W. H. Lane - Monster Hunter

You've heard of Tim Dinsdale, F. W. Holiday, Robert Rines and lots more. But what about William Horsburgh Lane?

Back in the 1930s when the Loch Ness Monster came to the fore, retired Lieutenant Colonel Lane lived at the Tigh Na Bruach residence near Invermoriston with his wife Agnes. Having seen action in the Far East with the Indian army he moved from the heat of the battlefield to another area of contention - Loch Ness.

He was already a man with a taste for the explorer of the exotic and mysterious having written a book on his involvement in Babylonian excavations. As a topographist he joined in the excavation of the 5,000-year-old archaeological site of Kish, 50 miles south of Baghdad (from which his photograph here was taken in 1923-1924).

Now as he settled into the quiet life on the shores of Loch Ness, Nessie reared her compelling head. Lane's interest was piqued and the first we hear of him was in a letter to the Inverness Courier on the 10th October 1933 (extract below). In this letter he commends the theory that the monster is a species of giant salamander. This was based on his experience in Burma where he came upon a four foot specimen in the jungle.



Evidently as the media interest in the monster continued apace W. H. Lane proceeded to write himself into the Loch Ness Monster folklore by publishing the first ever work on the creature entitled "Home of the Loch Ness Monster" published by the Moray Press around March 1934. The cover is shown below and as you can see the salamander theory is given prominence.




This was before the famous Surgeon's photograph was taken in April 1934 and long necked Nessies had not quite taken all other theories prisoner. The book is an interesting little work which I shall review with other Loch Ness Monster titles of 1934 in another posting.

W. H. Lane was now very much part of the Loch Ness investigation and from his shoreside home near Invermoriston he was well placed to scan the loch surface for its mysterious denizen.

This came to the fore when another retired Lieutentant Colonel, Rupert Gould, published his seminal work "The Loch Ness Monster" in the summer of 1934. These two ex-combatants had struck up some kind of friendship as it seems that they were in communication. Gould mentions a letter from Lane a week before his arrival at Loch Ness in which Lane describe an incident where a log came down into the loch as the River Moriston was in spate. Lane followed it with his binoculars whilst those with no optical aid were sure they had seen the monster. The old campaigner Lane was not fooled and watched as the log drifted across to the west side of the pier.

Gould also discusses Lane's Courier letter on the salamander theory but dismisses it on the grounds that no salamander has exceeded six feet and no fossil had been found greater than twice that length.

Whether Lane changed his mind on that theory we may never know but undeterred he continued his watch of the loch and wrote another curious book in 1936 entitled "Eden". This book combined his religious beliefs with his archaeological interests to attempt to pinpoint the ancient location of the Garden of Eden.

Interestingly, the book's foreword is written by Count Bentinck who takes the opportunity to cite Lane's interest in the Loch Ness Monster and claim his own sighting in 1935! Lane also revisits in this book some non-Nessie aspects of Loch Ness which he had previously mentioned in his Loch Ness book (again we will return to this in another post).

But Lane finally got what he wanted - a sight of the Loch Ness Monster. The incident is related in Witchell's "The Loch Ness Story" and tells us of Lane's sighting in May 1945. We are told that Lane was with his wife and two neighbours at their home.

The account relates:

"It was a huge black object. Watching it closely, it remained about two minutes on the surface, after which it suddenly disappeared leaving a big wake on the loch."

Lane again employed his binoculars but this time it was no log. He says:

"There was a slight curve in the wake, which looked, as far as I can judge, as if a moving torpedo was in the water. There can be no doubt it was made by a large, fast-moving object."

And that was that. The following year on the 10th September 1946, W. H. Lane died aged 72 and went to meet his Maker. One presumes he is now fully informed as to the identity of the Loch Ness Monster.

His wife, Agnes, died in 1967 and Tigh Na Bruach is now a Bed and Breakfast property.

So ends this brief description of an unsung monster hunter. No doubt there were quite a few like him but we are unlikely to hear much about them now. Personally speaking, his life intrigued me and I did try to find descendants but I am quite convinced from public records that he died childless and anything pertaining to his work on Nessie is long gone or hidden in the recesses of a dark forgotten attic.

We leave the final words to W. H. Lane from his book.

"It soon became palpable that some beast of huge dimensions did actually inhabit Loch Ness."

We agree and seventy six years on the search continues.

Torosay House and David James

I had the pleasure a couple of years ago of visiting the beautiful Scottish island of Mull. Whilst taking in the sea eagles, multi-coloured houses of Tobermory and the religious island of Iona we decided to visit the local stately home called Torosay Castle (website is here).



I was expecting just another trip round elegant rooms and various items of arts and craft ending in a gift shop but was delighted to find this was also a stately home with a monster edge to it. As it turned out it was the home of the late David James - Member of Parliament and co-founder of the Loch Ness Phenomema Investigation Bureau in 1962. You can read his Wikipedia entry here.

As we toured this place I was enthralled to see items which hearkened back to my youth. The best reminder of all was what looked like the original and famous "Nessiteras Rhombopteryx" painting by Sir Peter Scott now hanging in one of two rooms dedicated to Nessie hunting! My picture of it is below.



It was quite a feeling seeing the original which has regaled many a book, newspaper and postcard. Now looking at the castle website you would not think such treasures were inside (perhaps his son is a little embarrased by it all!) but I am sure they are still there and awaiting the inspection of any Nessie-phile who happens to pass by on their holidays.

I will put up other pictures of my visit in the weeks ahead (the next article is here).

The Motives of Marmaduke Wetherell

There is one aspect of the Surgeon's Photo Hoax theory that has always puzzled me and that was motive.

If we go back to the 1975 newspaper clipping that started Alastair Boyd's investigation we get an insight into why it is alleged that Marmaduke Wetherell faked the photograph. According to his son Ian in that clipping, the Daily Mail had gone cold on Wetherell's expedition and had dropped it much to his father's chagrin.

In response to this, Ian quotes his father as saying "All right, we'll give them their monster". This was all meant to set in train a chain of events leading to the pictures being offered to the Daily Mail via the link man Kenneth Wilson.

All perfectly plausible, but wasn't something meant to happen next? You get the cold shoulder from the Daily Mail, you fake a photograph and sell it to them, they get the media sensation of 1934 and the rights to the iconic image of Nessie for decades to come. Was that the intention of Marmaduke Wetherell? Did he plan to give the Daily Mail the glory of the best picture of Nessie ever?

Somehow I do not think so.

I don't read in the Boyd/Martin book what Wetherell planned to do once the picture was published but it is not hard to guess. The most reasonable explanation for all of this was revenge. He would fake the picture, wait until the Mail was basking in the glory of it and then expose the picture to a rival newspaper. Thus the Mail is jeered across the nation and Wetherell dies a happy man.

Quite clearly this did not happen and I am not the first to question the whole alleged motive because of this. If Wetherell did not follow through on his plan - then was there ever a plan? Now at this point we again enter the realms of speculation because all the main protagonists in this story are dead. When an explanation is offered for something (i.e. the photo was faked for revenge) but these discrepancies appear then the supporters of said theory are obliged to come up with some explanation even though it may not be the probable one.

So why didn't Wetherell apply the Coup De Grace? Why did he snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory? He died in 1939 so that gave him about 5 years to finish the execution of the plot but in my opinion the best time to strike was when the iron was hot and the picture was experiencing high publicity in 1934.

So what could have gone wrong for Wetherell?

1. Did he perhaps approach rival newspapers but they refused to take the bait? Hardly likely considering the ribbing other papers gave the Mail over the hippo tracks Wetherell "found" (see Boyd/Martin book).

2. Had he perhaps intended Wilson to come clean but then the good doctor got cold feet? Possibly, but why not then do it himself or one of the other plotters such as Chambers? Surely our intrepid game hunter would not let the prey escape so easily?

3. Was he perhaps afraid of his reputation being panned if he declared himself? So why didn't he confess when he knew he was dying of cancer with nothing to lose?

Whatever explanation is conjured out of the air, this is another question mark will hang over this story. The motive was revenge but revenge was not applied despite Wetherell's great desire to do so. It is all rather like watching a movie where the plot is going along well but at the very end the crooks don't get caught or the lovers do not live happily ever after.

And while we are on the subject of that 1975 newspaper article there was one or two points made in it that made me think. The relevant text is this:

"Then it was just a matter of winding up the sub and getting it to dive just below the surface so the neck and head drew a proper little V in the water. I took about five shots with the Leica, then suddenly a water bailiff turned up. I suppose he had heard voices and thought we were fishing. Dad put his foot on the monster and sank it, and that was that."

Now this matter of trying to produce a V-wake is contradicted by the actual photograph above which evidently shows a stationary object with no wake and rather a concentric ripple around it indicating the opposite.

Furthermore, we are told by Ian who was actually claimed to be there (as opposed to Spurling who allegedly made the model but did not go to Loch Ness) that the whole session did not last hours but was interrupted in which time five shots were taken as the submarine went "just below the surface". Why is this important? Because it makes no space for that troublesome second Surgeon's photograph to be taken. Again, that photo is unaccountable by this hoax theory.

Do I have any conclusion regarding the whole matter? There are inconsistencies in the story which a good lawyer could get an open verdict on if there was a "Nessie Inquest". I won't say Christian Spurling and Ian Wetherell were lying but neither could I say they were truthful. There are questions which leave me asking questions but I would have to find a real motive for why they lied. I won't pursue that line for now but neither will I let the matter lie there.

For now, digest these thought on my blog of the last weeks and draw your own conclusions.

Summing up the Surgeon's Second Photo

A reprise:

In Alastair Boyd and David Martin's book, Spurling knew nothing about the second photograph of the creature submerging. The authors suggest this is because it has nothing to do with the plot but we have covered the issues with that previously.

Others have offered speculative answers by suggesting the second photo is the toy submarine submerging underwater. This is unlikely due to the destabilising effect of a one foot piece of bouyant plastic wood and the head does not look like the head on the first and famous picture (this is less of a problem if the picture is of a living creature).

The second photograph remains an inconvenient truth to those who believe the Surgeon's Photograph is a fake.

Bu the main piece of evidence calling Spurling's confession into doubt is the alleged motive for the whole episode which I will come to in the next post!

Waiting for Caddy

I see on the cryptozoological forums that potentially good video footage of the Cadborosaurus of British Columbia has been obtained and will be shown on TV in the weeks ahead.

I say "potentially" because too many camcorder "blobs" have fallen short of what may be called proof for many.

I recall the publicity that surrounded the 1975 Rines photos and the attendant scorn that was heaped upon them. The body and neck of a large creature became "bagpipes in a snow storm" on one newspaper headline. Whatever the truth behind those pictures, the keyword is clarity and the more it is absent the more skeptics increase.

But the case for the Sea Serpent swims in parallel with the case for the Loch Ness Monster. Back in 1934, Oudemans speculated that Nessie was an itinerant sea serpent who either visited or was trapped in Loch Ness. There is an underlying link between the two. Strengthen the case for one and you strengthen it for the other. That is why I await these "Caddy" images with interest but restrained hope.

Rupert Gould's Recantation of the Spicer Case

Continuing our analysis of the famous Spicer land sighting, Dick Raynor pointed out to me that in Gould's biography he had changed his mind about the incident. In that book, ("Time Restored" by Jonathan Betts) there is a chapter on Gould's investigation into the monster and the eventual publication of his 1934 book "The Loch Ness Monster and Others".

Betts had access to Gould's own annotated copy and in it Gould had written the words "Were I rewriting the book, I should have omitted this case. I think the Spicers saw a huddle of deer crossing the road. RTG".

Why one may wonder the Volte Face after being so convinced of the genuineness of the case on interviewing the Spicers first hand? Perhaps he had decided that Loch Ness Monsters do not cross roads or had he grown more sanguine on the subject as we know he received some scorn from colleagues and others alike since publishing his book? Perhaps he rethought Mrs. Spicer's comment that part of the animal looked like the head of a young animal like a deer.

These speculations aside, in the manner of the otter explanation, how credible is it that the Spicers mistook deer for a large aquatic creature? I have driven along the Foyers-Dores road many times and it is a rather tight corridor at times with mountain looming up to your side on one side and narrow beaches on the other. If the Spicer location is like that then it is unlikely deer are going to appear out of a wall of stone and then simply disappear on a narrow beach (at least otters have some semblance of doing that). George Spicer reported that he drew up where the creature had crossed and saw nothing. I doubt a group of deer would have been so easily concealed.

And if anyone may say that the Loch Ness Monster cannot appear from stone either then I would say that such a comment was aimed at the idea that deer tend to only appear out of forests. Does the Loch Ness Monster appear out of forests? Is it even small enough to get through tree spacings? I do not think the monster is so mobile and may only go as far as the other side of the road. Why it would do that is left to Nessie behaviouralists!

Of course, this all rather depends where the sighting took place, the Spicers said it was somewhere near Whitefield which is opposite Urquhart Castle. That area is certainly short on "huddle of deer" space. I think the otter theory is more credible - but of course we also debunked that in a previous posting.

More on the Spicer Sighting

This really combines what I said in my last post about the secularization of Nessie and I apply that post's thoughts to this particular sighting.

Skeptics may rightly scold some Nessie enthusiasts for accepting any old reported sighting as a genuine Nessie sighting but on the other hand Nessie believers should not accept any old explanation offered by skeptics.

As said before, the Maurice Burton and Ronald Binns view was that the Spicers had seen a line of otters crossing the road. To account for the bulk on the left and the neck on the right, Burton suggested the adult otter was the "bulk" and some cubs ahead of her were the neck undulations.

So we can accept that and close the file?

Not really. I emailed an otter conservation group and asked a simple question. Do otter cubs follow or go ahead of their parent? The reply was:

"As a rule, cubs would follow their mother, but an excited cub might easily run ahead ...."

So cubs follow their mother - not the other way round as Burton postulated. That makes the otter explanation somewhat less convincing. In a piece of tautology, the skeptic may suggest that in this case the mother did follow the cubs. You are not any under compulsion to believe that leap of assumption making.

One could also add that otters tend to be active mainly at dawn and dusk whilst the Spicer sighting was late afternoon.

It is rare to see an otter at Loch Ness, it is even rarer to see an otter and her cubs. And by all accounts it is even rarer to see the cubs leading the mother.

One may say "it is possible" and I say it is also possible my car will be struck by a meteor this week - possible but not probable. You have to ask yourself if an explanation is not so much "probable" as "reasonable". I do not think the otter hypothesis is reasonable.