This post is a "folder" for the various articles I have posted on this blog regarding the sceptical position on the Loch Ness Monster. But what exactly is a "scepticism"? In this particular context, it refers to a modern trend in scepticism which questions a belief in a large set of creatures in Loch Ness on the basis of scientific understanding and logical deduction.
When applied to various people, it can be a rather nebulous term since "sceptics" just like "believers" can come in various forms. I say that because, people can take a sceptical stance on subsets of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster but still believe there is a large creature in the loch.
For example, Nessie Hunter Alastair Boyd is well known for exposing the Surgeon's Photograph as a hoax but is firmly in the camp of "believer". So, in this case, there is scepticism focused on a particular item of evidence.
However, there is also a form of scepticism which focuses on theory. This refers to a disbelief in a proposition about the creature. One good example is the opposition to the theory based on eyewitness accounts that the creature has a long head and neck.
So, in some sense, there should be an element of the "sceptic" in every Loch Ness Monster researcher. The problems in being sceptical arise from either applying faulty logical processes or using data that is either incomplete, false or irrelevant to come to incomplete, false or irrelevant conclusions. I think it is safe to say that everyone has at some time has fallen foul of these pitfalls, because after all, we're all fallible humans.
The main articles are listed but a lot of other posts address sceptical arguments for various Loch Ness Monster cases.
1. A general overview of the sceptical position: LINK.
2. The problem of finding evidence that would convince the sceptical position: LINK.
3. Seven things sceptics will focus on to debunk eyewitness testimony: LINK.
4. Case Study: The debunking of the Greta Finlay sighting: LINK, LINK.
5. How sceptical enquiry can be exaggerated by the media: LINK.
6. Does scepticism reduce motivation to collect sighting reports? LINK.
7. And to balance things, when being sceptical proves correct: LINK.
8. Yet for all the naysaying, some might just say "perhaps ...": LINK.
9. Do sceptics bother about what witnesses claim? LINK.
The blog has now racked up nearly 200 posts since July 2010 and so some means of searching has become more desirable.
The links I put on the right hand side plus the archive further down help to some degree but how many times do I refer to Marmaduke Wetherell in my posts? I don't know either without some further help!
So I have added a "SEARCH THIS BLOG" box on the right just below the Hugh Gray photo for anyone who is interested. Note this facility will also search the comments section.
As to Marmaduke Wetherell, the answer is that he is mentioned in five posts.
Beneath a certain mountain on a certain island lies a small loch by the name of Ulladale. With a length of about half a mile and a width of one quarter mile, there is not much to commend this body of water which lies under the gaze of its namesake mountain, Strone Ulladale.
Situated in the windswept south of the Isle of Lewis and Harris, there are no trees to offer wayfarers shelter and, indeed, there was something there in days of old which offered the very opposite in the way of hospitality. We talk, of course, of the Each Uisge or Water Horse.
This loch was discussed in The Water Horses of Loch Ness as one of the waters across Scotland's terrain that was reputed to be home to this pernicious and devilish pursuer of men's flesh. By way of a detour from An Niseag, we recount the tale of this island beast and add a new story recently gleaned from the literature.
It was over 200 years ago that the Water Horse of Loch Ulladale was mentioned by James Hogg in his 1807 work,
The Mountain Bard. It is one of the older references to water horses, but unlike various tales of water horses that had passed down through the generations, this one was fresh in the minds of the fearful locals. We take up Hogg's tale as he recalls the reticence of a Hebridean guide to go past a certain loch:
“In some places of the Highlands of Scotland,
the inhabitants are still in continual terror of an imaginary being,
called The Water Horse. When I was travelling over the extensive and
dreary isle of Lewis, I had a lad of Stornoway
with me as a guide and interpreter.
On leaving the shores of Loch Rogg, in our
way to Harries, we came to an inland lake, called, I think, Loch Alladale; and,
though our nearest road lay along the shores of this loch,Malcolm absolutely refused to accompany me by that
way for fear of the Water Horse, of which he told many wonderful stories,
swearing to the truth of them; and, in particular, how his father had
lately been very nigh taken by him, and that he had succeeded in decoying
one man to his destruction, a short time previous to that."
The decoying undoubtedly refers to the Water Horse's universal habit of enticing weary travellers to mount its inviting saddle only to find themselves stuck to it at the moment of terrifying revelation. The victim's fate was invariably sealed as the devilish creature sped to its loch to drown and then consume its prey.
One wonders how the Hebridean's father had evaded captured. Did he possess a piece of the talismanic rowan tree or did he invoke the name of the Christian Trinity by way of divine protection? We will never know, but rather than fading into the mists of folklore, this particular creature refuses to go away. Most water horse traditions stay no more than that, but some, such as the water horses of Morar, Ness and Treig live on and claim the attention of men. So it is with the Loch Ulladale Monster.
As it turned out, and months after the publication of my book, I was perusing some archives and came across a Scottish magazine of tales, songs and traditions called "Tocher". In the issues for 1991 (one of numbers 40 to 43), a Mrs. Peggy Morrison was being interviewed on the history of the Isle of Lewis (though Loch Ulladale is in Harris). The relevant part of the interview was as follows:
McL: And what about the monster in Loch Ulladale?
PM: Oh yes, they
thought there was a creature to be seen there right enough. Everybody knows - the Monster of Loch Ulladale, everybody talked about it in the
old days. But it isn’t all that long since they were seeing it there. A
man who was going out to work on the road, the short-cut that's out
there in the glen. he was going out.
And it must have been in winter, the
time when there are long nights and daylight is late in coming. It was in
the first grey light of dawn he was going out, and he saw this big
black beast at the edge of the loch and with the fright - evidently the
road was near the loch - he turned back. He didn't dare go past. And,
anyway, he turned back for home, and another man met him who was going to
the road to work as well, and they united there until it got quite
light - they weren't risking going past.
And, anyway, when the day had got
quite light, they went. There was no sign of this thing. but they went back to look at the shore of the loch - there’s sand there,
apparently - and the tracks were there. the tracks of whatever it was,
there they were, and they just couldn't make out what sort of animal it
was.
If I have read the magazine correctly, this interview was conducted in 1977.
One hundred and fifty years since Hogg, the water horse had returned again to strike fear into the hearts of men! A big, black beast beside the waters which left tracks of an unknown nature. What could it have been that caused these two men to wait until the Hour of the Each Uisge was over?
A problem common to many such legends is the size of the lochs these creatures reputedly inhabited. Surely there is not enough food in these lochs to sustain such beasts? This is a charge laid against the vast Loch Ness - how much more these small lochs?
But in the eyes of the Highlanders, there was no such problem. These supernatural creatures ate men, not fish.
In the words of one old seeker of An Niseag, a beautiful story can be destroyed by an ugly fact. Those that deride such stories may suggest the natives merely saw a grey seal pursuing some fish from the River Ulladale that empties into the sea loch of Resort. For after all, is not Loch Ulladale well stocked with tasty salmon and sea trout?
Perhaps it is, but the two mile winding river is tight and hazardous for a seal. And can't the natives of Lewis and Harris recognise a seal when they see one?
Ah, but was not the creature seen by the first grey light of dawn when viewing conditions were not ideal comes the retort!
But then again, should not such river faring seals produce such legends for all the local lochs and not just this one? And so the arguments go on. Ugly facts or just ugly speculations?
I mentioned this loch in a previous post about creatures of the Western Isles. At the time, I did not know about this modern encounter. If I had, perhaps I would have been bolder to forge into that treeless region.
Well, bolder while the Hour of the Water Horse had not yet come upon me!
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
POSTSCRIPT
Here's a YouTube clip of someone fishing on Loch Ulladale to give you a sense of the place.
McI_: And what about the monster in Loch Ulladales’ PM: Oh yes, they thought there was a creature to be seen there right enough. Everybody hnows-the Monster ([1] Loch Ulladale. everybody talked about tt in the old days. But it isn’t al that long since they were seeing it there. A man who was going out to work on the road, the short-cut that's out there in the glen. he was goin out. And it must have been in winter, the time when there are long Tits and daylight is late in coming. It was in the first grey light oftlawn he was going out. and he saw this big black heast at the edge of the loch and with the fiight-evidently the road was near the loch-he tamed back. He didn't dare go past And. anyway, he turned back for home, and another man met him who was goin to the road to work as well, and they united there until it got quite light-they worm’: risking going past. And. anyway. when the day had got quite light, theywent. Therewas no sign thing. huttheywenttoloohattheshore of the loch-there’s sand there, apparently-and the tracks were there. the tracles of whatever :1 was, there they were, and they just couldn't make out what sort of animal it was.
Free Online OCR: http://www.newocr.com/
McI_: And what about the monster in Loch Ulladales’ PM: Oh yes, they thought there was a creature to be seen there right enough. Everybody hnows-the Monster ([1] Loch Ulladale. everybody talked about tt in the old days. But it isn’t al that long since they were seeing it there. A man who was going out to work on the road, the short-cut that's out there in the glen. he was goin out. And it must have been in winter, the time when there are long Tits and daylight is late in coming. It was in the first grey light oftlawn he was going out. and he saw this big black heast at the edge of the loch and with the fiight-evidently the road was near the loch-he tamed back. He didn't dare go past And. anyway, he turned back for home, and another man met him who was goin to the road to work as well, and they united there until it got quite light-they worm’: risking going past. And. anyway. when the day had got quite light, theywent. Therewas no sign thing. huttheywenttoloohattheshore of the loch-there’s sand there, apparently-and the tracks were there. the tracles of whatever :1 was, there they were, and they just couldn't make out what sort of animal it was.
Free Online OCR: http://www.newocr.com/
McI_: And what about the monster in Loch Ulladales’ PM: Oh yes, they thought there was a creature to be seen there right enough. Everybody hnows-the Monster ([1] Loch Ulladale. everybody talked about tt in the old days. But it isn’t al that long since they were seeing it there. A man who was going out to work on the road, the short-cut that's out there in the glen. he was goin out. And it must have been in winter, the time when there are long Tits and daylight is late in coming. It was in the first grey light oftlawn he was going out. and he saw this big black heast at the edge of the loch and with the fiight-evidently the road was near the loch-he tamed back. He didn't dare go past And. anyway, he turned back for home, and another man met him who was goin to the road to work as well, and they united there until it got quite light-they worm’: risking going past. And. anyway. when the day had got quite light, theywent. Therewas no sign thing. huttheywenttoloohattheshore of the loch-there’s sand there, apparently-and the tracks were there. the tracles of whatever :1 was, there they were, and they just couldn't make out what sort of animal it was.
Free Online OCR: http://www.newocr.com/
A reader recently directed me to that clip from the film "Incident At Loch Ness" where a "Nessie" swims past an incredulous camera crew. They get a shot and the clip from the movie is shown below.
Some of you may be familiar with the clip and it's a realistic looking stunt. Obviously, this kind of footage - if it was real - would outdo anything presented as evidence in the last 80 years of Loch Ness Monster hunting. It goes without saying that, unless some equivalent of the MacRae film is holding out, this quality of footage has never been taken.
In some ways this is not surprising. Firstly, the equipment used to record the stunt was of high, professional quality and this is not the type of machinery the typical Nessie witness will have to hand. You are more likely to have some consumer grade mobile phone doing the recording on a lower resolution.
Secondly, the hump prop in the film was perhaps only 20 metres or so from the camera. As rare as Nessie sightings are, it is even rarer for anyone to report something less than 100 metres away. As an object recedes into the distance, detail is obviously lost and interpretation becomes more ambiguous.
Thirdly, there is the "paralysing" effect once spoken of by monster hunter, Alastair Boyd. He had a sighting in 1979 of a large hump breaking the surface of Urquhart Bay. So striking was the sight that he could only but gaze at the spectacle before he snapped to it and scrambled unsuccessfully to get his camera as the creature submerged out of sight.
Monster surfacings are all too brief and Alastair defied anyone to calmly go through their rehearsed camera routines when the Great Beast of Loch Ness deigns to show itself to you.
As the film shows, such a close encounter seems more likely from a boat. In fact, the recent George Edwards hoax was such a claimed event. However, as suggested by the eyewitness data, the Loch Ness Monster does not seem to like boats as witness reports from boats are much less. It is possible though that this is due to less potential witnesses being in boats than on land, but then again the expected proportion may still exceeded the actual proportion.
But, if you are potentially closer to the monster, more sightings should in theory happen on water. A resolution to the matter would require a study of the eyewitness database. However, if the assumption is held to, it is noisy engines rather than boats themselves that deter the creature due to the high auditory acuity I think it possesses.
I will say what I have said before, just because Loch Ness is a "mere" twenty four miles long, one mile wide with an average depth of 433 feet, it is assumed finding one or more creatures is relatively easy with the right application of technology and human ingenuity. This was the attitude in the 1960s as searches got more organised, but Nessie steadfastly refused to yield so easily.
An object appearing halfway across the loch is about half a mile away, too far for recording of decisive images. The high opacity of the loch underwater makes photography near useless and sonar is too blunt an instrument, especially when nobody can say for sure what a sonar trace of Nessie would look like.
Throw in the likelihood that our beasts stay on or under the bottom and sides of the loch and you have a recipe for futility. But these techniques will continue to have their place in Loch Ness research, just don't expect final, decisive proof.
But going back to our clip from "Incident At Loch Ness", suppose it was the real thing, perhaps taken by a TV camera crew filming a regional news item? Would it be accepted as proof of a large creature in the loch or would some explanation be proffered as to why it is no more useful as evidence than any photo of a distant blob?
Well, I would say that the default reaction of leading Loch Ness researchers would be one of caution. That is no surprise and probably the best one given the history of evidence at the loch. The film and its owners would then be subject to scrutiny as questions are asked, frames are analysed and the scene of the event examined.
At the end of this process, the film will be declared to be a natural but misidentified object such as a seal or certain inconsistencies will be pointed out about the owners or film that suggest the film takers are not being wholly truthful.
Well, that's the normal modus operandi. But would this type of higher grade evidence get over that hurdle? I can't honestly say the majority of recognised Loch Ness experts would be won over because of a problem in the aforementioned modus operandi.
Now the mode of critical thinking that proceeds in this wise is in my opinion faulty. One of the main premises behind it is the well known "Occam's Razor". According to Wikipedia:
"It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected."
So, there are two competing hypotheses for this type of film clip. One concludes it is a large, unidentified creature that is not from the known variety of wildlife and the other says it is either a known animal or a hoax.
The "unknown animal" hypothesis would no doubt conclude we have something "real" here but my contention is that the "normal object" hypothesis will always come out with an answer - no matter how good the film, photograph or eyewitness report. So what good is a hypothesis that always comes up with the required answer? It is non-falsifiable and therefore useless for critical analysis. It is like spinning a two headed coin.
Let us by way of example apply this to our hypothetical film clip.
In the case of natural objects, the hypothesis would clearly struggle and be forced to consider the hoax scenario. On this basis, it would be stated that since the hump is in theory "hoaxable", then a hoax cannot be discounted and indeed should be entertained as a better explanation since it is a simpler assumption than the presence of large unknown creatures in Loch Ness.
Speculation can then have its way as various schemes are considered as to how the effect was achieved. A frogman with a plastic hump attached to his back being driven by a DPV (Diver Propulsion Vehicle) or the prop being towed by an out of sight motor or perhaps its a CGI effect.
Human imagination could invent a number of reasons how something could be hoaxed and hence always come up with an explanation. Again, I say what use is such a hypothesis?
Widening the hypothesis to eyewitness reports, the other explanation of people misidentifying objects as monsters is because their judgement is "clouded" by Nessie expectations. The over-application of this sub-theory weakens the overall hypothesis further. To more forcefully put across my point, when the Logic Fairy sprinkles this dust over even the best Nessie sightings then deer, otters and ducks magically become monsters.
Again, what use is such a theory when it always produces the expected answer?
Now when monster hunters of old put the various sightings through their own "Monster" hypothesis, at least it didn't always flash "Monster" at the other end of the pipe. But consider the case of this hypothesis where a non-exotic but non-indigenous solution is proposed such as a sturgeon or catfish.
But even these more mundane explanations can't get past the filters of misidentification or hoax because again "misidentification" or "hoax" are preferred by Occam's Razor. Because after all, it is simpler to believe that a report was misidentification, etc than the alternative explanation that a visiting Atlantic Sturgeon was passing through.
In conclusion, perhaps the weighting given to suggestions of misidentification or hoaxing needs to be lessened to allow other theories a look in. But perhaps we have reached an evidence impasse here and nothing short of a plesiosaur or sturgeon carcass on the shore of Loch Ness will do.
But then again, who is to say the sturgeon was not simply dumped there by a passing fishing boat?
Back in 1992 as part of their "Video Diaries" series, the BBC broadcast the adventures of a man who had just arrived at Loch Ness to begin a new life on its mysterious shores in search of the Loch Ness Monster.
Twenty years on, Steve Feltham is still there living the dream and symbolises in more ways than one the continued search for a creature that refuses to bow down to science and identify itself. I visited Steve last week and discussed monster subjects and appreciate the cause he continues to pursue. Steve's one sighting of what may be Nessie happened some years back at Fort Augustus when he saw an torpedo like object plouging its way across the loch but just under the surface.
A few days later, someone put that documentary "Desperately Seeking Nessie" on YouTube, so enjoy a bit of monster hunting from twenty years ago.
In our previous two studies on this famous photograph, the issue of Richard Frere's conflicting testimonies was examined and finally labelled as "inadmissible as evidence". As a postscript to this episode, I added this further point to the previous post:
A further damning statement can be found in Steuart Campbell's book "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence"
who attempted to track down Lachlan Stuart years later. The Forestry
Commission had no record of him but the croft had certainly been let by
them to him. Campbell then states:
'However, by 1952 he was no longer there.'
If Frere said he met Stuart at Whitefield no earlier than August 1953 ... that is a problem according to Steuart Campbell's book.
Leaving the Richard Frere testimony behind us now, I would like to now look at the second of the three arguments raised which concerns the alleged internal evidence of the picture itself. So take a look at the picture again.
Now move your eyes to the top right corner and observe the light, fuzzy patch in the sky. It is claimed that this is the sun shining up Glen Urquhart and since we are looking westwards, it must be in the evening. However, Lachlan Stuart claimed he took his picture around 6:30 in the morning when the sun would have been eastwards. This would imply Stuart was a liar and hence suggest the photo is faked. This theory about the sun being in the west was certainly mentioned in Steuart Campbell's 1996 edition of his book "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence" but undoubtedly this view was doing the rounds before then.
Actually, there are several fuzzy patches scattered across this picture and debunkers may be referring to the other patch of lightness below it. I don't know, but whatever one is picked, it is irrelevant to the rest of this analysis. Now take a look at the next photograph below which I took this year at roughly the same spot as Lachlan Stuart (no one actually knows exactly where Stuart was standing).
So we have more fuzzy patches and an area of brightness in the top right in the direction of Urquhart Bay. So my question to you is where is the sun in this picture? Is it in the top right of my photograph?
The answer is it is not and it is nowhere. The picture above is the colour photo below passed through black-white, blurring and defocusing filters to bring it closer to the lower quality of the Stuart picture. The picture was taken at about 12:20 in the afternoon on the 9th April 2012. At that time the sun would have been out of view to the left of the picture. The solar position calculator below shows a yellow line denoting the direction of the sun on that date and time.
I would also have to say that I did not even take this picture with this fuzzy sun argument in mind. I just happened to be there and took the picture. If I had been more organised I could have got an even more relevant picture. But let me now make some further observations about this westerly-sun interpretation.
First of all, using a cue from the Stuart picture we can work out the elevation of the alleged sun in the top right. The leftmost hilltops in the picture lie in the area of the hill Creag Na h-lolaire which has a height of 245 metres. We also know the distance from Lachlan Stuart's position to the summit which is about 4400 metres. Using these, the angle the mountain subtends from the shore to summit in the picture can be calculated. Using the diagram below this comes out at 3.0 degrees. Note that Loch Ness is 17m above sea level and I presume the summit is measured in metres above sea level, so I subtracted 17m from the 245m figure (this decreases the value by 0.1 of a degree).
As a confirmation of this angle (and to demonstrate such investigations can be carried out at the loch or from one's desk anywhere in the world), I was back at Loch Ness this Tuesday past doing some research for the final part of this series. I also brought along with me a sextant to measure the aforementioned angle. It wasn't the greatest sextant in the world but it was accurate enough and gave me a similar answer of about 4 degrees.
With that angle, we can now estimate the apparent elevation or angle of the "sun" in the sky and that comes out at about 8.25 degrees (about 8.35 degrees if we add the sea level horizon back in). We can also estimate the azimuth of this "sun" because it is positioned above a known geographical location - Urquhart Bay.
One further obstacle to be removed is the location of the true horizon as this determines the true elevation of the sun. Where the loch meets the land may be a good estimate of the horizon but the true horizon is actually about 15 kilometres away based on a camera height of 1.5m and a loch elevation above sea level of 17m. The most distant mountain in the picture gives us some guidance. Using Google's 3D rendition of the Lachlan Stuart photograph (below), we can zoom into the distant peak and I think it is Creag Mhor lying between the towns of Milton and Balnain and its summit is about 10km from the Lachlan Stuart site.
As you can see, its base barely differs from our working horizon and so we will assume 15km will not make much of a difference either.
The question now before us is simple. If the photograph was a fake taken on an evening just before the 14th of July 1951 - not in the morning but when the sun was falling above Urquhart Bay, where was the sun actually positioned?
A rerun of the solar calculator (below) creates a problem for the "evening sun" theory. If we set the date to the previous evening and find out where the sun was at the estimated azimuth down Urquhart Bay, we find two things. Firstly, the time of day was 7:30pm but the elevation of the sun in the sky for that azimuth was 17.43 degrees! In other words, more than twice that of the alleged "sun" here and the real sun would be too high in the sky to appear in the photograph.
Another issue is regarding shadows. If the sun is indeed shining from the west at an elevation of 8.25 degrees, a further piece of trigonometry (diagram below) says that the objects in the picture should be casting a shadow whose length is about 7 times the height of the object (as we know, shadows lengthen in the evenings).
In this picture, I see precious little evidence of any shadow. Now due to the foreshortening effect of perspective, the actual length of the shadow visible depends on the relative position of the observer and the object-shadow. If the observer is directly above the object, they will see the whole length of shadow. If they are at eye level with the object, the shadow is not visible. How much shadow should be visible to the observer in this situation? Note that Lachlan Stuart was not at eye level with the loch else we would see little water. In fact, using the apparent angle our hill subtends, the entire loch visible up to Urquhart Castle is at least 10 degrees. As a rough calculation, that would mean 1/9 of the shadow is visible or 7/9 (78%) of the height of the object should at least be cast as a shadow in this picture.
If anyone is wondering about the shadows cast by the waves in the Stuart photo, just ask yourself how they also manage to cast similar shadows on my noon day picture.
However, if Lachlan Stuart was where he claimed to be at about 6:30am on the 14th of July, then the sun would be behind him and any shadow cast by the objects would be on the side of them not visible to Stuart or his camera (see solar position diagram below).
So, in conclusion, there are three issues associated with this evening sun theory.
A similar photograph can be produced where the sun is not in the picture but a sun-like effect is visible.
The alleged "sun" is at the wrong altitude for the alleged date and time taken.
There is no shadow cast by the objects if the sun is westward.
Now, debunkers may come back with their counter-arguments but at issue here is a problem which may not be limited to the Loch Ness Monster in the realm of cryptozoology. That problem is a so-called critical thinking which undergoes inadequate peer review. By that I mean, someone puts out a theory which suggests a photograph (or sighting report) is a hoax or misinterpretation. Once out in the public domain, it gets picked up and propagated without any serious attempt to test whether the theory has any logical or evidential basis in fact.
In other words, there is a element of "preaching to the choir" in the whole process.
I will address the third of the three arguments against the photograph in hopefully the final post on the subject.
Part Four of this series can be viewed here. The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
This newly named sea predator is doing the rounds. From io9:
Back in 2009 we told you about Predator X,
a gigantic pliosaur whose fossilized remains were found in the Arctic.
Now, after years of research, paleontologists have officially inducted
the Jurassic-era aquatic beast into the science books. Its name is Pliosaurus funkei,
a four-paddled apex predator that terrorized the seas over 147 million
years ago. But as the researchers' investigation has revealed, the
reptile was not as monstrous as initially reported. That said, it was
still one of the most terrifying animals to ever appear on Earth.
Looks like "Nessie the Plesiosaur" has finally been upstaged!
