Classic Sightings - Greta Finlay

Date: August 20th 1952
Time: noon
Location: Aldourie Pier
Witnesses: Mrs. Greta Finlay and son
Type of sighting: Head, neck and back in water

Greta Finlay was an ordinary housewife of Inverness who had an extraordinary experience - one of the closest encounters with the Loch Ness Monster. Here is her sighting in her own words (reproduced in Tim Dinsdale's book "Loch Ness Monster"):

I was sitting outside the caravan when I heard a continual splashing in the water. After several moments passed and realizing this was not the usual wash from a boat I walked round. To my surprise I saw what I believe to be the Loch Ness Monster. My son and I stood looking at this creature in amazement. Although I was terrified, we stood and watched until it submerged, which it did very quickly causing waves to break on the shore. We had an excellent view as it was so close to the shore. Its skin was dark in colour and looked very tough. The neck was long and held erect. The head was about the same width as the neck. There were two projections from it, each with a blob on the end. This was not a pleasant experience. I certainly never want to see the Monster again. My son had drawn several sketches, one of which I enclose.

This can be compared with the account given to Constance Whyte (author of "More than a Legend") just two days after her sighting:

I was so taken up with the strange appearance of the head and neck that I did not examine the rest of the animal at all closely. There were two or three humps and the total length visible would be about 15 feet. The neck was held erect, and where it met the water it enlarged to join a bulky body. The head and neck together were 2—2.5 feet in length, the head alone being about 6 inches long and of about the same width as the neck. What astonished me, apart from the hideous appearance of the head, was that there were two 6-inch-long projections from it, each with a blob on the end. The skin looked black and shiny and reminded me of a snail more than anything.

Mrs. Finlay's experience was first recorded by Constance Whyte in 1957 for her book but Dinsdale interviewed her about eight years later while he was researching his book. Here is the drawing her son Harry sketched for Whyte's book.



The reaction of Mrs Finlay to the sight of the creature was one of being terrified and paralysed with fear. Now the critic who thinks Mrs. Finlay only saw a deer would merely retort that once someone has convinced themselves that they are looking at something unusual then such a reaction will naturally follow. This may well be true but the fact that her son reacted in the same way diminishes that argument. In fact, according to Dinsdale, the lad gave up fishing after this episode.

The episode is placed about half a mile south of Aldourie Castle at the old pier and the creature was about twenty yards out in the water.

This kind of sighting is much loved of debunkers. It gives them a chance to dismiss a dramatic sighting and then turn round and say "If such a close up report can be dismissed, then what about the more distant ones?". To that end, the three sceptics I normally consult (Binns, Burton and Campbell) are unanimous that it was nothing more than a reddish brown deer. They cannot pass up on this opportunity to bolster their case.

In fact, Maurice Burton was so convinced that he also reproduced a drawing in his book of what a young buck with short stumpy horns would look like at that distance. Not surprisingly, the drawing he executed looks exactly like the Finlay drawing but with the eyes, nose and folded back ears. He even tries to explain away the grey, leathery appearance of the creature's skin with reference to the water's glistening effect.

Now finding an image of a deer on Google Images that looked like Burton's was totally fruitless. The best I could find was the two images below.




Note the height of the neck is shorter than that of the Finlay sighting. Also the ears are a bit of a stick out problem. Ears are important to a deer and are constantly rotating around like radar assessing any potential dangers. This would be especially true when they are in a vulnerable environment like water. The other problem is that these deer are standing in the water and not in the act of swimming. A swimming deer looks more like the picture below:



Note the head and neck are much lower in the water and stretched forward in the act of swimming - nothing like the Finlay account. This I presume would force the sceptic to admit that for the deer explanation to have credence then the animal must have been standing in the water. In that case, given the dimension of a typical roe deer, the depth of the water could not have been much more than 3 or 4 feet. Burton takes this up and claims that this is indeed the kind of depth at that place but the facts say differently. Consulting the 1903 bathymetric survey of Loch Ness (maps held at National Library of Scotland), the depth is more likely to be nearer 20 feet as this zoom in of the map shows:


The "22" near the centre is where the pier is drawn and indicates a sounding depth measurement done by the survey. It has a depth of 22 feet just over twenty yards out. In other words, too deep for a deer to stand in.

This is to be expected because there is a pier here and some kind of depth is required for boats to safely approach the mooring point. The "6" (6ft) to either side of the pier is perhaps what Burton intended but a deeper depth is required when deciding where to put a pier.

Apart from this problem, there is the other issue that the creature is reported to have submerged after some seconds. Not one of the three sceptics addresses this point. Deer do not submerge and disappear under the surface (unless dragged under the surface by the Loch Ness Monster). If this was a deer then it would have remained in sight for a long time or clambered onto the shore. Either way, it's identity would have quickly become apparent.

Perhaps the deer was having a heart attack and fell dying into the water? This is one ridiculous interpretation I have heard and again we see how on examining the sceptical case, things begin to fall apart. What Greta Finlay saw terrified her, her son gave up fishing because of it. If it was a deer, this would have become apparent fairly quickly as the deer did its normal thing in water.

As additional information, here is a Google Earth zoom of the pier with the circled area where I believe the witnesses were and the general direction of the beast. No options for a deer to covertly disappear behind an outcrop or dash onto shore.



Again with skepticism, it is the plausible versus the possible. A deer sounds plausible but given an examination of the facts not probable. Some may suggest a strangely floating deer fooling someone 20 yards away whilst having a coronary is still more probable than a large unknown creature in Loch Ness. At least the monster theory does not involve some strange gymnastics to force the deer to fit the data.

So the Loch Ness Monster again submerged back into the waters leaving people perplexed and mystified as to what it is that lies in those dark depths.

The Blighting of Loch Ness

Approval was given by the Highland Council yesterday for both Jacobite Cruises and the Loch Ness Centre developments to go ahead near the Clansman Hotel.

BBC Link

More details are HERE.

Now I hoped that only one at worst would be approved especially considering both sites are only a few hundred yards apart. But in a typical example of local government inefficieny, they pick both. Clearly (to me at least) this means that one of them will eventually go under as there will be too few customers spread over such a short distance. Competition dictates one will win in the end and millions would have been wasted as the other folds. Of course, I may be wrong on that score but we shall see how this pans out in the years ahead. My bet is on the one with the most cash reserves to sustain loss leading products in undercutting the competitor.

One presumes there are two reasons why the Highland Council choose both. The first is to create local jobs in this time of economic uncertainty. But that will be a temporary effect when we consider the other reason and that is increased tourist numbers to the Highlands. Once again, economic duress and high oil prices dictate that more people will currently stay in the UK for their holidays.

That too will be temporary. As people's disposable income recovers and oil prices stabilise, they will be off once again to foreign climes and our two cheek-by-jowl centres will be at each other's throats slashing prices to the bone and laying off staff in a desperate dash for a dwindling customer base.

Political expediency versus economic common sense. When did the two ever meet? Of course, there may be a third reason they were both chosen and that is a lawsuit from the losing party because their plan was just as good as the other one. That won't happen now.

Meanwhile, the third big player in the area, the Nessieland Castle Monster Centre, perhaps fearing that some of that lovely lolly may be slipping from their grasp, have jumped on the development bandwagon and submitted their own plans:

Nessieland Plans

And all this during a time when Nessie sightings are down and Nessie skepticism is high which proves to me that the main reason for all this is to cash in on a temporary increase in visitor numbers. I for one will avoid all three like the plague and support smaller businesses in the area.

Meanwhile, the beautiful shore line of Loch Ness is blighted just that bit more in the pursuit of profit ...

Nessie and Logs

There is no shortage of theories to explain the range of sightings claimed for the loch ness monster. In a series of blogs over time I will explore the various explanations put forward. But first we start not with the Loch Ness Plesiosaur or the Loch Ness Squid but the Loch Ness Log. A very unexciting and uninspiring explanation for sightings but one that is undoutedly true for a certain percentage of sightings. That this was an explanation as old as the Loch Ness Monster media sensation is clear from this 1933 photograph.



The question one needs to ask is what constitutes a sighting? For our purposes, it is a claim that something large and inexplicable was seen by one or more people in the loch (clearly a log will not explain land sightings). Inexplicable implies that the observer thought there was no explanation beyond the normal (waves, known animals, boats, etc) for the event.

However, in the domain of sightings, there are ever decreasing circles in which the inexplicability of the object increases and the gamut of normal events available to explain the event becomes increasingly improbable.

The seminal work on analysis of sightings is Roy Mackal's The Monsters of Loch Ness published in 1976. He stated that there were over 10,000 known sightings reported but not necessarily put down in print. His estimate of sightings making it onto paper was about 3,000 of which he only accepted 258 as suitable for his computer analysis. That did not mean the other ~2500 were all misidentification, but rather he felt they could be accounted for by other known effects. He preferred to take an over cautious approach in his analysis so any doubt about a sighting was given a natural reason. If there is a large creature in Loch Ness (yes there is), then it is clear that sometimes a sighting of it will be indistinguishable from logs, waves and other items. In such cases, one is obliged to go with the natural explanation even though it may not have been the actual cause - we do not know in such cases.

Now how he came by the number 10,000 I am not sure since most of it was only verbal. But we will assume that the quality of those sightings was not much different from the 3,000 that made it onto print. It is that range of 10,000 sightings (or over 270 per annum between 1933 and 1969) that we refer to in accouting for what for the phenomemon may been been.

Now it is clear even to the most ardent Nessie believer that within these thousands of sightings that some people mistook parts of trees for the monster. One may then say "How can anyone be so easily deceived?"

The answer is that normally they should not and I only expect logs to form a small part of sightings for reasons laid out below. Firstly, where do the logs come from? They in the main flow into the loch from the large number of rivers and streams that feed the loch. The tree parts could have come off their source trees naturally or by the action of men. Then they usually drift at the mercy of tides in a slow sedate manner until they are washed up on shore or sink as they slowly absorb water over weeks.

During this time, it is clear that a suitably shaped branch in certain circumstances could deceive someone expectantly looking for a monster. I don't doubt that but normally this should fool no one. A log drifts at quite a slow speed and the exceedingly long time during which the log can be observed should over time dispel any notion of a strange creature. It is in that light that log explanations normally need some other event to reinforce their credibility. They are:

1. The witness did not stay long enough to verify it was a tree.
2. The Loch Ness seiche.
3. Underwater gas eruptions.
4. The log drifts out of sight.

In the first case, if the witness(es) is driving past in a car or for some other reason cannot stay then it is possible that a log could explain what they say. Though one would normally expect an excited witness to stop and stay to watch such an event, it is conceded that some people for some reason will not stop to watch.

In the second case, there is a phenomenon common to certain bodies of water called the seiche in which wind actions on surface water will force the water to one end of the loch upon which it flows back in such a way that a standing wave may form at the surface or above the thermocline (an underwater boundary between colder and warmer water). This has the effect of making a surface object such as a log move against the prevailing wind and give the impression that the object is alive. Note however that this does not preclude the log remaining sight a long time unless reasons 1 and 4 kick in.

Thirdly, in attempting to explain some long necked sightings, it was suggested that eruption of gas from fissures or decaying material could force an underwater log to the surface, stay visible for some seconds and then sink again with no time to verify the true nature of the object. This we consider an event so rare as to be a very specialised explanation.

Finally, if the log simply drifts out of sight into a bay then again there may be no time to identify the tree but note that this is dependent on the witness' position and how quickly it drifts out of sight (which will not be quick). Note that the loch's long dimensions and lack of big bays make this witness-log-bay configuration uncommon. The deatils of each individual sighting should determine if such a theory is possible.

In summary, tree debris may sometimes look like unknown beasts but by and large will not fool people unless some other event intervenes such as the object not being in sight long enough for verification. It is expected that claimed sightings of monsters which endure for a long time are open to such an explanation but those that last less than minutes require further analysis.

Lake District Monsters

So Bownessie is the new Nessie - at least for the time being! What the recently taken picture shows is a matter of debate. By Loch Ness Monster standards, it is a pretty lumpy looking beast with four tightly clumped humps (unless the foremost hump is the lowered head/neck?).

This event got me looking in my archives and behold, I found this account of a "floating island" in Derwentwater just eight miles up the road. This is taken from The Scotsman of 27th September 1842 and goes thusly:

The Floating Island which according to “Otley's Descriptive Guide,” has emerged to the surface of Derwentwater twelve times in the last forty years, made its appearance on Thursday week in two places, abou forty yards apart, and appears to be daily increasing its dimensions. It has become a source of profit to the boatmen, as numbers of the lake visitors are anxious to avail themselves of the opportunity of having ocular demonstration of so wonderful an appearance.-- Carlisle Patriot.

This apparition appeared to be a massive vegetable mat going by other accounts - but what about Bownessie? Vegetable mats tend not to whizz around the place and submerge as quickly as they appeared, so the jury is out on the mat theory. For the time being, we await the next development.

PS

Vegetable mats do not occur at Loch Ness - the peaty composition of the loch does not allow it.

Dinsdale, JARIC and Carter

I would like to spend some time in this post and others doing something unconventional and against the trend - defend Tim Dinsdale and his milestone 1960 film of the Loch Ness Monster. The trend is to demystify and debunk, and this blog is all about swimming against the current trend.

The "avant garde" thinking is that Dinsdale filmed a boat. Well, it is not quite new thinking but a Richard Carter some years back put together a theory that Dinsdale failed to distinguish between a common outboard engine boat and an unidentified creature of large proportions. Another researcher, Adrian Shine, published his own analysis which I hope to look at in a later posting.

Richard Carter was an active Nessie hunter in the late 1990s. He believed in the monster's existence (he also didn't accept the Spurling Hoax theory about the Wilson photo) but was prepared to literally push the boat out on the Dinsdale film being misinterpreted.

His analysis of the film and the 1965 JARIC report that examined it can be found at this link and it is this critique that I wish to critique.

You may wish to read through Richard Carter's analysis or read my hopefully accurate summary which is in three points:

1. The JARIC Report's estimate of a speed of 10mph for the object is overestimated because they did not take the winding time of the cine camera into account.

2. The appearance of the object submerging is a trick of the light.

3. A filming of a suitable boat under similar conditions can look like the object in the film and hence is the most likely candidate.

The focus of this article is point one - that JARIC overestimated the speed of the object in the film. Let me explain why it is so important that the speed of the object must be less than 10mph to allow a boat explanation to be considered.

The engine in typical use in a 1960s boat would have been a Seagull 5hp outboard engine which was capable of a maximum hull speed of 5.4 knots or just under 7mph. Richard Carter understood this and knew a 10mph object in the film would cast doubt upon an typical outboard engine boat being a candidate.

How could one suggest that one of these common boats that regularly flitted across the loch could be the "monster" in the film yet be seen to be going at a speed 43% above its top speed? Clearly there was a contradiction here which had to be dealt with.

Richard Carter had a brainwave. He knew that Tim Dinsdale's cine camera had to be stopped and rewound at certain intervals as the mechanical motor winding the film through the camera ran down. He estimated this happened every twenty seconds and a rewind took twelve seconds. He suggested that JARIC had not taken this rewind time into account and hence the object in the film would apparently cover more distance as a 12 second gap was instantly leapt over in the appropriate frames. He calculated this would bring the real speed of the object down to 6.5mph - acceptable for the boat theory.

He further suggested that because Dinsdale gave instructions not to project the film but only examine frames that these time jumps would not have been apparent the JARIC experts.

So, is this all done and dusted? Can we all go home now and bin the film? Not quite yet.

First we need to ascertain some facts about the film. The first is how long it lasted. In Dinsdale's book "Loch Ness Monster" he gives a full account of his sightings and various items of information about the filming process. Richard Carter takes the book to task at this point because it apparently contradictory in its account of how long the film lasted. In one place it says 50ft of film was exposed, in another 20ft to 30ft and in another place it is said that the monster was filmed for four minutes.

I will address these apparent discrepancies at the end of this post but first we need to know something about the technical specification of the cine camera that was used. The camera used was a Bolex Cine H-16 which was capable of running 50ft or 100ft of film at one time before reloading was required. The camera could run at various frame rates but in this instance it was running at 24fps (frames per second).

From this we can infer the maximum time of possible footage that could be shot. For 50ft it would be 77 seconds and for 100ft it would be twice as long at 155 seconds.

Referring to the JARIC report, it is clear from their analysis that he had loaded 50 feet of film. I say this because they numbered the frames from 1 onwards up to 1440 and if we divide this by 24fps we get 60 seconds. Since Tim had stated that he was nearly out of film when he drove to the loch to get a closer shot, then that would be consistent with 50ft and not 100ft (Note the report mentions frames 700 to 1700 but these are rounded numbers are given as an assumption to demonstrate an arithmetical procedure).

Now if Richard Carter's analysis is correct, Tim Dinsdale would have had to stop and rewind his camera at least twice. Once at 20 seconds in the film and again at 40 seconds into the film. A third rewind is possible at 60 seconds but no further film would have been shot as he stopped to drive on.

If we break that down into frame numbers, we get possible jumps in the film at frames 480 (24fps x 20s) and 960 (24fps x 40s). Note this relies on two assumptions. Firstly that the cine camera had been fully wound and ready for action that morning. Given the account by Tim of his meticulous preparation that day, I think this is a safe assumption. Secondly that Tim rewound the film only when he had to (i.e. keep filming Nessie!).

Does the film jump at these frames? Without a copy of the complete film, I cannot say. If anyone who has a full copy of the Dinsdale film would oblige then I could take this further. But we press on.

The first problem with the Richard Carter analysis is that in his book, Tim Dinsdale says he only rewound the camera once. The quote is here:

".. firing long steady bursts of film like a machine gunner, stopping between to wind the clockwork motor."

How could he rewind once in a 60s shoot when a rewind is required every 20s? The answer is because a rewind was not required every 20 seconds. Thanks to the power of the Internet, I trawled around for a technical description of the Bolex H-16. I found one at this link and this is what it says about rewind times:

"Fully wound, the motor will drive about 18 feet of film through the camera (about 28 seconds at 24fps)."

So it seems that 28 seconds and not 20 seconds was the expected run time for a model from that period and that would agree with Dinsdale's testimony. Why did Richard Carter's Bolex not perform the same way? It may have been a later modified model but for sure not all Bolex cameras are the same.

Therefore, only one rewind would have been required at around frame 672 (24fps x 28s). However, there is a slight discrepancy here because two runs of shooting lasting 28 seconds each at 24fps gives us 1344 frames which is 95 frames short of the 1440 frames JARIC stated (or roughly 4 seconds missing). Did Tim Dinsdale managed to run his rewinds longer? I would think so given that the document quoted is not dogmatic on the precise upper limit. That puts the film break at frame number 720.

The next problem with Richard Carter's analysis follows on from this conclusion. The sequence of frames which JARIC used to calculate the speed of the creature falls outside the range of where a 30s rewind would occur (frame 720). In their analysis of the speed as the monster swam away from Tim, they state they analysed frames 1 to 384 to derive a speed of 10mph. In their second analysis as the monster was moving parallel to the opposite shore, they used frames 816 to 1440.

In other words, the jump in the film would have been missed and irrelevant to the analysis. The calculated speed of 10mph stands.

As it happens, even if two or more jumps did happen in the film, it was probably not relevant. The first jump in a 20s run occurs at frame 480, but by then JARIC had already analysed frames 1 to 384 and calculated a speed of 10mph. Furthermore, I would find it incredible that the professionals at JARIC had failed to take pauses to rewind into account. The Bolex H-16 was a well known and popular model and they must have known about this. I doubt they would have made such a schoolboy error in their calculations.

As a side note here, Richard Carter speaks of the JARIC report on the difficulty of measuring the speed of an object moving away from the observer at an elevation:

"This after they tell you the difficulty of near horizontal photography, especially the measurements in depth view."

Richard uses this to suggest that the 10mph estimate was therefore not reliable. However, he omits to quote another passage from the report which says this:

Note: Difficulties of Y measure are mentioned at para.5. and during this sequence almost all of the measure is Y measure. However, since the object is travelling on a fixed bearing relative to the shore, the point of intersection on the shore becomes a fixed reference point and measures become more reliable. Moreover, the speed has been calculated from observations on 5 separate frames and the given speed is the sensibly LOWEST speed from these observations.


Note, 10mph is estimated at the lower range of their estimates - the creature coulsd have been travelling faster than this. So, the estimate is reliable and the techniques of the JARIC team are further vindicated by the fact that they estimated the speed of the boat Tim had sent out later as a control footage as 6.5mph which agreed well with Dinsdale's own estimate of 7mph as he paced the boat in his car.

But what about the apparent discrepancies of 50ft, 20-30ft and 4 minutes in the book's account? These are not difficult to explain. The 50ft relates to the entire length of film shot including the test boat footage. The 20-30ft is the estimate of how much monster footage was shot though my own estimate suggests the number is closer to 38 feet but it is no more than an estimate which Tim Dinsdale clearly did not see the point in pinpointing accurately for a general audience of readers.

As for the four minutes, Richard Carter wonders what Tim Dinsdale may have hidden or cut out if the footage lasted so long but in the same breath he says that four minutes would have been impossible to film (which I agree with). One can't suggest two contradictory things in the same paragraph.

But then again, the film lasted one minute but the book says he shot four minutes of film - which is clearly wrong. What I suggest is that the entire filming process lasted four minutes but that does not include actual footage time. I speculate that the missing three minutes came during the rewinding of the motor previously discussed. Without the full footage to examine, I cannot be certain, but it is a reasonable hypothesis. Why would Tim Dinsdale take three minutes to rewind the cine camera when it should only take a tenth of that time? In the excitement and tension of such an event, it is easier to take longer over things. Perhaps he had finger trouble, a temporary mechanical problem arose or he was distracted by something. It is hard to pinpoint an exact explanation but the film footage ought to show up a three minute gap in this case.

The analysis seems clear to me. The estimated speed of 10mph calculated by JARIC stands and this is a problem if you think the object in the film is a common boat.

Let me finally say something about Dinsdale's reputation in the eyes of others. All say, despite his alleged cock up on the filming front, he was not to blame for any deception, was as fooled as anyone was but nevertheless he rendered an invaluable service to monster hunting. To the last sentiment I would agree.

However, I do detect an undercurrent of criticism which needs to be answered. I already mentioned the 4 minute criticism and the suggestion of something being hid - that is not true.

Another person who thinks the object is a boat claims that Tim Dinsdale could not have driven down to the shore in the few minutes he claimed. This is said because they tried it and took them ten minutes. If you read Dinsdale's account, he seems to have driven like a maniac, blaring his horn and then running for his life to the shore. I would say that the person probably did not drive or run in the manner Tim did (he may have been arrested for dangerous driving!). What obstacles lay in one's way in 1960 as opposed to now is also an open question.

Finally, Tim Dinsdale's widow, Wendy, seems to come in for a hard time when she refuses to allow her husband's film to be examined or put on public websites. If those websites were to use the film to prove her husband wrong then her actions do not surprise me. That doesn't mean she thinks it is a fake, only because the recipients of the film do. I would also point out that Tim Dinsdale's son, Simon, publicly stated the film was the monster only a few months ago. If he thought his father had shot a boat, I doubt he would have come forward with those statements.

So much for the speed of the creature in the film. Richard Carter appears to have dropped out of the Loch Ness scene, but there are others objections raised against the film today which I hope to cover in later posts.

Classic Sightings - Marjory Moir

Date: October 12th-15th 1936
Time: afternoon
Location: Three miles north of Foyers
Witnesses: Mrs. Marjory Moir and four others.
Type of sighting: Head, neck and back in water

The first classic sighting I posted here a few months back was the Spicer's controversial land sighting which generated quite a debate on forums which picked up on the posting. Let's hope this one generates less heat!

Marjory Moir and her family were witness to one of the best sightings of the monster having a clear view of it for some minutes. It is a classic sigthing by all accounts. The sighting was first reported in the 17th October edition of the Inverness Courier which stated that the:

Loch Ness Monster seen by a party of ladies near Abriachan last week. Mrs
Marjory Moir, her sister Miss Fraser, & Mrs Grant, Ardlarich, Culduthel Road,
who was driving. Three humps were seen moving at great speed ...

The account was subsquently reported in the national Scotsman paper nine days later.

After the frenzy of the 1930s, her sighting was documented in Constance Whyte's More Than A Legend after she wrote to the author in April 1955. Evidently, Whyte and Moir were on first name terms as local residents because she states that she had related the tale to Mrs. Whyte often.

Five years later as Tim Dinsdale was writing his book, she wrote again (presumably in answer to a letter from Dinsdale) and I reproduce that letter below:

One October afternoon a friend took my sister, mother-in-law, my young daughter and myself for a little trip by car to Foyers. On the return journey, at a place where the road runs very close to the loch, about three miles from Foyers, my sister suddenly shouted, 'Look, there's the Monster'. We all got out of the car and ran to the water's edge. There, before us, at a distance of one third the width of the loch away from us, was this wonderful creature. It was a perfect view, if we had a camera the most convincing picture of the Monster ever taken could have been obtained, but alas! we had neither camera nor binoculars.

The sky was grey, the loch was grey and the silhouette of the creature was a very dark grey against the lighter background. A perfect setting. There were three distinct humps, a long slender neck ending in a small head, and the overall length appeared to me thirty feet approximately. I could see no details of eyes, mouth, etc. but the outline was all beautifully clear — the three humps, head and neck — (I shall enclose a sketch for you). The middle hump was the highest, the one behind the neck the smallest, and the in-between size was at the back, sloping in a graceful line down to, and under, the water. The creature was quite stationary, and often dipped its head into the water, either feeding or amusing itself.

We watched in awe and amazement, for about 5-8 minutes; then suddenly it swung round away from the shore, and shot across the loch at a terrific speed, putting up a wash exactly similar to that I saw in your film. All the time I could see a small dark spot, perhaps the highest hump, perhaps the head. When it eventually came to rest I noticed the humps had disappeared; the back was now more or less straightened out, but the neck and head were as before. The creature was in full view for 14 minutes. I have no idea how much of the body was underneath the water, but what we saw was a huge creature, evidently very powerful, graceful and quite at ease on and in the water. A thrilling experience — I actually saw the Loch Ness Monster, resting, and travelling at speed, I saw the humps, then the straightened out back, my 'Water Horse' in truth at last.

You can now — I hope — understand why your film was of such absorbing interest to me, so much in it was exactly what I saw and remember so vividly. One more thing — the composite picture shown at the end of your film was the same in every detail as the Monster I saw in October, 1936, even to the approximate length.

Quite a sighting by any measure especially with the creature in view for a full 14 minutes - a virtual eternity for the monster. The drawing she sent was reproduced in Dinsdale's book and is shown below.

Comparing the two letters there is not much difference between them. However, the Whyte letter says that after speeding towards Urquhart Castle it returned to the same spot it had first been sighted. One other difference is that the Dinsdale letter implies that the three humps had straightened out as if the back was flexible whereas the Whyte letter merely says the humps were not so much in evidence.

The Courier article however gets it wrong in saying the witnesses were near Abriachan which is on the opposite side of the loch. Sometimes reporters don't transmit everything perfectly ...

The other thing I like about this case is that it involves five women which I think adds to the authenticity of the sighting. In fact, let's face it, every Nessie hoax ever perpetrated was done by men. Women may not be perfect either, but when it comes to the Loch Ness Monster, they are untainted!

In fact, this sighting is not easy to debunk. Waves don't speed across the loch and return to where they begun - even the newly discovered underwater waves called the seiche could not do this to a log which just happened to look like three humps and a long neck. This is stretching things further than Nessie's neck!

Nothing seems to fit unless we fall back on the tired explanations of birds, otters which are somehow were warped into 30 foot monsters. In these days of skepticism, it is easy to lose sight of these classic sightings and the persuasive power of them. We read books which go through some sightings likely to have doubts about them, a somewhat plausible (but not probable) explanation is given and it is then stated generally that all Nessie sightings can be explained like this.

One should not be fooled by this logical fallacy. If one sighting is allegedly explained away, it does not follow that the rest automatically follow. As it happens, none of the books on Nessie which are skeptical of a new, unclassified creature mention the Moir sighting.

Perhaps it was a case too hard to crack for them.

More Tourism Wars at Loch Ness

The tourist wars hot up again at Loch Ness as the owners of the Loch Ness Centre and Jacobite Cruises clash over the development of visitor facilities only 800m apart on the north part of the shore. Robert Bremner who owns the once named "Official Loch Ness Exhibition Centre" in Drumnadrochit is not long out a legal wrangle with the once named "Original Loch Ness Exhibition" over naming rights and the potential confusion for visitors to this small town.

But having cleared that hurdle he now wishes to extend tourist facilites opposite the Clansman Hotel but tactically he is at a disadvantage as the Jacobite Cruises proposal (see picture below) is ahead of the game and was going to receive council approval first before his plans two months later. Bremner is set to appeal for both plans to be considered at the same time as not surprisingly the two plans are so similar and so close to each other. As I write this it looks like he has got his way as the council defers any decisions subject to further site inspections.



Now tourism is good for the local economy but too much tourism is bad - one only has to take a look at noisy, rubbish strewn Loch Lomond to see that. Loch Ness has been shielded from a similar fate due to it being much further north from the densely populated centre of Greater Glasgow from which you can reach Loch Lomond in less than an hour. Loch Ness is a three to four hour drive and hence prohibitive for a Glasgwegian day out.

Thankfully, Loch Ness is largely devoid of tourist traps, jet skis roaring across the loch and ignorant tourists leaving a trail of debris. On the other side of the loch, the topology and tightness of the roads precludes any large scale development. The two Loch Ness exhibitions just mentioned are well away from the shore line in Drumnadrochit but the two new proposals are "in your face" shore line developments. The commercial win of a shoreline development is clear as no one can see the loch from the Loch Ness Centre and a cup of tea on a Jacobite Cruise ship would be less comfortable than in their proposed visitor centre.

So what do I think of these two proposals? It is ironic in this Nessie-skeptical age that anyone would see fit to commit large sums of money to Loch Ness but clearly the two parties see big cash potential in what they are doing as Loch Ness scenically has a lot to offer. Ideally, I would prefer any development to build upon currently developed ground as we have it at the Clansman Hotel. This would minimise the impact on the shore line and would favour Bremner's plans. However, in the interests of competition and avoiding anyone trying to dominate the Loch Ness tourist scene, I would prefer to see Jacobite Cruises win and introduce some competition in goods and services. However, their proposal involves violating more virgin ground and adding to the tourism skyline.

One thing I would hate to see is both proposals being approved which considering their close proximity would be crazy and I suspect would be detrimental to the bottom line of both companies. For now, I lean slightly towards Jacobite Cruises.

Meanwhile as the big tourist players at Loch Ness vie for the upper hand, a word of congratulations to the Old Manse B&B at Invermoriston which has been voted best B&B on the planet by users of Trip Advisor. See BBC news article here.

Book Review: "Loch Ness, Nessie and Me"

Having looked at the very first book on Nessie in my previous posting, the latest book on the Loch Ness Monster by Tony Harmsworth was published some weeks back and I have recently obtained my own copy to read and review here. Details on the book were previously mentioned here.




As the title suggests, the book covers a history of Loch Ness from geological times thru the times of turbulent Scottish history with a mention of the folklore that was previously attached to the loch. The majority of the book is of course devoted to the time Tony spent there as the brains behind the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre and subsequent ventures as a Loch Ness Bus tour guide and at Fort Augustus Abbey and as a plain old resident overlooking Loch Ness for nigh on thirty years.

As you can imagine, he has a lot to say and for those interested in Loch Ness and its creature, it is a fascinating read as he recalls his times with well known Loch Ness figures such as Rines, Dinsdale, Shine and a host of others. To even the most knowledgeable Nessie-phile there is plenty to read that is new as well as facts that were forgotten and one needs reminding of.

There is also the human side and Tony recounts his highs and lows at the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre, his having to start again after leaving the Centre and later being laid low by a stroke. If any good thing can come out of this malady it was that he managed to finally finish the book he had been planning for years and which we now have the chance to enjoy.

As for Nessie, of course, many a page is devoted to the dark denizen of the Loch and Tony examines the various photos, films and eyewitness reports from a critical point of view. Such a task necessitates a biopic of his own journey of belief in Nessie from standard plesiosaur to something less exciting but nevertheless more probable in his view (he also recounts a sighting of his own which he feels is not so easily explained away by modern explanations).

From a personal point of view, I can sympathise with Tony's triumphs and tragedies and also with the thrill of those early days when there was a huge saurian beast awaiting final discovery in Loch Ness. We both started out plesiosaur believers but have both drifted in different directions. Tony now takes a view that is more skeptical while my own is still in that area where logicians disdain to tread.

Nevertheless, a welcome addition to my Loch Ness Library considering the low grade stuff that tends to permeate the real and virtual book shops and one I would heartily recommend to others.

The First Book on Nessie

A Happy New Year to any visitors as we look into Nessie past and present again.

I am an avid collector of Nessie books and naturally the very first publication on Nessie is one that would excite the imagination. Unless someone wishes to correct me, I believe there were four books of varying sizes and depth published on the monster in 1934. I am aware on none being published in 1933.

After comparing and contrasting these four books I believe the first was the one entitled The Home of the Loch Ness Monster written by Lieutenant Colonel W. H. Lane and published in March or April 1934. The publication date is not given but a foreword by Mr. Lane is dated 11th March 1934 from his home on the shores of Loch Ness at Tigh-na-Bruach. I published a blog on the author himself previously which you can read here. The cover of the book is shown below.



It is a small work of eighteen pages printed by Grant & Murray Limited of Edinburgh in conjunction with the Moray Press. There is one illustration and one map contained therein and there are two themes to the book as the title suggests. One is the monster and the other is its home, Loch Ness.

To the first subject, Lane devotes half the pages and puts up a defense of his theory that the creature is a giant salamander. To back up this view from eyewitness testimony he cites the case of a witness to the creature in the River Ness in February 1932 who describes seeing a six to eight foot beast which looked like a crocodile, but had "wicked pig-like eyes" on the top of its head. It had a long jaw and a number of round teeth visible filling the mouth. It was noted, critically to Lane, that it had no neck to speak of and had to half-turn its body when it turned its head. It slowly paddled upstream against the strong spate of the river and swam out of sight.

We now know the witness was a Miss K. MacDonald and the matter of short/no neck appearances has happened a number of times in Loch Ness lore. I would not presume to suggest we have two mysterious beasts in Loch Ness but not knowing with any certainty what the monster is leaves such a question very much open.

Lane then addresses the supposed long neck and head and examines the Spicer land sighting but asks us to consider that it was the tail and not the neck being observed there and elsewhere since it could not be ascertained with certainty that any eye nose or nostril was visible - which is a reasonable argument given the often breif and distant nature of a typical head and neck sighting.

Finally he (unfortunately) uses the now discredited tracks found by Wetherell as a proof since they fit so well with the spoor of the salamander.

The second part flows from the first when he asks how such a beast got into the loch and here he moves into his other interest of ancient history. His map puts forth the theory that there was once a grand trunk river that flowed along the great glen and formed tributaries which we now know today as the Tay, Tyne and even Thames and so on.

This he believed to have been a pre-glacial feature inhabited by man along its mighty banks. After this he discusses the possible migratory patterns of man and animals as they recolonized the area after the great melt. He adds that the North Sea was once a plain which this river flowed through as men and animals followed its banks back to Scotland.

Make of that what you will, I am no expert in Highland geology. But the book takes its place in Loch Ness lore and my own quest to obtain a copy was a long wait. I saw it first for sale on eBay perhaps in 2005 but was outbid to the tune of hundreds of pounds by a more enthusiastic collector. When another copy appeared on eBay a year or two ago, I was prepared to bid high but ended up getting it for £10! All good things come to them that wait ...

I shall look at the second book on Nessie ever published in a later blog.

Tim Dinsdale's Son on Nessie

BBC Cambridge broadcast their program "Inside Out East" and did a feature on Simon Dinsdale and his belief in the Loch Ness Monster (pictured below on the left). We know about his father's famous footage and I was interested in what he had to say about this and Nessie in general.



First he had no doubt that his father had seen the monster. Any talk about fakes or boat misidentification do not wash with him. If his father had reconsidered and decided it was a boat, his son did not know anything about it and in my opinion would not in good conscience have appeared on the program. So it looks like Tim believed he saw the monster to his dying day.

Simon also mentioned two sightings he had. One was of a black object sitting on the loch which he and his family saw but not his dad, who I presume was driving!

The second sighting I already knew about from later editions of Tim Dinsdale's "Loch Ness Monster" book. In 1970, they were in choppy waters near Urquhart Castle and then a long pole like object appeared out of the water which sped past them before submerging again.

The interviewer suggested a tree (perhaps in one of those strange skeptical scenarios being propelled to the surface by gases!) but Simon said nothing was found on a search. It's always good to hear eyewitness testimony especially being held with conviction years later.

The account itself is recounted in Tim Dinsdale's book "Monster Hunt" aka "The Leviathans". Here it is:

"On August 30th, while out drifting at the mouth of Urquhart Bay late one afternoon, I spotted a tall, fat 'telegraph pole' sticking up from the water, perhaps half a mile distant. I shouted 'look at that' to my eldest son and Murray Stuart, another experienced monsterhunter, who were standing in the cockpit, as I dived into the cabin for my binoculars. It was choppy at the time, and equipment was safely cushioned on the seats. I heard both comment excitedly ... 'My God, look at it go.'

In a matter of seconds the object had streaked across the water, disappearing behind a promontory near Urquhart Castle. It was such a brief experience - and there had been no time to focus cameras - but it had been entirely real. Starting the motor, we plunged through the choppy water but found no evidence of anything on the surface. Discussing the sighting, we concluded it must have been the head and neck of one of the larger animals. It must have stood ten feet at least out of the water. My son's eyesight is exceptional, and Murray sketched the object he had seen which he declared thickened near the water, curving slightly at an angle when moving fast.

My own view was momentary; and since I did not see the movement or the curvature, I believed the neck was moving away from us when first sighted, Then it must have turned to the right just I went into the cabin."

Now don't tell me ... they all were fooled by a bird that took fright and skittered quickly across the water. Ten years watching the loch obviously counts for nothing!


The programme can be viewed until I think the 21st December on the BBC iPlayer at this link.

Video on Nessie Hunting "Basics" II

I shot this video at Foyers Pier in July and talked about how I "monster hunted". A basic discourse, nothing about setting up underwater camera and sonar. Just the basics!

And, no, Nessie did not break surface as I filmed unfortunately. The first video of this series can be found here.

New Book on The Loch Ness Monster

Tony Harmsworth, former curator of the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre has published a book on Loch Ness, Nessie (as others and himself sees her) and his life living at the side of Loch Ness.



Further details can be had from his website and once someone buys it for my Christmas, I will review it!

The Latest Nessie Photos

The latest Nessie pictures are out and the obvious question is it Hoax, Misidentification or Nessie? I wouldn't like to say but the account by the witness Richard Preston is as follows from the STV website:

Richard Preston, who has redesigned the castle grounds on the loch’s southern shores, snapped the image of a mysterious three-humped object on the water.

“I am not saying it is the monster. But I don’t see any reason why it cannot be some sort of a sea-going beast,” Mr Preston said.

The 27-year-old Yorkshireman, who is based at Broughton Hall near Skipton, was working at the castle when something close to the opposite shore caught his attention at about 3pm. “It was a glimmer,” he said. “It was like a reflection. The rest of the water was still and dark. It was quite odd.”

Mr Preston snapped a series of images on his mobile camera but when he turned around, the mystery object had disappeared.

“I was gobsmacked,” he said. “I have been working here for the last two or three years and have never seen anything like it.”

Naturally, the sceptics hold Mr. Preston to his initial words and say it is a reflection of the house on the opposite side of the shore (but why is the other house not reflecting?). The width of the phenomemon even looks the same as the house. The shadows on the grounds of Aldourie Castle also indicate the sun is somewhere behind him making the reflection hypothesis plausible.

The other point to note is that the object is white and Nessies tend to be dark in colour. Okay, pack up and go home? Well, maybe not quite.

One of the snaps (three I think) is below (copyright Richard Preston). The second is my zoom in.





The zoom is quite pixellated but its shows two things. First is the three part nature of the phenomemon which has prompted a three hump interpretation and secondly the the three dark lines which are seen above the "humps" from the observer's point of view suggested as shadow by some.

Now one could presume the dark lines are the house roof being reflected but my rudimentary physics suggests that should be "below" from the observer's point of view. But then again since the sun is shining behind the observer then that is where shadow would be if it was a raised object.

Can a reflection of a fairly uniform structure like a house produce this segmented effect? No doubt a critic would say "yes" via some mirage effect adding a shimmer effect. There is always a plausible yet perhaps not probable explanation for these things. Mirages do occur on Loch Ness. It is all down to when the picture was taken and the ambient weather conditions.

As for the shadow effect, This needs further explanation beyond the obvious one of a real shadow cast by a real object. Over to the sceptics who specialise in optics!

The DeNessiefication of the Loch Ness Centre

Take a look at the two flyers for the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit.



The one on the left I picked up at Edinburgh Airport a few days ago. The one on the right I picked up at Loch Ness in the early 1980s. Can you spot the difference already? The latest one has no mention of Loch Ness' most famous attraction, the right leaves you in no doubt about it. This is what I call the "denessiefication" of the place formerly known as "The Official Loch Ness Monster Exhibition".

In fact, looking inside the new brochure, they seem to go out of their way to not say much about Nessie at all. The tenor of the exhibits is certainly gauged to steer visitors away from any notion that Loch Ness may harbour a large creature. It was no surprise to learn that Adrian Shine, Nessie Skeptic, wrote much of the exhibit material. In fact, the only time the word "Nessie" appeared was in connection with the shop which visitors are inevitably funnelled into at the end of the exhibition.

Contrast with the old brochure which can't stop talking about Nessie! The opening words are these:

"Opened in 1980, the Exhibition has forced sceptics to take Nessie SERIOUSLY."

Ironically, the Centre has now joined the sceptics and leads them!

More on David James

Continuing our intermittent tour of Tarasay House on Mull where the David James, Member of Parliament and Nessie Hunter lived we come to the press clippings.

Two rooms are devoted to Nessie memorabilia in the stately home. I have already shown the famous Sir Peter Scott painting of two Nessies in a seperate post but David James was also an avid collector of Loch Ness press clippings.

The first one shown here takes me back to 1975 when the famous head and neck Rines photographs hit the front page of newspapers worldwide. It was quite a furore and the press picked it up with glee.



But the formation of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau in which he played a large part also features in his clippings as this clipping from 1962 shows.



David James also contributed articles on the Loch Ness Monster and these were collected as well. This one was a reprint in some magazine originally written for The Field magazine on November 23rd 1961. The resolution on the image is good enough to zoom in and read the article yourself. There is also a small clipping there which mentions the well known film taken of a possible Nessie around that time by I think Dick Raynor (though he has since decided it was birds).

Frank Searle

Does anyone raise the hackles of the typical Nessie believer more than Frank Searle? Exposed as a hoaxer and general charlatan, he has earned a place in the annals of Nessie Lore for all the wrong reasons.

Since revisionism of Nessie icons is "Plat Du Jour" then why not Frank Searle? Perhaps his reputation is 100% unreformable, but let us see how far I get.

To begin on a personal note, I have had three involvements in the Frank Searle story. The first was when I met him personally in 1982. I was a student who cycled up to Loch Ness to the Altsigh Youth Hostel for a week of "Nessie Hunting". I made my way to his base at Foyers and came upon a rather tatty looking caravan and had a look for him inside. The walls were covered with various clippings, monster-like photos and notes by Frank. Nothing that excited the imagination so I went outside to see him making his way towards me smoking a cigarette. I introduced myself and we chatted about the monster scene. I can't remember now all what we said but there was a bit of the "them and me" about his situation with other "hunters".

Unbeknown to me, his time there was numbered and he was to be gone within a year or so. Around that time, I was in Glasgow coming out of a city centre library and got talking with a lady who knew Frank Searle and defended him against his adversaries. She gave me a booklet by him which turned out to be a book which had been pulled from publication. It was quite a diatribe against Loch Ness personalities known and still active today but I will come back to that later.

Finally and years later I was in contact with Andrew Tullis who was making a documentary about Frank Searle and asked me if I had any idea where he was. I did not, but I volunteered to look around Edinburgh in case he was still in Scotland. I drew a blank but Andrew did not as a speculative ad in a treasure hunting magzine led to his home in Lancashire but ironically he had only died a few weeks before. You can find out all in his documentary "The Man who Captured Nessie".

Fate had conspired to deny Frank Searle a final word on TV but we have his final book.

I was not minded to put my copy out on the Internet but someone else did and it can be found here courtesy of Mike Dash who writes on Frank here. It seems that Frank Searle, being dead, yet speaketh. A second link for Frank's booklet is also here.

So now is the time to review possibly the most controversial book on Nessie and her believers and skeptics called Loch Ness Investigation: What Really Happened.

The backdrop to the short book is warfare. War between Frank Searle and those stationed on the other side of the Loch at Drumnadrochit. Those under fire include Adrian Shine, Tim Dinsdale and others still around today. One is even insinuated as a sexual pervert, others as money grabbers and all as generally unsavoury. He counter-accuses those who accuse him of an attempted Molotov Cocktail attack on their boat. Clearly this is a book where one has to tread carefully else libel may be the dish of the day.

Now his accusation of profiteering on Nessie is hardly a revelation. Loch Ness is a major tourist attraction (even more so then) and this will inevitably attract entrepreneurs. That is nature of capitalism and free enterprise. Just because he quotes some metaphorically salivating at that prospect is really neither here nor there.

Nessie equals money, full stop. I don't take a purist view on this, I just ignore it. Unlike some, I have not given up my job to look for Nessie and so do not feel the pressure to supplement any pension or savings I may be relying upon with freelance Nessie work.

Frank tries and sets himself apart and aloof from this but this smacks of the hypocritical if he was already faking pictures for media money. The matter of Tim Dinsdale is interesting in this respect as he accuses him of asking for a fee equivalent to at least £2000 in today's money to act as a professional guide for a Japanese TV team over to make a documentary.

Now this I tend to believe. As I said, no one is a 100% liar or a 100% truth teller all the time. Some of what he said is by implication true - but what?

Dinsdale proferring his services for money? Why not I say? We need to dismiss this image of monster hunters as people detached from human nature and puritanically focussed on the big prize of the irrefutable picture or film to the exclusion of all else.

Frank Searle is of course the perfect example with his live in lovers and his story about decking Nicholas Witchell when he discovered him snooping around his base. Big deal, I say.

Drug taking and booze sessions amongst the student volunteers of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau? Is that all? What about orgies I ask? Well, perhaps that is going too far but that was the Hippy 60s after all.

Human nature red in tooth and claw. Frank Searle helps dispel any notion we may have that Nessie hunting is akin to a bit of congenial bird spotting in a leafy booth. I won't accept his more extreme suggestions but in general there is a grain of truth in some of his observations. Nessie people, like Frank Searle, are imperfect. We just have to take a look at ourselves to begin to appreciate that.

So, if anyone says Frank Searle was a 100% liar, take it with a pinch of salt.

UPDATE: As it turns out, Monster Researcher, Paul Harrison, did locate Frank before his death and conducted interviews with him that he intends to publish this year. Watch this space.

You can also find an archive of Frank Searle's newsletters here.

The Seagull and the Surgeon's Photograph

Is there a seagull present in the Surgeon's Photograph? The thought never occurred to me until some years back when I read Edward Armstrong's book called "Sticking My Neck Out" which primarily focusses on the "escaped elephant" theory of the Loch Ness Monster. There is however a section on the idea that a seagull can be seen flying near to the left of Nessie in the famous 1934 picture.

The problem is that you are not likely to see this on any image you may care to consult apart from the one reproduced in Constance Whyte's book "More than a Legend" published in 1957. Armstrong quotes Whyte from her book who says that the chemist who developed Wilson's photographs made a second negative for himself and a print of the second less well known photograph. It is from this second negative that Whyte produced her print for the book.

This led Armstrong to postulate that there were three negatives.

Negative 1: The original bought by the Daily Mail which is probably now lost.
Negative 2: A copy made of the original by the chemist.
Negative 3: A replacement for the lost original made form a print perhaps in 1934.

Based on this theory, he suggested that negative 3 produced a higher contrast image that blotted out the bird image.

Armstrong took the Whyte image and zoomed in on this feature in his book and the image does indeed look like a bird in flight. That image is reproduced below though it is not of great quality because it is an enlarged photocopy printed onto a self published book which lacks the quality of a professional print. Nevertheless, Armstrong calculates that if this is indeed a standard sized bird then the length of the neck has to be at least seven feet and not the 12 inches of the Spurling confession.

To verify this with the aid of modern PC technology, I scanned in the photo from my own copy of the Whyte book and zoomed in for a closer look which is shown below. The image is somewhat different but you get the same impression of a bird in flight.

What do we make of this? Is it a bird or is it something added later such as a defect on the print? How does one distinguish between these two cases? If it is a bird then the Spurling hoax theory is untenable, if it is a defect we just move on.

Just to prove that Nessie believers do not swallow every pro-monster idea, I tend to the idea that it is a defect on the print. You will notice on my own scanned picture that there are darker areas to the left and right of the bird image which are not apparent on Armstrong's photocopy version. The fact that they can form a straight line suggests they are part of the same thing - a defect. Armstrong himself thought there may be a second bird which I presume to mean the mark to the left of the main bird image.

In fact the lesser known photo in the Whyte book also has a similar defect in a similar area which backs up this argument. (Note that despite all this Nessie skeptics doubt these two pictures came from the same four plates).

What do others think?

More on Torosay House

I posted something on David James' house with its Nessie exhibits a while back (see link).

But here is a delightful object which I photographed when we first entered the house and alerted me to the Nessie possibilities of the place.



The image is a bit shaky but the form is unmistakeable as a model of Nessie or to be more precise the Nessiteras Rhombopteryx version of Nessie. You can see the tail to the right and the lowered head to the left.

It appeared to me to be a plaster cast of some sort and the flippers you can see were damaged in the past but repaired. I imagine it was made in the late 1970s during the media hype concerning the Rines photographs which inspired the Sir Peter Scott painting from which I think the model is derived.

(I have since found out the item was sculpted by Lionel Leslie).

The Plausible versus the Probable

This blog occasionally (always?) takes on what is the new trend in Skepticism. It has always been around a long time but currently it is making more noise than usual and it is no surprise that Loch Ness Monsters should come under their cannon fire.

Recently I have been defending the Spicers who claimed in 1933 to have seen Nessie cross the road (to get to the other side no doubt).

If one is a skeptic then it is bad enough to suggest large entities inhabit Loch Ness - but to also forage onto land offends logic in the extreme!

I thought I had laid to rest any notions of otters or deers crossing in front of the Spicers but Alexander Lovcanski put out an interesting piece that the Spicers saw a mirage enhanced otter that day. His analysis is here.

Okay, it deserves to be aired and analyzed. I put some questions to Alexander and then went away and thought about it.

I asked myself a seemingly simple question. What was the probability of the Spicers and this misidentified otter coming together in such a way to produce this effect? Or to put it more precisely - Nessie hit the news in April 1933 and the Spicers had their experience four months later in July 1933. What was the probability of otter, car and conditions confluencing in this miragical manner within the 81 days between the first public announcement of a sighting (the May 2nd edition of the Inverness Courier and the Spicers' encounter on July 22nd)?

I did some sums and came up with my own answers. The odds against it happening in that four months was about 2330 to 1 against. In other words, it was not at all likely to have happened. I have laid out the calculations at the end of this post for those who may want to suggest improvements in my assumptions.

I would add that changing the figures to lower the probabilities will present another problem to the skeptic. If one make the event more probable then over 77 years why have there not been more such misidentifications on land?

Now the retort may be that this is still more likely than a lumbering antediluvian crossing a road. But isn't that what the debate is all about? If you believe there is a large entity in Loch Ness then a land excursion moves from the impossible to the probable (depending on what you think it is). If you don't believe in such an entity, obviously no road crossing will ever occur.

But let us learn this lesson. Something may be plausible, but then ask yourself - is it probable?

CALCULATIONS

Calculate the probability of seeing an otter at the right position on the road
at the right distance in the right weather conditions between April and July 1933!

1. Otter Population around Loch Ness

Let us assume an even distribution of otters around Scotland's shores and a recent article estimated 7,000 otters live in Scotland.

Coastline of Scotland = 11800km - 16491km (depending how accurate you wish to be)
Coastline of Loch Ness = say 1% of Scottish coastline
7000 otters in Scotland - say 1% proportionately at Loch Ness = 70

The otter population suffered under hunting and pollution but has been on the increase in recent years so double for larger otter population in 1930s = 140

2. Number of times an otter crosses the road on Loch Ness during day = 0.5

This is not so easy to assume. Most otter activity is at dawn/dusk and near water courses so a 4pm crossing near dry ground is most unlikely. But for the sake of this study we will assume an even distribution of otter activity but a daytime crossing is still a rare event.

3. Road perimeter of Loch Ness = 85km = 85000m

Eliminate 55% off road which does not pass Loch side = 38250m
35% is Between Fort Augustus and Foyers 10% is around Drumnadrochit
Eliminate 10% which is too high above shore for otters to traverse
A lot of otters are never seen because the roads are not near the shore or the road is high above the water.

So drop the number of otters to account for the lack of road:
Correspondingly drop number of otters = 77

4. How much of the remaining road is conducive to the special mirage conditions of the article?

The requirement is a gently ascending road over 100-200m. I have driven around the Loch quite a few times and a lot of road is bends, long stretches. So not a lot of opportunity but we will be generous and say:
Number of "mirage points" on perimeter (i.e. a hump on an undulating road) = 1
per 4km = 10 overall

5. Where the otter lies is crucial.

If it is too far from the dip horizon on either side then the mirage will not happen. That is why the range is only 1m or +/- 0.5m either side:
Otter has to be laterally within 1 metres of the "mirage zone" to work or 10 * 1m
zones in total = 10m


6. The otter has to be at beginning of "run" to have the desired effect

Or the sighting will be over in a flash. It is no use being half way or near the end at point of first sight:
Probability of otter about to cross the road = length of otter / length of road = 1.1/3.3 = 0.33

So combining all these "otter" factors together:
Probability that one of the 77 otters will cross one such area in one daylight
period = 77 * 0.5 * 0.33 * 10/38250 = 0.0033

7. What proportion of the daylight hours will be best for mirage conditions?

If it is nearing dawn/dusk then the temperature difference between the road surface and air above will not be high enough so for an average 12 hours of daylight deduct 6 hours:

Probability of good daylight mirage hours = 6/12 = 0.5

So otter crossing mirage area probability reduces to 0.5 * 0.0033 =
0.0017 in one day.

Now onto the other party - the car driver.

8. Assume car has to be at a dip approaching this hump for mirage to be effective.

Assume number of dips = number of humps = 10

9. Monster in sight for a "few seconds"

So at 9m/s zone = 9 * 3 = 27m
Car observer has to be within 27m of the dip zone for mirage to be effective or a total zone of 27 * 10 = 270m

That is the practical maximum but what was the actual range for an effective mirage? The small angle for an effective mirage suggest not much so let's third it: 9 * 10m = 90m

10. To see the whole mirage for a few seconds suggests the car has to be just entering the mirage zone

So probability that observer is at start of "mirage zone" = 1m/9m = 0.11

Probability that one car will be in this zone at any time = 90/38250 * 0.11 =
0.00027


11. Of course, it is the number of cars passing these optimal mirage points that counts so:

Number of cars on south side of road crossing these points in one day = one every ten minutes = 36 during the 6 hour mirage time window

This is based on my own observation in July 2010 between Dores and Whitefield
where a car passed every minute and the assumption that car ownership is 10 times more than what it was in 1933.

Probability that a car will be over one of these mirage dips over 6 hours at any

one time = 36 * 0.00027 = 0.0097

Probability that otter at hump zone and car at dip zone will coincide =

0.0097 * 0.0017 = 0.000016

12. Probability that weather will be hot, no clouds, no shade, no recent rain

= 1 in 3 = 0.33

Overall probability on one day = 0.0000053 or 189393/1 against

13. Sum up over entire period in question

81 days = 81 * 0.0000053 = 0.00043 or 2329/1 against

The Loch Ness Kelpie

Here is a great wee cartoon about the Loch Ness Kelpie. If you are wondering what a kelpie is (or was) this short film may help.

Now was Nessie a Kelpie, Water Horse or Water Bull? I never could quite tell ....

THE LOCH NESS KELPIE

Mirages and Nessie

Recently on one forum I frequent, the Spicer sighting has become somewhat of a touchstone on Nessie believers vs skeptics. Of course I could have picked other sightings to have defended Nessie upon because the Spicer sighting is to say the least unusual. But if you get good mileage on that then who knows what else will follow.

Having shrugged off the otter/deer explanations and saying you would have to be hallucinating to think deer or otter were a dragon like creature, lo and behold the next best thing to hallucinating comes up.

In the aptly named skeptic.org.uk website, Alexander T. Lovcanski suggests the Spicers saw an otter in special conditions which produced a mirage. His article is below.

link to article

My reply is below and Alexander may come up with plausible reasons why we should accept his assumptions and resulting hypothesis but I wonder why they don't just apply Occam's Razor more ruthlessly and say the Spicers lied - end of story. Let's face it, if you do not believe there is a large unclassified creature in Loch Ness then you are obliged to come up with some unusual explanations at times. I would guesstimate the odds of someone seeing a larger than usual otter under special mirage conditions crossing the road is thousands to one against. In July 1933, the Loch Ness Monster phenomenon was about three months old. So set the timer running from then and then ask what are the odds between April and July 1933 of someone seeing a larger than usual otter cross the road in front of them under special mirage conditons on the less frequented side of Loch Ness? And remember car ownership was far less in 1933 than today (George Spicer was a director of a Saville Row tailor which somewhat demonstrates the point).




Thank you firstly for confirming my view that suggesting the Spicers merely saw an otter or deer is simplistic to say the least. Something delusional or illusional would be required to even begin to entertain such a theory.

Let me make a few points. Several things clearly have to be in place simultaneously:

1. A sufficiently hot day.
2. A larger than usual otter crossing the road.
3. Witnesses and otter in the proper positions for a mirage.
4. Suitable surface conditions.
5. Witnesses in an expectant mind to misinterpret mirage.

Now you say the temperature was 16 to 18 degrees centigrade on that day and it was already late afternoon at the time. I normally associate mirages with higher temperatures. I read that a temperature gradient has to be 4 to 5 degrees per metre for the mirage to be strong. Can you be sure these conditions were in place?

I understand a large otter is required to be stretched vertically to "monster" proportions by the mirage. One assumes then that a normal otter is insufficient? Also why the need to have the otter go from L to R, is the tail required on the right to produce the impression of a long neck? Can a mirage really fool someone into thinking the object is going in the opposite direction?

Also what about the horizontal? The witnesses say that the creature filled the road. I understand that road mirages work on the vertical best, how do you stretch an otter which has less that a metre visible across a road?

The road surface itself is important in this consideration. What was the composition of the Dores to Foyers road in 1933? We know road works were in progress on the A82 but what about the B852?

Were the witnesses in an expectant frame of mind? Perhaps they were to see something on the water - but on land?!

Also, why have we not heard of other such land sightings if these conditions are fulfilled? It seems nothing else has been heard of in the literature since! Either this is a very rare confluence of events or perhaps even such mirage conditions still do not fool people easily.

It would be an interesting exercise to work out the probability of such an event happening. I know if enough cars pass by that spot then it could happen eventually but despite the large increase in car ownership no further mirages of nessies across roads on hot days have been reported. I suspect your theory predicts more such sightings - or is this one of those one off special explanations?

Man, Monsters and Mysteries (Disney Film)

For your entertainment below, Walt Disney's documentary on the Loch Ness Monster made in the early 1970s. If you can put up with their ridiculous cartoon Nessie this documentary is a Who's Who of the Monster Hunt of the 1960s. I don't recognise everyone but with the YouTube time counter in parentheses you can spot the following Loch Ness Luminaries:



Not surprisingly, the video has now been removed. If you want it, you can buy it from amazon.com and hope your DVD player does region 1 as it is not available on amazon.co.uk. Happy hunting!