New Analysis of Nessie and Sea Serpent Reports

Charles Paxton has written on the statistics of aquatic cryptids before and has had a new paper published in the latest issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Volume 30, Number 1). You have to become a paid up member of the Society for Scientific Exploration to access the article or wait two years for it to become free. I did get a copy from Charles having helped him on this article, so can make a few points.

The article is entitled Consistency in Eyewitness Reports of Aquatic “Monsters” and is co-authored with Adrian Shine. With Charles' permission, I include the abstract for the article below:

Little work has been undertaken on the consistency/repeatability of reports of natural historical  anomalies. Such information is useful in understanding the reporting process associated with such accounts and distinguishing any underlying biological signal. Here we used intraclass correlation as a measure of consistency in descriptions of a variety of quantitative features from a large collection of firsthand accounts of apparently unknown aquatic animals (hereafter “monsters”) in each of two different cases. In the first case, same observer, same encounter (sose), the correlation was estimated from two different accounts of the same event from the same witness. In the second case, the correlation was between two different observers of the same event (dose). Overall, levels of consistency were surprisingly high, with length of monster, distance of monster to the witness, and duration of encounter varying between 0.63 and 1. Interestingly, there was no evidence that sose accounts generally had higher consistency than dose accounts.

If you don't read the article, the one thing to take away from the abstract is the consistency between estimates of distance and size between multiple witnesses and multiple witness accounts. That, of course, does not equate to accuracy, but neither does it exclude it. Though there will be caveats, this can be taken as a positive for witness integrity rather than a negative. I say this because a low precision would not be consistent with high accuracy.

Charles' study used a dataset which was a combination of sea and lake monster reports. It would be interesting to see further results for the single case of the Loch Ness Monster. Note that this does not address the other issue of witness descriptions of what they see, which is a more complex affair than estimating a simple number.

On the cryptozoological theme, I note the same issue carries a review of a new by Karl Shuker entitled: "A Manifestation of Monsters: Examining the (Un)usual Suspects" and it is reviewed by a man well known to Nessie researchers, Henry Bauer.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

You Can't Keep A Good Monster Down

After trying to ignore the Loch Ness Monster for years and diverting potential tourists to other attractions around the area, the tourist agency, VisitBritain, has decided to recruit the monster into their services with a promotion drive in France, Holland and the USA. The ad campaign cleverly uses some themes of monster hunting as a route into promoting other aspects of Highland tourism.

Back in  2008, a bid to make the Loch Ness area a UNESCO world heritage site carefully ensured no mention of the monster was made. One would have also thought the repeated attempts of sceptics to reduce the mysterious creature to logs, waves, birds and liars would have had its effect. Evidently not, people still like monsters while bow waves and cormorants don't cut the mustard.

From my own point of view, I am ambivalent about increased tourism around the loch. The increased traffic noise on the loch is, in my opinion, a deterrent to the creatures surfacing. That doesn't mean they never surface near boats, it just means that as the noise coverage over the loch increases, open water sightings proportionally decrease.

For me, it also makes it more difficult to find secluded spots for trap cameras as tourists like to clamber along the shore lines.  On the other hand, more tourists means more potential videos and photographs - assuming this is not cancelled by the increased noise. Oh well, maybe I should only come up in the winter.

 

Frank Searle's Newsletters

This blog has brought you Rip Hepple's Nessletters and Tim Dinsdale's Operations newsletters. Now it is the turn of Frank Searle.

Back in 1969, Frank Searle arrived at Loch Ness with nothing more than a camera, a tent and a lot of hope. Seven years and several alleged monster photos later, he was elevated to the status of famous monster hunter which led to the publication of his book and the start of a quarterly newsletter sent out to a crowd of subscribers.

I haven't read all the newsletters, but they tend to start with Frank's own investigations as well as stories of other sightings from those who came to his camp. As the years pass by, the tone changes as he begins to criticise the activities of the media, commercial operations and other investigators. The last newsletter is dated December 1983 as he announces his impending departure from the loch. This final newsletter was published between the "petrol bomb" attack on Adrian Shine's boats and the fire at the Loch Ness exhibition that Frank Searle so hated.

The newsletter roster is incomplete as it lacks the issues for December 1981, all of 1982 and March 1983. The issue for 1976 is undated, so I am uncertain what may be missing for 1976 or whether the presumed missing dates elsewhere were actually published. If readers have any missing issues, feel free to send me scanned copies for inclusion.

The archive can be explored at this link.

Talking Nessie with Bruce Collins

I was again interviewed on the mysterious matter of the Loch Ness Monster by Bruce Collins and you can listen into that tomorrow. He broadcasts on West Coast People's Radio.

Who are the Monsters of Loch Ness?

With the upcoming book on Frank Searle, I was minded to follow up on a few things in advance to perhaps raising awareness of this topic. When you think of Frank, you think of personality clashes, vendettas and even vandalism and violence. However, the perhaps not so surprising thing is that this little piece of monster hunting history was only the most publicised aspect of a general thread that has run through the decades. In other words, monster hunters and ex-monster hunters are not some cosy conclave of nice but eccentric folks akin to bird spotters, but rather a microcosm of the all too inevitable failings of human nature.

Whether this sub-plot of rivalry played out in the early days of the Hunt is not so clear, but when large numbers gathered at the loch from the 1960s onwards, the ingredients for conflict also came together. Perhaps this is best summed up by Paul Harrison who went public with his views on 2001 when he wrote for the CRYPTO magazine:

To the unwary, Loch Ness is almost like some surreal real life fairy tale, tiny hamlets surrounding a huge expanse of water, exhibitions, tourist shops, whisky and the occasional ‘Monster Hunter/Researcher’ running around in search of the creature(s). To the tourist, a huge farce is played out as the so called ‘experts’ expound their own personal theories, almost demanding to be elevated to the position of world’s number one and sole expert on the matter.

Away from the tourists, these same ‘experts’ (they are indeed the only one’s who class themselves as such) appear to be hell bent on destroying not only the opinions of others but also on succinct character assassination. The reality with Loch Ness research is that it is a complete and utter mess, sighting reports (old and new) held by some and other valuable information is selfishly withheld by those who choose to keep it from the public domain, as these folks absurdly believe that their personalities are bigger than the tradition itself of the Loch Ness Monster. Virtually everything that can be postulated about the Loch Ness creature(s) has been printed in countless books, magazine articles and newspaper columns, therefore I do not intend to dwell on the subject, other than to say until serious and sensible cohesion can be brought to bear on research matters then the real search for the truth will never progress.

As for ‘lake monsters’ such as those believed to inhabit Loch Ness, perhaps the real monsters are of the human kind, whatever it is or they are that inhabit Loch Ness, they are not as mysterious as the personal politics involved in research there. Seals, boat wakes, eels, standing waves, floating logs, or just plain old hoaxes, Loch Ness will continue to be the epicentre of Dracontology and Cryptozoological matters, a great shame it could not set the ideal academic study and research example. Loch Ness is indeed the tip of the Dracontology iceberg, but its also drifting towards oblivion, a Cryptozoological subject which may be cynically dismissed by new researchers as ‘untouchable’.

When Paul speaks of those who wish to be seen as the "world’s number one and sole expert on the matter" or are "hell bent on destroying not only the opinions of others but also on succinct character assassination" I can readily empathise with that, having experienced it first hand for myself on the new platform of Internet forums.

Whether it is the same people involved in 2016 as in 2001 is not a matter I wish to pursue in this article. The point is that the problem has not gone away and it is appropriate that Paul is the author of this new book on Frank Searle entitled "The Monster Hunter - The True Story of Nessie and Frank Searle". That phrase, "the true story" implies there are things about Frank Searle that have been either omitted, exaggerated or just plain fabricated. What those are remains to be seen, but I have spoken before about Frank's unpublished second book, which was pulled after protests by Adrian Shine. That book was, until recently, available online. I note that link has gone dead, so you can now download and read the PDF from my own archives at this link.

It is a publication you should take with a pinch of salt given the high tensions of the period, but to state it is wholly fabricated is something that should also be taken with a pinch of salt. Apart from a couple of less than flattering claims made against a prominent Nessie sceptic often seen on cryptid Internet forums, the one that intrigued me most was the claim that Tim Dinsdale was at Loch Ness in April 1960 with another man with whom he later had an argument and was seen bundling into his car after he collapsed.

This sounds fanciful but is based on what a claimed local eyewitness who approached them told Searle years later. The fact that no one has stepped forward saying they were that mystery man seems to mitigate against it. Such are the claims and counterclaims of the Frank Searle story.

As a prelude to Paul's book coming out, I decided to look again at the infamous "petrol bomb" incident of August 1983. What we know of this mainly comes from those who were Frank Searle's enemies. Since the phrase "the victors get to write the history" is a truism even in the Highlands, I decided to look beyond these people. A search of the newspaper archives at the invaluable National Library of Scotland turned up two articles. The first is from the local Inverness Courier dated the 23rd August 1983. Click on the images to enlarge for reading.

The second comes from the Aberdeen Press and Journal of the 22nd August 1983.

Clearly, something happened on the 21st August 1983 when somebody lobbed a lit plastic bottle filled with petrol at a boat and somebody had daubed words against Adrian Shine on the walls of Urquhart Castle two days before. The Inverness Courier took a neutral stance in talking about an "alleged petrol bomb attack" and did not name any suspects. The Press and Journal had a similar approach but also mentions police involvement and the vandalism at the castle.

However, things get obscure beyond these newspaper clippings. A further search makes no mention of the outcome of this police investigation and no mention of Frank Searle. One can only presume the investigation fell through due to lack of evidence.

Mike Dash, Fortean researcher, wrote on this incident as he was there as a volunteer with the Loch Ness and Morar Project. He did not witness the incident at 5:30am but was there to observe the consequences. He said a female volunteer identified the man who threw the bottle from a photo of Frank Searle, but nothing came of this important witness evidence.

Combining this with Searle's account of the incident in his unpublished booklet, it would seem the police quickly visited Frank Searle at his Foyers base only to find him painting the ceiling of his small exhibition. They also asked him if he would take part in an identity parade, to which he refused since he claimed he was too well known to allow an unprejudiced procedure.

Searle's booklet makes no mention of the castle incident, let alone making a defense against it. Though he does argue against the petrol bomb incident, claiming that the idea was stupid since a molotov cocktail had to be made of glass and the waves were so high that morning they would have extinguished any flame.

A final source was a friend of Frank Searle by the name of Graeme Caisteal. He countered Mike Dash's account by claiming Frank had a prosthetic foot from his army days which would make it nigh impossible for him to clamber up to the castle and daub the walls. Perhaps, but he also said that the police found the engine of Frank Searle's boat to be stone cold and that there were a group of tourists there to vouch as alibis.

Frank Searle claimed he had an idea who perpetrated the bottle attack and claims he was set up. He does not name the person and we are left in the awkward position where Frank Searle is the obvious suspect, but evidently not obvious enough to press charges. Counter arguments can be made against such arguments as parties classed as monsters by the other party clash with all teeth bared.

As for me, I will simply await Paul Harrison's book to see what it has to say about that day on a shingle beach thirty two years ago. I do hope no one tries to block this book as they did with Frank Searle's.

Meanwhile, the envenomations will continue as personalities and agendas trump research in the great Loch Ness Monster debate!

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Scott Mardis talks Plesiosaurs

Fellow lake cryptid fan and researcher, Scott Mardis talks about cryptids as plesiosaurs on Monster X Radio. Scott is one of the leading experts on the monster of Lake Champlain, commonly known as Champ. He also runs the popular Facebook group, the Zombie Plesiosaur Society, which you can find here.

Go this link for the podcast.

Sit back and enjoy this special edition of Monster X Radio: Animal Extant, Relict Plesiosaurs with special guest Scott Mardis. 

Monster X Radio: Animal Extant is a show about general cryptozoology and possible relict extant species that may still roam among us. Hosted by Mike Richburg and Dorraine Fisher, each episode will explore the possibility of the existence of mysterious unknown creatures and those perhaps thought lost to time. Future episodes will focus on the Mokele Mbembe, The Dogman, Lake Monsters, Megalodon, Giant Birds, Large Melanistic Cats, The Jersey Devil, The Chupacabra, and many more.

Scott Mardis has been an active field investigator of the Lake Champlain “Monster” since 1992. He is a former sustaining member of the defunct International Society of Cryptozoology and a former volunteer worker in the Vertebrate Paleontology Dept. of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences (1990-1992). He co-authored a scientific abstract about the Lake Champlain hydrophone sounds for the Acoustical Society of America in 2010. He currently lives in Bradenton, Florida.

Mike Richburg was born and raised in South Carolina, where he had an encounter with a Swamp Ape in 1978 that had a profound impact on the course of his life. Mike has since been very involved with Cryptozoological Field Investigation, interviewing eyewitnesses and investigating such things as The Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp, The Fort Motte Devil, The Dogman, Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, The Rimini Goat Thief, Giant Birds and Snakes, just to name a few. Mike is very much at home in the swamps of the American Southeast, and frequents places few others would. Mike previously was a part of The Big Thicket Watch, and CryptoLogic Radio.

Dorraine Fisher lives in Florida. She is an author, photographer, and team writer and associate for the research group, The Crypto Crew, who's written numerous articles on the subject of cryptozoology.

Is the Hugh Gray Photograph a Swan?

The dog is dead, long live the swan!

In the midst of preparing a review of Darren Naish's new sceptical book,  "Hunting Monsters", I noted an opinion on the 1933 Hugh Gray photograph stating it was a picture of a swan.

The author is somewhat contradictory about the photo in that at one point he speaks of the "sheer ambiguity" of the picture yet later states with the usual sceptical certainty about these matters that it is "almost certainly" a swan. For about thirty years prior to this opinion, the prevalent sceptical view was that Hugh Gray had photographed a labrador dog swimming in the loch (or even elsewhere).

Apparently, that dog is now canem non grata (or whatever the latin is). It looks like the sceptics have finally accepted the "believers" were right about the "dog" in the picture being nothing more than an example of pareidolia (like seeing a face on a slice of toast). Don't expect them to thank us.

Now, I had actually been aware of this opinion doing the rounds on the Internet forums for a number of years. When it appeared I thought someone was having a joke. But now that someone is trying to elevate it to the ranks of not just plausible, not even probable, but certainty. In that light, it is time to expose the problems with this argument.

The first thing to note is the modus operandi of the sceptic. I have debated with and observed sceptics for over five years now and think I have a good handle on the way they try to persuade people of their arguments. To say it is all based on "logic" and "science" would be simplistic and naive. Too often, one will encounter more of the psychology, sleight of hand, straw men and ad hominems when dissecting sceptical arguments.

This particular sub-plot is no different. Observe the two pictures below which were published in defence of Darren Naish's reinterpretation of the Hugh Gray photograph. The top picture is a common image of the Hugh Gray photograph and the bottom picture is an idealised drawing of a swan in the "Hugh Gray" position.

We would be invited to note the apparently common features. The long neck, the body and the white feathered tip at the posterior. But, at best, this is a misrepresentation of the facts. At worst, it is deception. When I saw this pair of images, I asked myself two questions. The first was why they used this particular version of the Gray picture? It is a poor quality image and there is a far better one available. It is called the Heron-Allen image and is shown below against our theoretical swan.

Using this picture, we can discern some features which puts the swan interpretation on a  shaky foundation. If we zoom to the far right side, things become decidedly un-swan like. One is immediately confronted with something that looks like a fish head. Do fish heads grow out of swans' butts? Not unless genetic engineering is older than we thought! Those who unthinkingly say "pareidolia" may not have noticed that this "pareidolia" is casting a shadow on the water.

In fact, that whitish area that looked like the feathered tip of a swan's posterior is now resolved to something less substantial. It looks like spray water heading up vertically or it may be a light defect on the film. I am open to either, but it has nothing to do with swans.

A further examination of the superior Heron-Allen image betrays another problem. Where are the feathers? Try as I may, I cannot see anything that suggests feathers or anything avian. On the contrary, the image suggests a surface that is more smooth in appearance and contour.

There are other issues I would point out, but I will leave those for a follow up article as I expect an "academic paper" (I use the term loosely) to be published trying to push this fast crumbling theory. For example, someone is going to suggest (or rather tell us) that this is a double exposure and that opens a wonderful vista for sceptics as it allows them to tack on almost anything in their agenda against this picture. But that is for another day.

So why did the author use the inferior image when this superior image was available? My own opinion on this is that if the superior image was used, it would simply destroy the swan argument. The feathered tail would disappear and the curious fish head would appear. However, the more ambiguous inferior image better suits their case.

Darren Naish and his advisers on this matter know this superior image exists. Why did they not use it? After all, Steuart Campbell in his book "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence" was using it years ago. You now see what I mean by the psychological tactics of convincing readers as well as the scientific.

The second question I asked myself was why they used a drawing of a swan instead of a real one? The problem with drawings is that they can easily be drawn to fit the theory. It is no surprise that Darren Naish's swan looks like the Hugh Gray object.

Or does it? A quick use of picture software allowed me to overlay the swan drawing over Hugh Gray object. You know what? They don't even fit. If you align the neck and shoulder to fit in proportion, the problem becomes apparent. The Hugh Gray creature is far more extended that our theoretical swan. So we have a swan with a fish head growing out of its butt which is about twice as long as a normal swan. This bird gets more cryptozoological than the Nessie it is trying to get rid off!

 

CONCLUSION

Whatever you may think of the object in the Hugh Gray photograph, you should remove "swan" from your list of possibilities. I am astounded at the level of scepticism today when such explanations are trotted out with no proper due diligence on their validity. Critical thinking has grown fat, lazy and complacent in its pursuit of truth. In fact, do sceptics even believe these theories themselves or is it all a matter of getting rid of that troublesome monster?

Why Darren Naish allowed himself to be suckered by whoever he consulted on this matter is a mystery. Sceptics do not critique each other, I established that years ago. He should have asked me about this picture, but I won't be holding my breath over sceptics asking believers about anything. They hold us in too much intellectual contempt to "lower" themselves to that level!