Oor Wullie meets Nessie

Two of Scotland's favourite icons meet (from 1990):

Saint Cummin's Bell

In a loch the size of Loch Ness, you will expect a wide of variety of objects to be lying at the bottom of its dark, murky depths. We have mentioned a panoply of such things over the lifetime of this blog and they include John Cobb's speedboat, various ships, a Viking longship, a Wellington Bomber, a monster prop, the body of Winifred Hambro, fridges, cars, myriad pieces of Nessie hunting equipment, steam tractors from the time of the 1930s road expansion and, of course, a number of Nessie carcasses. Perhaps you can add your own object to this Loch Ness junkyard.

Now I find another object named in the Aberdeen Press and Journal, dated 13th December 1950. This goes back to July 1544 and I reproduce the article below.

In hindsight, the story was already in my copy of George Campbell's "The First and Lost Iona". The bell was taken from the ruined priory at Cille-Chumein (the town's name before it was renamed Fort Augustus after the Battle of Culloden). The intention was to rehouse it in the Lovat's church in Glen Covinth near Beauly. Campbell's books relates how the bell was "sacrificed" as an offering to the spirit of the lake, which I would take to be the Loch Ness Each Uisge.

Now, the location of the holy bell is unknown and yet we are told the loch waters above it have healing powers. You just need to know where! The reference to Aneurin Bevan brings us down to earth as he was the then architect of the National Health Service (another religion of the British people).

However, Campbell speculates from the Wardlaw Manuscript in suggesting the bell may have been deposited at or near Ellanwirrich or Cherry Island as it is now called. But, using my previously calculated silt deposition rate of 4mm per annum suggests the bell is now under a metre of silt. One would presume that, if it exists at all, it is not going to be found anytime soon.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Is the Loch Ness Monster a Sturgeon?

The theory that the Loch Ness Monster is an Atlantic Sturgeon is not something new and has been doing the rounds since the early days of the modern Nessie phenomenon. The earliest reference I can find to this theory is from The Scotsman of the 4th November 1933 where a correspondent states the following:

That was about six months since the Aldie Mackay report in the Inverness Courier. The leading expert at the time, Rupert T. Gould, in his 1934 book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others", examined the various theories to explain the reports that had been coming from the loch since the year before and addressed the sturgeon idea which he said was "in some ways ... rather attractive". His drawing below drew out some ideas.

The first being that the sturgeon's snout could, in theory, be mistaken for a long neck. Likewise, the bony plates along its back may be misinterpreted as a line of humps. In that light he considered it a theory worthy of examination. However, serious objections were finally raised by Gould. Firstly, that the claimed size of the Loch Ness Monster was up to three times longer than the biggest sturgeon known.

Secondly, the bony plates may be construed as humps, but their rather fixed configuration does not allow for the rather more pronounced double humps and so on, let alone the classic upturned boat scenario. However, Gould eventually went with his itinerant sea serpent idea and any thought of a sturgeon finding its way into Loch Ness largely fell by the wayside as more exotic theories won the day.

It was only when we entered the sceptical 80s and 90s that the theory began to gain traction as leading Loch Ness researcher, Adrian Shine, revived the idea with the suggestion that some sightings could be accounted for by errant sturgeon making their way along the River Ness from the North Sea into the loch. In an article for the BBC in 2012, he sums up this line of thought:


"I think it could be the occasional navigationally challenged Atlantic Sturgeon," he says, with a mischievous smile.

Known to grow to over 4m long, the fish, which has reptilian scaled plates along its back and a long pointed face with tusk-like barbells hanging from its jaws, is not indigenous to Scotland. It could conceivably make its way up River Ness and into the loch in the search for new breeding grounds.

"It could very easily have swum into the loch, been spotted and left again leaving nothing behind save an enigma," he says. 

Adrian's thinking on this certainly goes as far back as Operation Deepscan in 1987 where he mentioned the possibility. However, it was the publication of a paper in 1993 for The Scottish Naturalist that caught the attention of the press and went worldwide. This clipping from the Times Daily of the 30th December 1993 sums it up.

Now, it is not to be denied that sturgeon have been caught in the general area of the Highlands for centuries. Some old clippings will suffice here and also show the typical size of such creatures. The first is from the Inverness Journal of the 31st July 1846 and then from the same journal of the 14th August 1812:

Note that even in the less consumer strained times of the 19th century, this creature was regarded as a rare visitor to the more accessible waterways. The near 11 foot specimen mentioned above weighed in at over two hundredweight which equates to over 16 stones or 100 kilos. Quite a beast in its own right, though a bit worrying for this theory that I could not find more modern stories.

ASSESSMENT

Having said all that, I have yet to find a newspaper article from any year talking about a sturgeon being caught in Loch Ness. That does not mean that such an event has never happened, but the clippings above suggest that such an event would undoubtedly receive local newspaper coverage (angling was a big sport in the Highlands with newspaper carrying frequent reports on angling news).

The thing about this theory is that it is a bit player. It is not a theory crafted to explain many sightings, for in the world of scepticism, the monster is a motley mosaic of so called ordinary objects seen in so called extraordinary circumstances. My opinion is that such extraordinary circumstances are rare to the vanishing point. The sturgeon is offered as an almost monstrous monster to explain accounts which go beyond the simplistic boat wake or floating log.

But the problems with this idea of an itinerant sturgeon are greater than that for an exotic monster. I heard of an old Chinese proverb asking what is the most cunning animal. The answer is the one that is yet to be found. Whilst the disputed behavioural characteristics of the Loch Ness Monster allows it fulfil that age old puzzle, the same cannot be said of a sturgeon.

The point being that no sturgeon has been caught, let alone a verifiable photograph or video clip of one. You can take that thought two ways. It can either mean that this proves no sturgeon has ever entered Loch Ness or it means that large water breathing creatures can enter the loch and remain largely undetected.

The counter argument on that point is that the sturgeon is an in-out creature. Adrian's comment above that the said sturgeon would ultimately leave the loch seems an unlikely proposition for this type of creature. However, if a sturgeon did enter the loch and inevitably become loch bound, it again says rather a lot for the general monster hunt paradigm that even this type of well known creature cannot be detected in Loch Ness.

SIGHTINGS

But the problem for this theory is its application. Given that scepticism so easily forces the round peg of monster sightings into the square holes of waves, logs and birds with the hammer of confirmation bias, it is perhaps no surprise how Adrian handles certain monster sightings. I quote from his aforementioned 1993 paper: 

In November 1933 Lt.-Commander R.T. Gould (1934: 30) listened to the account of Mr. John McLeod, who, some 20-30 years previously had seen, at the mouth of the River Moriston beneath the lowest fall, a creature with a "head like an eel and a long tapering tail". This is how a Sturgeon might appear from above. Another witness, Miss K. MacDonald, spoke of a "crocodile"-like creature, 6-8 feet long, ascending the River Ness and heading for the Holm Mills weir, in February 1932 (Gould, 1943: 38).

Rather more recently, in 1993, Mrs Marion MacDonald described to the author an experience at the Fort Augustus Abbey harbour. She saw what she first thought was a log, because of a distinctive 'scaly' bark pattern, but which then developed a wake and moved off to submerge, while she called her family. After she had sketched her impression (Figure 2, 8K) she was shown an illustration of a Sturgeon's bony plates, and considered the pattern to be reminiscent of what she had seen.

Three eyewitness reports are brought forward in support of the sturgeon theory. What struck me was how these sightings were not consigned to the usual sceptic dustbin of more mundane explanations. After all, we are repeatedly told that eyewitnesses practically forget all the important details by the next day, the newspapers exaggerate stories or it is just the locals having a laugh.

Yet, here, suddenly, the clouds of poor memory depart. The perception of the eyewitnesses becomes lucid and their descriptions are as sharp as a tack. The 1993 report would have normally been written of as a log. John MacLeod's sighting would have been told he saw a seal and Miss MacDonald's encounter was not even in Loch Ness!

Here we have an example of sceptics having their cake and eating it. Sightings are anecdotal garbage ... unless they are useful in promoting your cause. Try and tell me this is consistent and unbiased critical thinking!

MEANWHILE ... IN A POND NEAR LOCH NESS

It would be remiss of me not to mention the saga of Adrian Shine's pet sturgeon at this juncture.  It transpired back in 2000 that Adrian was rearing his own sturgeon in a pond at the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit. It seems it had grown to six feet long and Adrian was a bit peeved it's existence had been revealed as he was conducting experiments as to how visitors described it when it surfaced.

Other Loch Ness researchers were a little less sympathetic when they wondered what would have happened to the fish when it got too big. Would it be secretly dumped in the loch, caught and then declared to be Nessie? Conspiracy theories aside, what exactly was Adrian trying to achieve as viewing a sturgeon at a few feet away hardly constitutes a sighting reproduction. One also wonders what the endgame for the sturgeon really was? Fish and chips or fish and ships?

CONCLUSION

That a sturgeon may or may not have entered Loch Ness is not the point of the debate. They may have, but given the recent sceptical disdain for dolphins getting into Loch Ness, I doubt they could be of the opposite mind with sturgeons. Rather, such a creature is not a good fit for what is described and is actually just a debating tool to lift the sceptical debate above the banality of waves and birds. Indeed, sceptics admit such a creature would only explain a small percentage of sightings.

The situation is best summed up in the cartoon I saw recently which shows a dinosaur like Nessie snacking on a tiny sturgeon, to which eyewitnesses holler "WOW! There really IS a sturgeon in Loch Ness!". In other words, there are bigger fish to fry in Loch Ness.




The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Interview With Affleck Gray

After reviewing Nick Redfern's Nessie book, I realised I had a couple of items to post. This was mainly inspired by Nick's investigation into other strange phenomena that haunt the general Highland region and may or may not have anything to do with the Loch Ness Monster.

The first of the two items is the Am Fear Liath Mor or Big Grey Man which is said to inhabit the area around Ben MacDhui in the Cairngorms mountains. This spot lies over 30 miles south east of Loch Ness. The Grey Man is a phenomenon that is more often heard than seen amidst the lonely peaks. However, a friend of Nessie sceptic, Richard Frere, did claim to see a large, brown humanoid figure heading down the hill.

A Scottish version of Bigfoot or something that has a more normal explanation? Affleck Gray was the man who wrote the definitive book on the subject in 1970 entitled "The Big Grey Man of Ben Macdhui" and back in July I stumbled upon an interview with him in a magazine found in a Stornoway shop.

The magazine was the Spring 1995 edition of "Tocher", which covers various Scottish folkloric and cultural subjects. The interview was conducted by Roger Leitch in 1994 when Gray was 87 years old. He died two years later in 1996 and so the interview probably gives us his last thoughts on the subject of the Gray Man and other matters. The scan of the pages can be viewed at this link.

I will post the second item on a possible UFO report from near Loch Ness presently.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Review of Nick Redfern's "Nessie"

Having reviewed Malcolm Robinson's book on Nessie, I now move onto another recent publication by Nick Redfern entitled "Nessie: Exploring the Supernatural Origins of the Loch Ness Monster". Now, Malcolm's book had its fair share of references to the psychic, paranormal and supernatural. But, if that book was the starter on this subject, Nick's is definitely the main course.

Following in the tradition of Holiday's "The Dragon and The Disc", "Goblin Universe" and Shiels' "Monstrum!", we have waited over 25 years for another like minded book, and Nick Redfern is the man to continue this centuries old thread in the tale. Now, one would normally expect such a book to be rubbished as the majority of Nessie people continue to look to the biological for a solution.

I, too, seek an answer in the realms of zoology, but I can view myself as being able to critique Nick's book to a certain degree as I was in the paranormal Nessie camp many moons ago. In fact, if you want to read my views back in the 1980s, I refer you to one of the archived Nessletters from Rip Hepple here.

I also recently gave a talk at the Scottish UFO and Paranormal Conference in which I examined the links between Nessie and Ley Lines. Well, actually, I was regurgitating stuff I had done back in the 1980s. What I exactly think of those results, I am not sure myself!

Anyway, I move onto the book. If one is going to talk about supernatural Nessies, one must start at the beginning with St. Columba and progress through the tales of water horses, kelpies and other such mingled constructs of overlaid truth.

Opinions vary as to the nature of these beasts as perceived by those who once told tales of them to riveted audiences. Nick takes a view which is, shall we say, all encompassing as to their nature and relation to other Highland phenomena of the time and their shape shifting tendencies. You could probably call it a paranormal Grand Unified Theory.

Indeed, there is a large degree of overlap between my own book and Nick’s as the folkloric landscape is surveyed. The question is how literally should one take these tales? How big was the kernel of truth that was too often obscured by ancient raconteurs? That answer very much depends on who you ask and Nick supplies his own opinions on these pre-industrial demons. 

Taking those demonic forms into the modern Nessie era is not normally done by the majority of researchers, but Nick takes this oldest of Loch Ness Monster theories and attempts to map it onto the modern phenomenon.

But how does one go about proving that the Loch Ness Monster is a supernatural beast? What exactly does that mean? Is it a product of the human mind or another mind? Is it a real sentient entity in its own right or does it even have a substantial form? Nick homes in on his answer as the book progresses.

Though having proven beyond his own doubt that plesiosaurs are not the answer, how do you do the opposite for a paranormal cryptid? The evidence is circumstantial. But then again, is that not the way of it with Nessie theories of all shades?

From that period and 1933 onwards, Nick narrates the Nessie story to the present day. There are the usual suspects plus a few minor typos on the way. Willox the Warlock did not battle the Loch Ness Kelpie, his ancestor did. Marmaduke Wetherell did not find the hippopotami spoors, he created them. Moreover, Loch Latch is written as Loch Laide.

But Nick follows a parallel course as he presents stories from in and around Loch Ness that suggest there is more to this area than just elusive aquatic beasts. With that in mind, we are regaled with stories of ghosts, the Loch Ness Hoodoo, UFOs, out of place cats, Aleister Crowley, exorcisms, Men in Black, witches and other strange people with somewhat magical designs upon the place.

Indeed, Nick will answer such questions as why researcher Jon Downes was butt naked at Loch Ness and what Boleskine House has to do with the Disney cartoon, The Jungle Book! But this all culminates in the sinister suggestion that a serpent worshipping cult may have operated at the loch, and may even do so today. The evidence for this is somewhat tenuous, but considering men are inclined to worship almost anything past, present and future, why should that surprise us?

After all, we have had the rituals of Donald Omand, Doc Shiels and Kevin Carlyon. Have we missed anything out? To this end, Nick refers us to further clues which I leave to your judgement. 

Ted Holiday and Doc Shiels, of course, figure highly, as does Tim Dinsdale. Holiday’s untimely demise is viewed with suspicion. Shiels’ activities are not viewed with the same eye as Nick embraces him. His 1977 Nessie photos are generally rejected, but Nick puts up a defence, omitting to address the matter of the audio tapes featuring Shiels and friend Michael McCormick in 1977 which records them discussing how to fake monster photographs. Nick needs to reply to that before we proceed further with Anthony Shiels.

We know Tim Dinsdale was a member of the Ghost Club and had his own fair share of spooky stories (as well as an alleged demonic attack). However, Tim’s public opinion very much stayed in the biological domain. Did Tim secretly believe in a supernatural Nessie? Only his family and closest confidants can come clean on this, thirty years after his death.

As one that continues to believe in paranormal phenomena in other domains, I accept that strange things happen around Loch Ness. The question for me is how statistically significant they are compared to other geographical regions and what is the relation between increasing distance from the loch and diminishing relevance to the loch?

Moreover, having accepted the premise of a supernatural Loch Ness region, how do you use that to make the leap to a supernatural Loch Ness monster? And here’s the rub. Putting aside old tales of talking kelpies and indirect stories of other things around the area, what exactly is it about the modern monster itself that speaks of a paranormal nature?

The answer is precious little as Nessies don’t vanish like ghosts. They don’t do unnatural feats like fly off or speak to you. They don’t look as weird as werewolves or mothmen. They don’t give off sulphurous smells like devils or cause any strange synchronicities.

Maybe they don’t have to, but there are one or two things with better promise. The shape shifting thing; is that paranormal or normal? Nick points to variations in appearances described by witnesses. Perhaps so, but how much of that is accountable by intra-species variations due to sex, age or seasonality? How much of the variation is just down to the fact that eyewitnesses cannot deliver a 100% accurate description (but still accurate enough to point to a large creature inhabiting the loch)?

But all is not lost. As I close, there are some strange things that defy explanation for me. Ted Holiday’s weird experiences after the 1973 exorcism are not so easily dismissed and that strange figure he met near Urquhart Castle may not just be a mad motor biker. There are other tales that also make you think twice. I refer readers to the story related by Tim Richardson, which does not make it into Nick’s book, but points to something perhaps beyond the normal.

Is the Loch Ness Monster a demonic form, a psychic projection, a zooform or something else that is currently beyond scientific explanation? I know there are many people who class themselves as paracryptozoologists. It is up to them to continue to make the case for such a thing. I suspect their number is increasing; they just need to increase the arguments in line with that.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Helping Loren Coleman

There are two things cryptozoologists can be fairly certain of. They can be sure that some ailment will eventually overtake them in old age and they can also be pretty sure that there is not much money in cryptozoology to pay the bills. Long time cryptozoological researcher, Loren Coleman, has come up against the realities of both as he recently went into hospital for another operation.

The concept of medical bills is a bit foreign to me as a citizen of the United Kingdom where the State funded National Health Service picks up the tab, but that is not the way it happens in the USA. However, the concept of not paying the bills from cryptozoological work is not foreign to me. So, with a bill of over $7,000 to pay, he has set up this funding webpage to seek help from compassionate people. I have paid something in to help a man who has helped keep the mystery of lake and other cryptids in the limelight.

I hope you can too.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

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