Highland Second Sight". However, the findings of any such enquiry were never published, most likely because there was nothing to publish. Suffice to say that Ada Freer was the woman charged with going up to the Highlands to do the investigation.

That in itself is a secondary matter to our own enquiry, but checking the book's index for Loch Ness references took me to a page which said this:

On returning to Oban from her trip to the isles, of which no more is known for this year (1896) as Lord Bute was in bad health in the autumn of that year and no letters written to him by Miss Freer after that of 20th August, already quoted, now exist, Miss Freer found the following comments on her activities quoted from the Glasgow Evening News in the Oban Times of 26th September:

Reading through the article recounts Miss Freer's travels through the Highlands and Hebridean islands, before coming to the bit of interest to us:

Also the uisge-each, as Miss Fiona MacLeod calls the water-horse in Gaelic which will bring a blush to the cheek of Celtic modesty, still cavorts in Hebridean meadows at nightfall, and Loch Ness is full of water-bulls.

But none of these manifestations is, we fear, for a lady interviewer with a kodak. To them must be brought the eye of faith and an hereditary nose for the uncanny gifts that stenography and the snapshot lens are poor substitutes far.

This would appear to be our 1896 Loch Ness Monster reference, or as they called it in those days, the Loch Ness Water Bull. The Glasgow Evening News is not available online (though it is available as microfilm in the Glasgow Mitchell Library). However, the Oban Times was also available on microfilm at the National Library of Scotland, which I occasionally frequent. So, I consulted the quoted Oban Times for 26th September 1896 to see the original source (shown below).

Zooming in on our target text, shows it has been correctly quoted in Campbell and Hall's book. As an aside to researchers, the Oban Times is also available online, but a text search revealed none of this story. One can only presume this issue missed the scanning process.

So another vague reference to the Loch Ness Monster is solved. But how did Peter Costello know about this source? The answer is that "Strange Things" was first published in 1968 (cover below) and so someone with a common interest in the paranormal and Nessie must have tipped off Costello and the Loch Ness community in general. My money would be on Tim Dinsdale, who was known to have an interest in both mysteries; but that is merely a guess.

What can be said about the actual Loch Ness reference? The first thing to note is that when the famous Water Horse (or Bull) of the Highlands is mentioned, out of all the many lochs in Scotland, the author plumps for ..... Loch Ness. Why am I not surprised? And this is 37 years before the Loch Ness Monster turned up.

Having studied the various references to loch monsters in pre-1933 literature, Loch Ness dominated and this article from 1896 just confirms what is known already. Nessie is the dominant lake cryptid as it was the dominant Kelpie in the 19th century.

Secondly, Loch Ness not only had a Water Bull, but it was "full of water-bulls". This may be a reference to a similar phrase from folklorist, John Campbell of Islay. But it tells us this was more than just a passing reference or an obscure tale from ancient times, but repeated, multiple stories of something strange in Loch Ness. Again, why am I not surprised?

Of course, sceptics today will pooh-pooh all this as just tall tales and mythology. Mind you, don't they say the same thing about modern reports? The problem is that critics expect something akin to a modern plesiosaur-like sighting report, but from Victorian times. That is not the way it works. People back then expressed what they saw in their cultural terms, just as people do today. However, underneath all this was the same, unknown creature.

What further does not surprise me is that once again the newspapers of the time poured disdain on such a beast. The phrase that will please hardened sceptics is "but none of these manifestations is, we fear, for a lady interviewer with a kodak ...". In other words, the newspaper author does not expect these creatures to be real. This confirmed my prior view that Victorian newspapers did not take these things seriously and hence did not publish accounts.

In summary, John Keel's story about the Atlanta Constitution's Nessie story was wrong. However, the reference to the Glasgow Evening News' Loch Ness monster was true. One could complete the loop by consulting that edition of the Glasgow Evening News published some days before the 26th September 1896. However, I do not anticipate that the Loch Ness reference there will differ at all from that in the Oban Times.

Therefore, I am glad to add this reference to the growing list of pre-Nessie Nessie accounts!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

The Loch Ness Monster and Wikipedia Wars

If you want to control what people think, then you have to control what they read. That's a well enough established fact from history and today I learnt something new about scepticism, especially as it appertains to the Loch Ness Monster. 

You won't be surprised to know that the wikipedia page on the Loch Ness Monster is one of the most visited pages by people wishing to learn more about the monster. Up until a week ago, there were some references to my work on it, which have been there for years.

However, somebody by the name of "Bloodofox" decided they should no longer be there and edited them out. This came a week after I had given a highly critical review of Darren Naish's "Hunting Monsters" on Amazon. Coincidence? Maybe not, but for now I am not discounting it.

Two of the entries deleted were to do with the Hugh Gray photograph and an article I had written on St. Columba's encounter with a monster. The Hugh Gray entry used to read:

On 12 November 1933, Hugh Gray was walking along the loch after church when he reportedly saw a large creature rising from the lake. Gray took several pictures, but only one was successfully developed. The blurry image appeared to show a creature with a long tail and thick body on the surface of the loch.^[35] Although critics have claimed that the photograph is of Gray's Labrador Retriever swimming towards the camera (possibly carrying a stick), researcher Roland Watson suggests that there is an eel-like head on the right side of the image.^[36] This is the first known photograph of the creature.

Footnote 36 would then link to my Hugh Gray article. That entire paragraph is now deleted and the photo relegated to a small mention at the top:

On 6 December 1933 the first purported photograph of the monster, taken by Hugh Gray, was published in the Daily Express;^[16]

The reference to the Columba account used to have this line added:

The oldest manuscript relating to this story was put online in 2012.^[21]

Footnote 21 linked to my article on the Columba story. Looking at the revision history for the page,  Bloodofox gave his less than unbiased and unprejudiced reasons for the edit:

Gutted non-academic, cryptozoology/pseudoscience, dead, and amateur monster hunting websites (definitely not reliable sources). Clarity—a tiny portion of people out there are "cryptozoologists", most simply encounter the being in popular culture.

Do I think this guy has an agenda?  You bet. Now I can hear the excuses already. Wikipedia only deals in facts and so all this cryptozoology and pseudoscience should be censored. Actually, the deleted text suggesting an eel like head is visible in the Hugh Gray photo is not pseudo-science. There is an eel-like head visible in the photo. Now whether one wants to put it down to paredolia or a real fish is a matter of opinion. Visitors to the Wikipedia page should be told this and given the opportunity to make up their own minds on this.

Just because a sceptic finds it inconvenient, is no reason for editing it out. You control what they read, you control what they think. The Columba edit actually makes no argument for or against a monster, it just links to my article. But, since that article argues that Columba saw the same species of animal that we today call the Loch Ness Monster clearly rankles with our sceptical editor.

Actually, a look at his Wikipedia profile shows that he is interested in folklore but does not like cryptozoology. Doubtless, he has his own opinion on what Columba encountered and does not want more exotic interpretations to "pollute" people's minds. You control what they read, you control what they think.

Now I wouldn't care if someone edited in arguments that the Hugh Gray photo only shows a dog or a swan. I wouldn't make any censorious attempts to edit them back out. They may be no more than speculations, but in the interest of freedom of speech and disseminating opinion, they should be there. That also applies to opinions which are cryptozoological in nature.

You control what they read, you control what they think. Scepticism just plumbed new depths this week.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

John Keel and the Victorian Loch Ness Monster

You may know about the case of UFO researcher, John Keel, and the fabled 1896 Loch Ness Monster story. For me, it began with a reference to the case in Ted Holiday's 1973 book, "The Dragon and the Disc". However, the origin of the story appears to have come from John Keel's 1970 book, "The Complete Guide to Mysterious Beings" from which I show the relevant extract:

Given one of my favourite pursuits is tracking down old stories of monsters in Loch Ness before the modern Nessie era, this seemed like gold dust. But no one had ever found it and I stated so in my book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness". Henry Bauer said he had scanned every issue from November 1896 and found nothing. I concur with this, having done the same via online resources recently. There is nothing from that month that bears the slightest resemblance to  a monster in Loch Ness.

Naturally, sceptical books from Binns' "The Loch Ness Mystery- Solved" in 1983 to the recent "Abominable Science!" have latched onto this as proof of poor claims on the part of Loch Ness Monster researchers. They don't, however close the book on this story. That can now be done.

The solution was simple, having an online resource, change the terms of the search and another issue with the image below turned up.

Do we have a woodcut image as described by Keel? Yes. Do we have Nessie like images? Yes. Is this part of a full page article? Yes, this is a full page article, but it is not on the Loch Ness Monster. It is from the Atlanta Constitution issue of May 2nd 1897 and is titled "What We Know of the Sea Serpent" and draws on the work of A. C. Oudemans' prior book, "The Great Sea Serpent". The full page is shown below.

Keel had got his dates wrong. The issue he had in mind was six months later. Moreover, the article was not on Nessie, but her marine relation, the sea serpent. Keel made an honest mistake and misremembered what he had seen; possibly years later. If he had made a note of the date at the time he was going through the microfilm, the issue would have been resolved and put to bed a lot earlier than August 22nd 2016!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com