Some Thoughts on the Peter MacNab Picture

This photo needs no introduction to any seasoned Nessie fan. Peter MacNab's picture of the Loch Ness Monster was published by the Weekly Scotsman just seven days after they ran the story on the H. L. Cockrell picture on the 23rd October 1958. I ran my main article on that photo here and you can refer to that for background information on the main objections to the photo. Today, I will address another objection, end with a question, but I first start with a story.

I am going to pretend to be a sceptic and then debunk myself. I know, I know, how can a simpleton believer reach the intellectual heights of even the average sceptic? Well, I will try to leap that mighty chasm. The book below is a rather non-descript affair entitled "The Mystery of the Loch Ness Monster" by Jeanne Bendick published in 1976.

I bought a copy of the book, mainly because I collect such things, but the title doesn't make my list of Nessie books because it is a book written for children and it is one of those pop-books written on the coat tails of the surge in Loch Ness interest into the last half of the 1970s. However, while I was flicking through it, my attention was arrested by the picture below.

It is a picture of Loch Ness, I am not sure where it was taken and that is largely irrelevant. The thing that grabbed my attention was the text below it saying "Copyright, P. A. MacNab". The same copyright message is seen under the famous MacNab photo in the same book. Okay, well that proves to some extent that Peter MacNab was at Loch Ness. But when was the picture taken? The car in the picture provides a clue.

Not having any expertise in the matter of classic cars, I emailed the picture to someone who runs a Classic Cars website for his expert opinion. His reply was "Looking at the general shape, I’d plump for an Austin A40 Farina.". Okay, a quick look on the Internet tells me that is a good fit and so I'll go along with that.

However, these cars did not appear until 1958, the same year that Peter MacNab's photo hit the headlines. So the photo was taken no earlier than 1958, but I (pretending to be a sceptic) will point out that MacNab claimed he took his famous picture in 1955. Has Peter MacNab been caught out? Was his famous picture and the one above in fact taken a short time apart in 1958?

Cue images of sceptics jumping up and down like kids in a sweet shop singing "We've got MacNaaaaaaaab!". Of course, any interval of time could have passed between the Nessie picture and this one, but now it is time to debunk myself. The car was indeed introduced to the world in 1958 and so, going by this photo alone,  Peter MacNab must have been at Loch Ness no earlier than that year.

But looking at the car's wikipedia entry, I note that it was introduced to the world at the London Motor Show in October 1958. You can see the cover of the Daily Mail's review of the show below which states the show ran from the 22nd October to 1st November. Since Peter MacNab's Nessie picture appeared in the 30th October issue of the Weekly Scotsman and he was prompted by an article dated the 23rd October, it is highly unlikely that an Austin A40 Farina was motoring along the shore of Loch Ness when (it is alleged) Peter MacNab snapped his Urquhart Bay background photo for his alleged fake setup.

The sweet shop is now closed.

What we can deduce from this picture was that Peter MacNab revisited the loch, perhaps as early as 1959. Why would he do that? Well, wouldn't you if you had previously snapped a picture of a large and mysterious beast (or two as he thought)?

Peter MacNab; bank manager, local councillor and President of the Clan MacNab Society was still sticking to his story when he appeared on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World over 20 years later. The psychological profile of the one shot hoaxer rather demands that they just quietly and voluntarily drop out of the picture. After all, sceptics always tell us that these photos are a "joke that went too far".

IGNORANCE OR COMPLICITY?

As an addendum to this little tale, you will have noticed I volunteered information that could be detrimental to a cryptid interpretation of the photograph. Do sceptics act the same way? To whit, Roy Mackal declared in 1976 that the MacNab photo was unacceptable as evidence based on the two apparently divergent pictures below.

In my main article on the MacNab photo, that argument was summarily dismissed once an overlay was done on the two versions. The top one was a slight enlargement and crop, leading to the foreground bushes being cropped out. End of argument (though that does not stop sceptics still pushing it, such as this website).

Now, I am no expert on photographic forensics, but one Loch Ness sceptic claims to be one. He shall remain nameless, but we shall call him Dick Raynor. On his own sceptical website, he includes the MacNab photo and a short analysis.

I was then struck by a minor revelation. If this self proclaimed photographic expert had spotted this non-argument as well, why didn't he put us all to rights on the issue? Why perpetuate a false argument against one of the best Nessie pictures? One can only make two conclusions. Either he was not expert enough to spot the non-problem or he did spot it but decided to keep silent about it. The end justifies the means? Draw your own conclusions on that one.

ANOTHER OBJECTION

Moving on, since I published my previous words on the photo, another objection cropped up on Internet discussion forums. The argument basically ran that the image of the hump was too uniformly dark and it should have shown some degree of variation in reflection or tones due to the water lying or running off the skin surface. This was clearly an argument setting us up for the "painted on monster" hypothesis.

Well, this is one of those plausible as opposed to probable arguments that all too frequently crop up. As a comparison, I show you two pictures of another large, dark object that used to move past Urquhart Castle. I am referring to the dark hull of the Gondolier steamer ship.

Quite frankly, I see no variation in its tones either, despite the water crashing off it or differences in its surface texture or shades. The issue here is simply that both objects are too far away for any finer details to be resolved on what are less than superior images. If we had the original MacNab negatives, we may get somewhere, but it is clear that is not likely to happen.

A STRANGE IMAGE

And finally, as they say on the News, in our main analysis of the famous Peter MacNab photograph, I raised a question about a mystery within a mystery. Had Peter MacNab taken a second photograph of the creature at that time? To refresh memories, some accounts of the story state that MacNab took a picture with a telephoto lens camera and another with a simpler Kodak. The problem is this second picture has never been proven to exist. The continued absence of this picture has led some critics to comment that it further proves MacNab's deceit in the whole affair.

That remains an unresolved subplot, but I almost thought I had found it a while back! As I was researching a separate subject, I noticed a Peter MacNab photograph on a website that looked different to what I expected. On a closer inspection, I realised the differences between it and the "standard" pictures seen in books and magazines were not reconcilable. Unlike the alleged differences in known prints which were explained in the aforementioned article, this one was definitely different. That image is shown below, with the "Whyte" version added for comparison.

There are clear difference in the foreground and in the castle itself. An overlay test gave the result below. Now the fact that creature's position relative to the castle has not appreciably changed suggests this cannot be the second mythical photograph. So what is going on here?

A clue may lie in the dark area to the right of the castle. This was not, as I first presumed, the right side of the castle lying in shadow. Indeed, the time of the photograph would preclude this. In fact, this dark region covers an extended area that includes the castle wall and the surface of the loch. In other words, it is an artefact.

Allied with this was the observation that one of the foreground "bushes" tracks the reflection of the castle on the waters so well.  Furthermore, the contrast of all these extra images are so dark in comparison to the rest of the photograph (which is darker itself than the "Whyte" version).

These observations lead me to conclude that this was an image of the "Mackal" version of the Peter MacNab photograph that somehow got corrupted during an image processing procedure. Most likely, this may have occurred when it was being scanned from a book or magazine. Given that the websites carrying this distorted image go back over 15 years ago, a paper scan looks more likely than an image copy from another website.

However, I would still like to know where the original image came from to complete the circle. A quick perusal of this errant image using Google Images reveals nothing of note. If any reader with a bent for research can add to this little story, send me an email or post a comment.

CONCLUSIONS

These were a few things I dug up over the months and years as I continue to research Nessie cases old and new.  Back in 2008, Adrian Shine gave his opinion on this picture to the BBC on the monster's 75th anniversary. He admitted that "there is no definitive proof that the image is a fake" and that is the way it stands today.

There is no documented instances of a "Christian Spurling" coming forward and given the passage of time, I doubt there ever will. Perhaps new evidence will turn up, in the meantime, I continue to hold this up as one of the best pictures of the Loch Ness Monsters.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Few Loch Ness Items

Just a few things that I noticed in days past. 

STEVE FELTHAM HONOURED

Firstly, congratulations to Steve Feltham on being just awarded the "Ambassador of the Year" at the Highlands and Islands Tourism Awards. Having spent a quarter of a century at the lochside looking for that conclusive evidence to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, his activities have attracted thousands of visitors to his home at Dores Bay and generated a large amount of articles on himself, the loch and the monster worldwide. You can't deny that this has added global interest to the phenomenon.

I remember watching his "Desperately Seeking Nessie" program on the BBC back in 1992 and was impressed by the dedication and sacrifice he had put into that decision. Of course, over 25 years, things change. His roving round the loch in his converted mobile library home ground to a halt when the MOT finally failed. He is now searching more for catfish than plesiosaurs and (the last time I checked) he has been married for at least eight years.

In between all that, he has had one Nessie sighting. Given the decrease in sightings due to the drop off in general fish stock countrywide since the 1980s, that is no surprise. One feels, it would have been better to have set up camp in 1934 rather than 1992, but there is nothing any of us can do about that (though stocks are beginning to recover).

YET ANOTHER OLD PAINTING OF LOCH NESS

I like the old stuff to do with Loch Ness, even if it is not monster related. I pointed out an old painting of the south side of the loch previously, but another has now popped up on eBay. For a mere £6,950, it is yours. It would look good over the fireplace whilst you lean on the mantle admiring it with a dram of Glenfiddich in your hand. 

Admittedly, I have no idea where at the loch the painting is meant to be set. The artist, Alfred de Breanski Jnr, could have painted it at the beginning of the 20th century, but given the dirt track that passes for a road in the painting, I would guess the south side approaching Foyers from the north, but post your own comment below.

While we're on the subject of old things from Loch Ness, take a look at this eBay item. It's a chopping block taken from a 17th century farmhouse at Drumnadrochit. Yours for £250! I am not sure I would pay that much for a block of wood!

THE GRAND TOUR OF LOCH NESS

Perhaps even less relevant to Loch Ness is Jeremy Clarkson and his team arriving at Loch Ness on the 2nd or 3rd of December to film the studio audience part of their upcoming episode of "The Grand Tour". What they will actually be doing at the loch is uncertain and will presumably have already been filmed before then.

Fast cars around the loch looks eminently impractical, but who knows what they could do around the quieter roads to the west? My bet is on them hiring the loudest, fastest boats to terrorise the loch with and send Nessie to the lowest depths. There may be a token appearance by a resident Nessie expert for them to guffaw over, but we shall wait and see ....

MEANWHILE ON GOOGLE

While I am here, I may as well blow my own trumpet as I noted today that this blog reached third on the Google rankings for a search of "loch ness monster". Like Andy Murray, it would be nice to hit No.1 spot, but, as far as I know, this has never happened. Mind you, I continue to wonder how "The Legend of Nessie" website manages to retain No.1 spot consistently - despite not having updated their website for years. Anyway, both websites put out a distinctly pro-Nessie message, and that is what matters to me.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Review of "The Monsters of Loch Ness"

The month of August saw the publication of Malcolm Robinson's "The Monsters of Loch Ness" and I have only just finished reading this rather prodigious work. Being a Scotsman, like myself, and one interested in mysteries, Malcolm has long had a fascination with the Loch Ness Monster and this year he finally got round to writing the book he had always wanted to write.

At 581 pages long, it is certainly the biggest book on the mystery, though I suspect in terms of word count, Roy Mackal's similarly titled 401 page book still holds sway due to its smaller font and more densely packed text. However, publishing a book on Nessie isn't about beating records, it's about adding to the reader's experience of the whole phenomenon.

As I said in my section on Loch Ness books, I look for at least one of four things in a Nessie book:

1. It adds to the storehouse of data such as new sightings, films, sonar, photos, etc.
2. It adds to the speculation or theorising about the subject.
3. It adds to the human side of the story (culture, folklore, biographies).
4. It may not add to the above but it present the story in an entertaining and engaging way.

I would certainly say that Malcolm's book adds in three of the four areas. For a start, the book is a partly an autobiographical affair as Malcolm recounts his various trips to Loch Ness (and Morar) since the 1960s when he first went as a boy with his family. Indeed, he thinks he may have had his own sighting, but leaves readers to form their own opinion (as he does on various aspects of the mystery in his book).

Malcolm is the founder of Strange Phenomena Investigations (SPI), which has been running since 1979, and includes the strange phenomena at Loch Ness and Loch Morar in its provenance. You can read about these trips in his book, and be prepared for some "left of field" investigations as Malcolm probes the more paranormal depths of these waters.

That does not imply that Malcolm is about to plunge us into the world of paracryptozoology, rather he attempts to present the subject in an even handed manner across a variety of thoughts, accounts and interviews.

THE HISTORY

But there is one thing Malcolm has to be thanked for and that is bringing the history of the mystery right up to date. Recent publications on the beast and its pursuers have done a good job in informing the debate, but for me there was still a void between the present day and Witchell's history written in "The Loch Ness Story" thirty years ago. In other words, what exactly has been going on at Loch Ness since the late 1980s to the present day? One or two sceptically oriented books have filled some of the gaps, but they don't present the monster side (because they don't accept there is a monster).

Malcolm's book has now largely fulfilled this task. Of course, one may say "So what? We now have the Internet.", but that is a fragile statement. As my own list of defunct Nessie websites shows, nothing is guaranteed permanence on the World Wide Web. One day, this website will disappear and all the others and there is no guarantee that their data (pro- or anti- Nessie) will survive. I would also note that even if the information is out there on the Web, its diffuseness may not guarantee you have everything you need to know.

Even the cryptid news items on established major media websites will eventually get deleted. We do have web archiving projects, such as the WayBackMachine, but it won't have everything and paywall newspaper archives have not digitised the more recent years as newspapers from the 19th century and so on draw a larger audience of historians and genealogists.

In other words, there is still a place in the modern world for the paper book and its ability to collate and condense information into the hands of readers, no matter what the state of the Internet is. To that end, Malcolm's store of newspaper clippings from the 1970s to the 1990s is a valuable resource.

I would also add to that his various tape recorder interviews which include Frank Searle, Adrian Shine and Alex Campbell amongst others. And, finally, there are the transcripts of his own onsite investigations. So, thanks again, Malky. As regards his interview with Frank Searle, I found it amusing that Frank accused Dick Raynor of throwing paint over the sign that led tourists to his caravan site. Oh well, just as well that Frank Searle never told the truth at any time ....

In the weird world of Nessie, Malcolm reveals the weird world of people who inhabit it. Have you ever heard of Lambert Wilson? Or the story of the local who claims there is a UFO base beside the loch?

Add to that Malcolm's own ideas on how to catch the monster (as endorsed by Steven Spielberg) allied with his trip in a submarine down into the depths of Loch Ness,  and you begin to get an idea of the rich tapestry being woven.

THE MYSTERY

That leaves us with the monster itself. Malcolm begins with the old Kelpie legends as well as spreading his net to other lake monsters in Scotland and beyond. Going over Malcolm's collation of stories, I realised there were some eyewitness reports which were worthy of further follow up by myself. Indeed, one claimed photograph of Nessie appears to yield nothing on a Google search, which just goes to prove my above points.

Of course, Malcolm goes through many reports which are the bread and butter of Loch Ness Monster research, and we would not expect these to be edited out because of the familiarity seasoned researchers may have with them. In fact, I can help him out with some of them! For example, on page 115, Malcolm wonders what became of a photograph taken by a Morayshire couple in 1934. Wonder no more, Malky, and go to this link!

One thing I did not agree with Malcolm on is the vexed subject of land sightings. He has his doubts about them and is wary of such tales. On the other hand, I do accept them as a viable part of the Nessie database, but who said Nessie believers had to agree on everything? It is the sceptics who all march in monotonous time to the same beat and theory. Malcolm's problem with this is the issue that the creature seems to be a water-breather which seems at odds with lumbering about on land.

As I said, Malcolm covers some photos and videos from the 80s and 90s which are worth following up again in this Internet age, so watch this space. Malcolm ends his book by covering the beliefs of various people from mind-bending paranormal manifestations to boring old waves and logs. He rates each "monster" theory and then muses himself at the very end. Don't expect new revelations on this matter. After all, we've had 82 years of speculation and most of the theories were suggested within the first two years!

THE CONCLUSION

All in all, I enjoyed my trip through the Loch Ness of the past with Malcolm. His style of writing is certainly of a folksy, conversational genre which makes you feel that he is talking personally to you rather the usual delivery of modern books. Some may find that irritating, I was okay with it and found it amusing in parts.

Others have complained, with some justification, regarding the spelling and grammar of the text. Yes, there were spelling mistakes and I jokingly wondered whether Malcolm believed in Nessie more than he did in commas and semi-colons! I did have to double take on a few sentences, but once I got into the book, that particular problem went away.

There were other mistakes, such as placing Lake Champlain in Canada and a couple of instances where the same story was repeated in a short space. Well, actually, a small part of Lake Champlain does cross into Canada, so I guess it is partly correct!

I was hoping that Malcolm would have addressed the issue of Dr. James Lee from Hastings who took the "F. C. Adams" monster picture from 1934. Hastings has been Malcolm's stomping ground for some years and I wondered if his local connections may dig up something. Perhaps another day.

So, I give the book four stars out of five and thank Malcolm for his effort into putting this together. As a fellow Scot, I am glad to see someone from north of the border putting some expertise into the subject. As Malcolm well knows, we have too many Sassenachs crowding the Nessie arena!



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Contour Map of Loch Ness

You may think the above 3D contour map of Loch Ness was derived from some modern sonar study or similar. However, the data points used to generate the image were from the 1903-04 bathymetric survey of the loch conducted by Murray and Pullar. The total number of soundings was 1700 and those have been fed into the plotting software which you can examine at this link. Similar maps for Loch Morar (below), Lomond and  Leven can be viewed as well as the 2D representations.

The Beast of Loch Achtriochtan

It is now over five years since I published my book on the folkloric aspects of the Loch Ness Monster and other Scottish beasts. Not surprisingly, new material continues to come to light on the matter and I have continually added to the blog's section on Water Horses and pre-1933 Nessie reports here. Recently, I found this small piece that was published on the 18th July 1868 in the Oban Times. I have provided text below since the scan is rather difficult to read.

BALLACHULISH

FISHING. - The Leven and the Cona are swarming with fish. The former river has not been much fished of late years, but the latter has, and with all the exterminating engines, as if extermination was the object. For this reason, "pot sport" has been added to the common appelatives by the natives. Proprietors stand often in their own light in not making a proper distinction among those to whom they let their ground, for there were no conditions which can be written that are able to prevent mischief being done by bad sportsmen. A boat has been put on Loch-trichadain, Glencoe, and it is found to be swarming with trout. No less than 12 doz ave been taken by Major Shirley, Invercoe House, in one day. The loch is 8 fathoms deep, and on that account has vast room for concealing its permanent occupiers. James Cameron, who has put the boat on the loch, has better pluck than the parties who had been severally chased away by the water horse.

Given the imperfections of transliterating Gaelic place names, I would suggest that Loch Trichadain is Loch Achtriochtan or Trychardan located about five miles east of Ballachulish on the main A82 road between Glasgow and Inverness. The Google map below shows it in the bottom right corner and the loch is pictured at the top of this article.

To add some context to the 1868 account, here is the same area drawn up in map from 1877 (courtesy of the National Library of Scotland). The River Coe runs from the loch into Loch Leven and hence a route into the sea via Loch Linnhe.

 But going back to the article, the part of interest to us is the last sentence:

James Cameron, who has put the boat on the loch, has better pluck than the parties who had been severally chased away by the water horse.

Curiously, this water horse reference came up just three months before the well known account of a strange fish in Loch Ness (see link). Whether they are linked in any way would be pure speculation, but one wonders as to the what and the why of this reference. Having protested about unsporting sportsmen and the abundance of trout, our columnist surprises with a reference to a water horse chasing various bands of boat users. 

Clearly, something was doing the rounds amongst the conversation of locals in 1868 Glencoe to encourage the columnist to put this sceptical comment in the Oban Times. However, a wider search of the Oban Times turned up nothing regarding reports of strange, aquatic beasts in the area. This comes as no surprise as the general attitude of the Highland Press to loch monster stories was disdain and any rare reference to them would be couched in humour or hostility.

After all, science and industry were now sweeping their way up the previously mystical glens and so the local newspapers had to be seen to be "with it" and not publish ridiculous old stories about Water Horses and Water Bulls.

So, we are left to try and piece together what our columnist was on about. Did a "Water Horse" discomfit anglers on Loch Achtriochtan to the point where they felt they had to get back to shore? One can assume that the columnist has indulged in exaggeration for the purposes of deflection and debunking. However, the impression here is that several parties reported that they had seen something in the loch which was akin to the old tales of loch monsters and provoked a degree of fear. 

Having read this, it rang a bell and I consulted my book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness" and found a quote from Mackinlay's "Folklore of Scottish Lochs and Springs", published in 1893: 

The lochs of Llundavra and Achtriachtan, in Glencoe, were at one time famous for their water-bulls; and Loch Treig for its water-horses, believed to be the fiercest specimens of that breed in the world. If anyone suggested to a Lochaber or Rannoch Highlander that the cleverest horse-tamer could clap a saddle on one of the demon-steeds of Loch Treig, as he issues in the grey dawn, snorting, from his crystal-paved sub-lacustral stalls, he would answer, with a look of mingled horror and awe, "Impossible!" The water-horse would tear him into a thousand pieces with his teeth and trample and pound him into pulp with his jet-black, ironhard, though unshod hoofs ! 

I wouldn't get too dogmatic about one source talking about water bulls and the other about water horses as authors and researchers often mixed and confused the two. But it seems Loch Achtriochtan had a reputation for water monsters. Given that the columnist states the loch is only 8 fathoms deep (48 feet), one may look to the river which empties into the sea for clues as to whether something large and intimidating was chasing the "abundance" of migratory trout up to the loch? 

One may proceed along those lines and then speculate further as to the identity of this mysterious creature. Seal, whale, or something more sinister? Given the several miles of river between sea loch and inland loch, a whale seems an unlikely option and one struggles to see how a seal could put the fear into the locals. However, something invovled in a one-off stranding may have more merit - whatever that "something" may be.

Readers are left to form their own opinion, but these days, trout and salmon numbers are way down on the 19th century and one wonders if there is any reason now for the Water Horse of Loch Achtriochtan to again trouble its waters?

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Review of "History's Greatest Hoaxes" Documentary

This Thursday saw the latest instalment of the series "History's Greatest Hoaxes" broadcast on the UK "Yesterday" channel. This time the focus was on the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster, so it's time for another review and discussion about this program's particular take on the centuries old mystery.

Given the title of the series, it was perhaps no surprise that the cast was heavily weighted on the sceptical side as people such as Darren Naish, Dick Raynor, Adrian Shine and Joe Nickell were brought in to give their opinions on the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster. To add grist to the sceptical mill, we had a journalist, psychologist and comedian telling us why the Loch Ness Monster is not to be taken seriously.

On the opposite side was Steve Feltham and myself, making it seven to two against.

Firstly, however, the problem is defining the problem, which in turn drives the perception of those who believe Loch Ness hosts a large creature, yet to be discovered. Whenever the "monster" was conceptualised for viewers, it invariably presented some form of plesiosaur throwback. On this single shot scenario, those who believe in a large creature in Loch Ness were largely portrayed. 

No mention of giant eels, amphibians, exotic fish or other variants. Many theories about how sceptics explain the phenomenon were put forward. However, it seems there is only one "theory" on the other side. I did explain this to the film crew, but it did not survive the proverbial cutting floor.

A DAY OF FILMING

On a personal aside, it was an interesting day at the loch with Bruce Burgess and his film crew.  Bruce was easy to get along with and had plenty of questions about the whole monster thing, and indeed has a general love for mysteries himself. I had brought one of my more sophisticated trap cameras along to demonstrate how monster hunting technology has progressed and automated.

He filmed me talking about the device and setting it up at a location near Inchnacardoch Bay. Actually, it was more a demo than real installation since the area was too exposed to tourists. In fact, finding a real location would have proved too risky for people carrying expensive filming equipment! Some sequences were refilmed and a conversation on the Loch Ness Monster was conducted in the car using an attached GoPro camera. Again, none of that conversation made it into the final edition.

The drive eventually made it to Temple Pier where I met up with Dick Raynor to go out on a cruise boat to discuss the loch and the creature. The conversation was certainly less heated than the ones we have on Internet forums. In fact, it could have done with being a bit more confrontational for TV!

THEORIES

Fortunately, the documentary did not dwell too much on the Surgeon's Photograph. It has had a good run in the panoply of TV documentaries and needs a rest. Most people in the Loch Ness arena accept it is a fake, including myself. 

Paleontologist Darren Naish led the way in attempting to explain away the various Loch Ness Monster photographs and eyewitness reports. He pretty much covered what he said in his recent book, "Hunting Monsters" which I reviewed here. Not wishing to repeat what I said in that article, his explanation of what various famous Nessie photos may or may not represent are opinions which cannot be proven and rather rely on the perceived advantage of being seen to be less incredible than the alternative of a "monster".

Aided by Dick Raynor, one example of this thinking was the 1951 Lachlan Stuart photograph of three humps. Dick commented that though the picture was claimed to have been taken about six in the morning, he said the sun was seen to the west over Urquhart Bay. If it was a morning shot, the sun would be behind Lachlan Stuart. The Stuart photo is the first one below, my test photo is the next one below.

The bright patch to the right of my photo may be the sun, but it is in fact just clouds reflecting the sun, which is out of sight to the left of my position. In other words, the "sun in the west" interpretation is at best, ambiguous. I speak more on that canard here. Whatever you think of this photograph, it should not hang on this. This is a typical example of how sceptics objectify subjective interpretations.

I can add here that I was also filmed going through various photographs and giving my own counter-opinions on them. Sadly, again, that portion did not make the final cut. If it had, viewers would have seen this strange looking head in the Hugh Gray photograph of 1933:

Steve Feltham attempted to cut through the scepticism with his view that one or more giant catfish were in the loch. Catfish are monsters of a sort, though they do not explain everything. I am not even sure they explain Steve's own sighting, since he says it was travelling at over twenty miles per hour!

Curiously, the program made no attempt to record anyone recounting their tale of seeing the creature. I think practically every documentary I have seen has spoken to some eyewitness; indeed, not even Steve's account was broadcast. Instead, we were told how such accounts were just waves, logs or birds seen through the "lens" of expectation.

Oddly, this theory is applied even to witnesses who claim to have seen the creature from a distance of twenty yards! Surely witnesses cannot be that stupid or blind? I covered this strained theory in this article in regard to the view that angler John McLean mistook his claimed 20 foot creature for a 3 foot cormorant at sixty feet! Really?

Perhaps most irritating was the psychologist who pontificated about how the monster believers were desperate for some form of monster wish fulfilment and attention seeking. It's a pity that she seemed to predicate her opinion on a form of monster that many Nessie advocates do not believe in themselves! It doesn't seem to occur to these shrinks that people may actually think there is something to these eyewitness accounts and images that sceptical explanations are found wanting in.

The journalist who went on about commercial interests and priming up for the tourist season was naive and cynical while the comedian offered ... comic relief.

Was I disappointed in the documentary? Not really as it was a program designed to form part of a series dedicated to hoaxes and so would take on a sceptical approach. However, anyone wishing to get a balanced view of the debate would be sadly disappointed.

Perhaps one day, someone will be bold enough to produce a documentary which is neutral or even dares to flip the bias in favour of the other side. Perhaps I should do that myself with the help of others as producers are too much in the thrall of the sceptics!

I believe you may be able to watch the episode online here. Registration required and may no be available worldwide.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Loch Ness Monster Documentary on UK TV Tonight

Just a heads up that a new documentary on Nessie is being broadcast tonight at 7PM GMT by the UK "Yesterday" channel as part of their "History's Greatest Hoaxes" series. More details can be had here.

It looks like the Surgeon's Photograph will again feature in this latest line of Loch Ness Monster documentaries!