Sadly, not a lot happens on the cutting edge of cryptid research as far as the Loch Ness Monster is concerned. You may read what is called research as people offer new explanations on how a famous case was actually a hoax or some known animal will be brought in as a new suspect for what was actually seen by witnesses. Useful in terms of cleaning up at the edges, but it does not get us further in identifying what actually lurks beneath the waves of Loch Ness.
That this should not surprise us is evident for most researchers I will bet do not believe anything monster like exists there today. It is all misidentification and lies. I have addressed this overblown theory before and will continue to highlight its deficiencies. But that does not mean debate should be stifled on either side as some kind of sense is made of the raw data.
In that light, I go back to Dale Drinnon who has replied to my earlier posts on elks at Loch Ness (see link). Elks follow on in the line of deer, otters and homo hoaxus as possible explanations for lumbering nessies.
My latest reply is this:
I think you are making the data fit the theory. Firstly, there are no elk in Scotland. I asked you for specifics on where and when but you did not choose to reply. Unlike the more exotic interpretations of Nessie, surely an Elk carcass or live animal would have been found or caught around Loch Ness a long time ago. They can't hide under 700 foot of peaty water after all. Or the idea that an elk turned up in 1933 and died a few years later is just too convenient. There are too many improbables that have to come together for the elk theory:
1. One or two turned up when they are not indigenous to Scotland.
2. Witnesses exaggerated their statements through misperception, lying and partial amnesia.
3. No one stayed around long enough to see one submerge and if they did it was probably drowning.
4. Why no such sightings along the other Great Glen lochs?
If you say that the stories become more plesiosaur like with the telling then you have to go the whole hog. Fordyce would have added flippers and made his animal less hairy to keep up with the plesiosaurs! And to be frank, an elk head is HUGE, it is a bit of a push to have us believe it was not noticeable to witnesses.
Some of the accounts may have elk like features such as hooves which need some explaining on my part. But others don't and that invalidates the elk theory - it has to explain everything.
So please do not go down the "rest are hoaxes" approach to shoehorn in partial theories! I know it bolsters your case but try and make your elk theory stand on its own four feet.
As some kind of advance publicity, I will be talking on land sightings of Nessie in January 2012 at the Edinburgh Fortean Society. I will be taking the stance that the thirty land sightings do in fact describe an unknown or unidentified large creature. That does not mean I gullibly swallow all accounts but neither should the extreme of rejecting the lot be countenanced either!
Wednesday 1 June 2011
Wednesday 25 May 2011
Elk, Water Horses and Nessie
What is the Loch Ness Monster? Why, it is a Water Horse, of course. That may not answer some of the more scientific questions, but before the Loch Ness Monster there was the Each Uisge as they called it in the native tongue centuries before.
Dale Drinnon offers an interesting theory that distribution of lake monsters has a good correlation with distribution of elk (or moose as they are also known by). His thoughts can be found here.
No doubt that elk have been mistaken for lake monsters but can one extrapolate the whole way to make them one and the same? The fact that some countries called elk "water horses" is an interesting point but then again hippopotami are literally called "river horses" but look nothing like long necked lake monsters. That did not stop some Scottish academics of old speculating superficially that the Each Uisge may have had its root in an extinct hippo. This theory is nonsense but the Elk theory demands more respect since these creatures are recent or contemporary inhabitants of such lake areas.
However, Dale goes on to liken some land sightings of Nessie to moose taking to the water. The implication is that moose did not really die out in Scotland thousands of years ago. Can one really explain one animal which is not supposed to be there with another animal that is not supposed to be there? I think this improbable and would have expected a moose carcass to have turned up on some Scottish hillside a long time ago. I would also expect the moose to keep swimming to shore and not submerge.
The idea that such a creature would seed the Each Uisge tradition is troublesome at best. The assumption behind most of these theories is the ignorance of the natives and their inability to distinguish a supernatural entity from a moose (or deer, dog, otter, duck) out for a swim. That is why some folklorists prefer to go for the theory that something more realistically monstrous existed in the racial memories of the locals.
Well, that's also plausible so long as they don't keep on seeing it right up to the present day!
UPDATE:
Dale has replied to my comment on his page that elk did not exist in Scotland so what is the point in using them to explain Nessie sightings? Check the link above though the discussion pretty much follows my take on the Greta Finlay case which is erroneously ascribed to a deer. My reply:
Granted, but how many elk and how close to Loch Ness? I would speculate these very few Elk were kept on the landowner's estate and not allowed to escape.
Agreed that water horses were never seen as plesiosaurs. The locals matched them to known animals of their time and they were seen right up to 1933.
Your theory is not that much different to ideas that people mistake common deer for Nessie. How significantly different is the Elk, especially when one is far more likely to see a deer swimming across the loch?
One area the descriptions do not match is that the creature submerges and stays submerged. Elk do not submerged (or deer).
The Fordyce creature is unusual but frankly looks nothing like an elk (big head v small head). Other land sightings describe a creature nothing like an elk or deer. Pre-1933 land sightings also do not have the "expect a monster" mentality of witnesses but still they were startled by the unusual and frightening appearance of the creature. Elk or deer would not evoke such a response.
Dale Drinnon offers an interesting theory that distribution of lake monsters has a good correlation with distribution of elk (or moose as they are also known by). His thoughts can be found here.
No doubt that elk have been mistaken for lake monsters but can one extrapolate the whole way to make them one and the same? The fact that some countries called elk "water horses" is an interesting point but then again hippopotami are literally called "river horses" but look nothing like long necked lake monsters. That did not stop some Scottish academics of old speculating superficially that the Each Uisge may have had its root in an extinct hippo. This theory is nonsense but the Elk theory demands more respect since these creatures are recent or contemporary inhabitants of such lake areas.
However, Dale goes on to liken some land sightings of Nessie to moose taking to the water. The implication is that moose did not really die out in Scotland thousands of years ago. Can one really explain one animal which is not supposed to be there with another animal that is not supposed to be there? I think this improbable and would have expected a moose carcass to have turned up on some Scottish hillside a long time ago. I would also expect the moose to keep swimming to shore and not submerge.
The idea that such a creature would seed the Each Uisge tradition is troublesome at best. The assumption behind most of these theories is the ignorance of the natives and their inability to distinguish a supernatural entity from a moose (or deer, dog, otter, duck) out for a swim. That is why some folklorists prefer to go for the theory that something more realistically monstrous existed in the racial memories of the locals.
Well, that's also plausible so long as they don't keep on seeing it right up to the present day!
UPDATE:
Dale has replied to my comment on his page that elk did not exist in Scotland so what is the point in using them to explain Nessie sightings? Check the link above though the discussion pretty much follows my take on the Greta Finlay case which is erroneously ascribed to a deer. My reply:
Granted, but how many elk and how close to Loch Ness? I would speculate these very few Elk were kept on the landowner's estate and not allowed to escape.
Agreed that water horses were never seen as plesiosaurs. The locals matched them to known animals of their time and they were seen right up to 1933.
Your theory is not that much different to ideas that people mistake common deer for Nessie. How significantly different is the Elk, especially when one is far more likely to see a deer swimming across the loch?
One area the descriptions do not match is that the creature submerges and stays submerged. Elk do not submerged (or deer).
The Fordyce creature is unusual but frankly looks nothing like an elk (big head v small head). Other land sightings describe a creature nothing like an elk or deer. Pre-1933 land sightings also do not have the "expect a monster" mentality of witnesses but still they were startled by the unusual and frightening appearance of the creature. Elk or deer would not evoke such a response.
Sunday 22 May 2011
Men in Black at Loch Ness?
Nick Redfern in his Mania blog comments recently on the potential link between the infamous men in black of UFOlore and cryptozoological creatures. This link is here.
This reminded me of the only alleged MiB encountered at Loch Ness and it is no surprise that it came from Ted Holiday, the paranormalist pursuer of Nessie who died in 1979. I mentioned Ted Holiday in my series of occasional blogs examining what people think the Loch Ness Monster is and Holiday was the definite champion of the paranormal creature theory (see link).
It is a strange story not just for the weirdness factor but because of some inconsistencies. The encounter apparently happened only days after the Reverend Donald Omand had conducted his famous exorcism of Loch Ness in June 1973. Holiday had heard of a report that a flying saucer and occupants had been spotted on the ground near Foyers by a Jan Ove Sundberg previously in 1971. He wished to track down the site but first visited local psychic Winifred Cary who advised him against visiting the site because she felt it presented a danger. At this point Holiday writes:
"At that precise moment, there was a tremendous rushing sound like a tornado outside the window, and the garden seemed to be filled with indefinable frantic movement. A series of violent thuds sounded as if from a heavy object striking either the wall or the sun-lounge door. Through the window behind Mrs. Cary, I suddenly saw what looked like a pyramid-shaped column of blackish smoke about 8 feet high, revolving in a frenzy. Part of it was involved in a rosebush which looked as if it had been ripped from the ground. Mrs. Cary shrieked and turned her face towards the window. The episode lasted 10 or 15 seconds and then was instantly finished."
He did not visit the site but instead found himself in the local village of Foyers the next day and saw a peculiar figure entirely dressed in black looking at him from about 30 yards away:
"He was about 6 feet tall and appeared to be dressed in black leather or plastic. He wore a helmet and gloves, and was masked, even to the nose, mouth and chin."
He walked towards the figure but turned his head to look at the loch for a couple of seconds, heard a whispering or whistling sound and turned to see the person had gone. Nothing more came of it until a year later when he came back to Loch Ness but suffered a mild heart attack. As he was taken to the ambulance, the medics passed over the spot where he had first seen the man in black.
What do we make of such a story and what has it to do with creatures in Loch Ness? The problem lies with the Sundberg sighting. The impression is given that the incident revolves around avoiding this alleged UFO site. However, in 1981, a Stuart Campbell, writing for the March issue of Flying Saucer Review, found the site based on the photograph Sundberg had taken and discovered the forest was too dense to allow any clearing for the 30 foot craft and three occupants claimed. The sighting was then dismissed as a hoax or hallucination.
(I believe this is Steuart Campbell, who wrote the sceptical book on Nessie, "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence"). Now allowing even for 10 years of extra tree growth, that would seem to discredit the whole thing. Jan Sundberg now runs the monster hunting organisation GUST where the focus is on aquatic monsters and not flying saucers.
If the UFO sighting did not happen, then what would be the point in an alleged MiB giving a typically dark warning about it? Holiday would have known about men in black from John Keel whom he corresponded with. John Keel popularised this aspect of UFOlogy some time before in his book "Operation Trojan Horse". What we are to make of this incident and the Biblical like pillar of cloud is bewildering. Did Holiday merely encounter some kook? No doubt Loch Ness is a magnet for people who are one sandwich short of a picnic. Was it just a trendy motorcyclist kitted up from head to foot? A fuller description would have helped.
And what about the whirlwind? Was it nothing more than that - a cyclone stirred up by aerodynamics that allows the topology of Loch Ness to funnel air currents and whip up squalls and other gusts of wind?
The problem with Holiday was that he was not always consistent in what he reported. One case was the infamous MacRae film. In his Great Orm book, Holday claims that a Mr. Dallas filmed the Loch Ness Monster in 1936. When Nessie researcher, Mike Dash, investigated this claim years later, Mr. Dallas denied he had shot any film of the creature he claimed to have seen.
In other areas, his research lacks follow up as when he claimed in the Orm book that his aforementioned friend, John Keel, had read an 1896 article on the Loch Ness Monster when researching archives in America. The claim is true but the article has yet to be found.
We can only guess as to what Holiday thought he witnessed. He is gone as I suspect are the other witnesses of that day. However, we finish on the eerie note that all these things occured just down the road from the infamous house of Aleister Crowley. A place which Crowley thought was a mystical energy portal!
This reminded me of the only alleged MiB encountered at Loch Ness and it is no surprise that it came from Ted Holiday, the paranormalist pursuer of Nessie who died in 1979. I mentioned Ted Holiday in my series of occasional blogs examining what people think the Loch Ness Monster is and Holiday was the definite champion of the paranormal creature theory (see link).
It is a strange story not just for the weirdness factor but because of some inconsistencies. The encounter apparently happened only days after the Reverend Donald Omand had conducted his famous exorcism of Loch Ness in June 1973. Holiday had heard of a report that a flying saucer and occupants had been spotted on the ground near Foyers by a Jan Ove Sundberg previously in 1971. He wished to track down the site but first visited local psychic Winifred Cary who advised him against visiting the site because she felt it presented a danger. At this point Holiday writes:
"At that precise moment, there was a tremendous rushing sound like a tornado outside the window, and the garden seemed to be filled with indefinable frantic movement. A series of violent thuds sounded as if from a heavy object striking either the wall or the sun-lounge door. Through the window behind Mrs. Cary, I suddenly saw what looked like a pyramid-shaped column of blackish smoke about 8 feet high, revolving in a frenzy. Part of it was involved in a rosebush which looked as if it had been ripped from the ground. Mrs. Cary shrieked and turned her face towards the window. The episode lasted 10 or 15 seconds and then was instantly finished."
He did not visit the site but instead found himself in the local village of Foyers the next day and saw a peculiar figure entirely dressed in black looking at him from about 30 yards away:
"He was about 6 feet tall and appeared to be dressed in black leather or plastic. He wore a helmet and gloves, and was masked, even to the nose, mouth and chin."
He walked towards the figure but turned his head to look at the loch for a couple of seconds, heard a whispering or whistling sound and turned to see the person had gone. Nothing more came of it until a year later when he came back to Loch Ness but suffered a mild heart attack. As he was taken to the ambulance, the medics passed over the spot where he had first seen the man in black.
What do we make of such a story and what has it to do with creatures in Loch Ness? The problem lies with the Sundberg sighting. The impression is given that the incident revolves around avoiding this alleged UFO site. However, in 1981, a Stuart Campbell, writing for the March issue of Flying Saucer Review, found the site based on the photograph Sundberg had taken and discovered the forest was too dense to allow any clearing for the 30 foot craft and three occupants claimed. The sighting was then dismissed as a hoax or hallucination.
(I believe this is Steuart Campbell, who wrote the sceptical book on Nessie, "The Loch Ness Monster: The Evidence"). Now allowing even for 10 years of extra tree growth, that would seem to discredit the whole thing. Jan Sundberg now runs the monster hunting organisation GUST where the focus is on aquatic monsters and not flying saucers.
If the UFO sighting did not happen, then what would be the point in an alleged MiB giving a typically dark warning about it? Holiday would have known about men in black from John Keel whom he corresponded with. John Keel popularised this aspect of UFOlogy some time before in his book "Operation Trojan Horse". What we are to make of this incident and the Biblical like pillar of cloud is bewildering. Did Holiday merely encounter some kook? No doubt Loch Ness is a magnet for people who are one sandwich short of a picnic. Was it just a trendy motorcyclist kitted up from head to foot? A fuller description would have helped.
And what about the whirlwind? Was it nothing more than that - a cyclone stirred up by aerodynamics that allows the topology of Loch Ness to funnel air currents and whip up squalls and other gusts of wind?
The problem with Holiday was that he was not always consistent in what he reported. One case was the infamous MacRae film. In his Great Orm book, Holday claims that a Mr. Dallas filmed the Loch Ness Monster in 1936. When Nessie researcher, Mike Dash, investigated this claim years later, Mr. Dallas denied he had shot any film of the creature he claimed to have seen.
In other areas, his research lacks follow up as when he claimed in the Orm book that his aforementioned friend, John Keel, had read an 1896 article on the Loch Ness Monster when researching archives in America. The claim is true but the article has yet to be found.
We can only guess as to what Holiday thought he witnessed. He is gone as I suspect are the other witnesses of that day. However, we finish on the eerie note that all these things occured just down the road from the infamous house of Aleister Crowley. A place which Crowley thought was a mystical energy portal!
Thursday 19 May 2011
The Loch Ness Society
Back in the 1990s I was kind of putting Nessie in the background. I was getting married, kids were born and you know the rest of the script. So it was no surprise that some Loch Ness Monster things went under my radar only to surface to my own view years later.
One of those was the Loch Ness Society formed in 1996 by Ian Kelloway, Richard Carter and Ian Martin. It was well intentioned in that it produced a regular newsletter to keep Nessie-philes informed and get them together now and again for a hunt and a pint. All perfectly admirable but by the time I was back on Nessie things, they had gone. The first two pages of their first newsletter is reproduced below to jog any memories. I say "jog" because I would ask anyone that knows about this society to let me know how it progressed and finally disbanded. Also, where is co-founder Richard Carter who was actively involved in the hunt in the 1990s but has now seemingly dropped out? Unanswered questions ... drop a comment if you have further info or even access to more of these newsletters.
One of those was the Loch Ness Society formed in 1996 by Ian Kelloway, Richard Carter and Ian Martin. It was well intentioned in that it produced a regular newsletter to keep Nessie-philes informed and get them together now and again for a hunt and a pint. All perfectly admirable but by the time I was back on Nessie things, they had gone. The first two pages of their first newsletter is reproduced below to jog any memories. I say "jog" because I would ask anyone that knows about this society to let me know how it progressed and finally disbanded. Also, where is co-founder Richard Carter who was actively involved in the hunt in the 1990s but has now seemingly dropped out? Unanswered questions ... drop a comment if you have further info or even access to more of these newsletters.
Monday 16 May 2011
Video on Nessie Hunting "Basics" III
Back to my short series on monster hunting. I actually have not posted for months on this series so must make them more frequent. This is part III and part II can be found here. This goes back to my last "expedition" in July 2010. I hope to be back up this summer but plan to approach the whole monster hunting from a new angle which I have not heard from anyone else before. Well, perhaps they did do it but it was a complete failure and it wasn't worth mentioning to anyone else ...
Note in the video my brief sighting of a boat. Now going by the google map below, I estimate it was about 1,500 yards away or pretty similar to the distance that Tim Dinsdale saw his hump at. Even though I thought it was a boat with the naked eye, I applied the binoculars and this was confirmed. Once again, I don't think Tim would have been so easily fooled either. The only difference was that I was at loch level and he was about 300 feet up. Make up your own mind whether that makes a whit of difference at such a distance - I don't.
Note in the video my brief sighting of a boat. Now going by the google map below, I estimate it was about 1,500 yards away or pretty similar to the distance that Tim Dinsdale saw his hump at. Even though I thought it was a boat with the naked eye, I applied the binoculars and this was confirmed. Once again, I don't think Tim would have been so easily fooled either. The only difference was that I was at loch level and he was about 300 feet up. Make up your own mind whether that makes a whit of difference at such a distance - I don't.
Sunday 8 May 2011
Classic Sightings - Alec Muir
Date: 1930s
Time: Spring day
Location: Narrow road just south of DoresWitnesses: Alec Muir and Alastair Mackintosh
Type of sighting: Land
Land sightings of Nessie are fascinating and no doubt to some are the biggest challenge to forming a theory of the Loch Ness Monster. We have already covered the Spicer land sighting in previous posts but here is one from the same period in the 1930s and an unusual one in some respects.
It was taken from the autobiography of Captain Alastair Mackintosh entitled "No Alibi" which was published in 1961 and came to my attention in F. W. Holiday's book "The Great Orm of Loch Ness". Without further ado, we reproduce the account below.
It was taken from the autobiography of Captain Alastair Mackintosh entitled "No Alibi" which was published in 1961 and came to my attention in F. W. Holiday's book "The Great Orm of Loch Ness". Without further ado, we reproduce the account below.
Loch Ness was so much a part of my boyhood and youth. Its beauty and splendour apart, there has always been—for me—a belief in the existence of its monster. Loch Ness remains one of the great geological mysteries. Since the waters receded from the earth it has put on minor atomic displays without any assistance from scientists. The monster is usually observed in the summer. It was many years later that I missed seeing this monster—always supposing it to exist—by a matter of minutes. Oddly the occasion was linked with the British Aluminium Company since it was Alec Muir, the estate carpenter at the works, who had allowed his ‘T’ Ford to block the narrow road just beyond Dores. Bubbles were to be observed on the loch water. As I greeted Alec warmly, I thought he looked distinctly peculiar.
The way a person is said to appear after seeing a ghost. ‘What’s the matter, Alec? What are you stopping for, eh?’ He regarded me with his round, blue eyes and said portentously: ‘I've just seen the Loch Ness monster, Mr Alastair. It crossed the road in front of me not a wee while back. It came as high as the top of the bonnet of the car and was so long it took ten minutes to pass. I went round to the front of the Ford. Sure enough, there was the track of the monster where it had entered the loch. Alec alighted and we followed the marks on the other side of the road and into a wood of birch trees. It was spring.
Our feet sank softly into a carpet of moss and primroses.We had gone hardly a hundred yards when we came upon a clearing in the trees. Showing in the moss was an immense depression, where the monster obviously had lain down to rest. Augustus monks professed to have seen the monster actually swimming in the loch. Could it all be a matter of hallucination? I doubt it! Too many have had similar experiences.
Thus ends the account leaving perhaps more questions than it answers. For a start, practically nothing is said about the appearance of the monster itself. It is said to have reached as high as the bonnet of a model T Ford which I estimate to be about four feet seven inches.
It left a trail leading to the loch by which means broken and depressed flora. The immense depression suggests that the beast had some girth - I would assume it was at least as wide as it was tall - nearly five feet - but this "immense" depression suggests more.
The bubbles on the loch surface is also interesting. Does this imply the monster is an air breather or that is discharges air for some reason after a land excursion (e.g. decreasing buoyancy)?
The most extraordinary feature is that the creature took ten minutes to cross the road! From this we infer that Alec Muir had one of the clearest views of the monster in the annals of Nessie sightings - yet we have practically no details. If we assume the road was seven feet wide (it was a narrow road) and the creature was just appearing onto the road as Muir saw it until it's 30ft bulk was clean across, then it was travelling at an average speed of 0.04 mph. From this ridiculously slow speed we suspect that the creature had actually stopped in the middle of the road for some period of time.
The way a person is said to appear after seeing a ghost. ‘What’s the matter, Alec? What are you stopping for, eh?’ He regarded me with his round, blue eyes and said portentously: ‘I've just seen the Loch Ness monster, Mr Alastair. It crossed the road in front of me not a wee while back. It came as high as the top of the bonnet of the car and was so long it took ten minutes to pass. I went round to the front of the Ford. Sure enough, there was the track of the monster where it had entered the loch. Alec alighted and we followed the marks on the other side of the road and into a wood of birch trees. It was spring.
Our feet sank softly into a carpet of moss and primroses.We had gone hardly a hundred yards when we came upon a clearing in the trees. Showing in the moss was an immense depression, where the monster obviously had lain down to rest. Augustus monks professed to have seen the monster actually swimming in the loch. Could it all be a matter of hallucination? I doubt it! Too many have had similar experiences.
Thus ends the account leaving perhaps more questions than it answers. For a start, practically nothing is said about the appearance of the monster itself. It is said to have reached as high as the bonnet of a model T Ford which I estimate to be about four feet seven inches.
It left a trail leading to the loch by which means broken and depressed flora. The immense depression suggests that the beast had some girth - I would assume it was at least as wide as it was tall - nearly five feet - but this "immense" depression suggests more.
The bubbles on the loch surface is also interesting. Does this imply the monster is an air breather or that is discharges air for some reason after a land excursion (e.g. decreasing buoyancy)?
The most extraordinary feature is that the creature took ten minutes to cross the road! From this we infer that Alec Muir had one of the clearest views of the monster in the annals of Nessie sightings - yet we have practically no details. If we assume the road was seven feet wide (it was a narrow road) and the creature was just appearing onto the road as Muir saw it until it's 30ft bulk was clean across, then it was travelling at an average speed of 0.04 mph. From this ridiculously slow speed we suspect that the creature had actually stopped in the middle of the road for some period of time.
Why would the Loch Ness Monster simply stop on the road? If it did this today, we would have a carcass on our hands and the mystery would be solved. One can only guess that something had captured the beast's attention just over the loch side of the road. It also seems it nonchalantly continued on and stopped again near the shore leaving this "immense" depression before finally entering the loch.
All in all, the monster seemed rather blase about what was going on around it and saw no threat from Mr. Muir and his model T Ford. A curious case for which one wish there was more detail!
Wednesday 27 April 2011
What is the Loch Ness Monster? (part 2)
In a previous post I began to explore the various possible explanations to account for sightings of Nessie. That first post rather mundanely looked at misidentification of tree debris which though inadequate as a sole theory does explain some claimed sightings.
One might gently move onto deer, birds and otters in the loch, but for this post we go as far as one could possibly go in another explanation of Nessie. This is a theory which came into vogue in the early 1970s and it is the paranormal interpretation of the Loch Ness Monster.
The first proponent of this theory was Ted Holiday in his book "The Dragon and the Disc" which attempted to incorporate Nessie into the increasingly popular idea that most unexplained phenomena were paranormal in nature. This "Theory of Everything" approach had begun when some UFO researchers speculated that flying saucers were not the nuts and bolts spacecraft that many had presumed but may have more surreal origins.
Though Holiday still held to the invertebate theory of his first book ("The Great Orm of Loch Ness") he made a clean break prior to his death in 1979 with a radical theory which was expounded in his third and posthumous book "The Goblin Universe". This theory essentially borrowed from the obscure work of a Professor Harold Burr in positing that Nessie was a three dimensional form which could be formed and held by something Burr called Life Fields which were electrical in nature and had some organic organising properties.
Burr proposed this as a biological principle but Holiday took it further in suggesting that a mind could control the process and cause unexpected forms to materialise. Indeed, he proposed a universal mind akin to God as the controller of these phenomemon though the discussion also included the human mind and the collective subconciousness of the entire human race. How these three "minds" interacted if at all was not clear to me and there is no evidence to support such a theory. In some sense it is a hypothesis looking for data.
One might gently move onto deer, birds and otters in the loch, but for this post we go as far as one could possibly go in another explanation of Nessie. This is a theory which came into vogue in the early 1970s and it is the paranormal interpretation of the Loch Ness Monster.
The first proponent of this theory was Ted Holiday in his book "The Dragon and the Disc" which attempted to incorporate Nessie into the increasingly popular idea that most unexplained phenomena were paranormal in nature. This "Theory of Everything" approach had begun when some UFO researchers speculated that flying saucers were not the nuts and bolts spacecraft that many had presumed but may have more surreal origins.
Though Holiday still held to the invertebate theory of his first book ("The Great Orm of Loch Ness") he made a clean break prior to his death in 1979 with a radical theory which was expounded in his third and posthumous book "The Goblin Universe". This theory essentially borrowed from the obscure work of a Professor Harold Burr in positing that Nessie was a three dimensional form which could be formed and held by something Burr called Life Fields which were electrical in nature and had some organic organising properties.
Burr proposed this as a biological principle but Holiday took it further in suggesting that a mind could control the process and cause unexpected forms to materialise. Indeed, he proposed a universal mind akin to God as the controller of these phenomemon though the discussion also included the human mind and the collective subconciousness of the entire human race. How these three "minds" interacted if at all was not clear to me and there is no evidence to support such a theory. In some sense it is a hypothesis looking for data.
Why would Holiday abandon more reasonable flesh and blood theories for something that is speculative in the extreme? The answer is that Holiday believed the old superstitions surrounding dragons and water horses had a large grain of truth to them - these creatures were indeed magical in some way.
He also thought that a lot of the strange coincidences he witnessed during his time at the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and as a private Nessie hunter went beyond coincidence. Things such as cameras malfunctioning, the monster appearing out of LNI camera shot, plus what he thought was a general malevolent atmosphere about the place. Add some unusual paranormal encounters around Loch Ness including a meeting with what we would call a MIB (Man In Black) in Foyers and you can understand where he is coming from even if you do not accept his views.
Do any other Loch Ness Monster hunters advocate this hypothesis to some degree? One was Anthony Shiels who took the (in)famous photos of Nessie near Urquhart Castle in 1977. He believed in a psychic aspect to these sightings but his discussion on this in his book "Monstrum!" is unclear as he also adhered to an invertebrate interpretation of the creature.
There is also a suggestion that Tim Dinsdale believed in a paranormal aspect to the Loch Ness phenomemon but this is less clear cut. I will mention that in a later blog posting.
So, all in all, this is the most exotic theory concerning the monster. Yes, it explains a lot of things about the beast but at the same time a major shift in one's perception of reality is required. Of course, if someone is already inclined to believe in supernatural events then perhaps the leap is not too great. In fact, I dabbled myself with this theory in the 1980s, but took a step back to let outwardly simpler theories have priority.
Indeed, the fact that such a theory should gain some prominence does point to the realization that no one theory seems to explain everything about witness sightings (and that includes the the log/deer/wave/birds/hoax theory of sceptics). One may suggest some identity for the creature but it falls short in explaining some aspect of behaviour or morphology.
For this paranormal theory, there is a solution is available but at the expense of some big assumptions.
He also thought that a lot of the strange coincidences he witnessed during his time at the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and as a private Nessie hunter went beyond coincidence. Things such as cameras malfunctioning, the monster appearing out of LNI camera shot, plus what he thought was a general malevolent atmosphere about the place. Add some unusual paranormal encounters around Loch Ness including a meeting with what we would call a MIB (Man In Black) in Foyers and you can understand where he is coming from even if you do not accept his views.
Do any other Loch Ness Monster hunters advocate this hypothesis to some degree? One was Anthony Shiels who took the (in)famous photos of Nessie near Urquhart Castle in 1977. He believed in a psychic aspect to these sightings but his discussion on this in his book "Monstrum!" is unclear as he also adhered to an invertebrate interpretation of the creature.
There is also a suggestion that Tim Dinsdale believed in a paranormal aspect to the Loch Ness phenomemon but this is less clear cut. I will mention that in a later blog posting.
So, all in all, this is the most exotic theory concerning the monster. Yes, it explains a lot of things about the beast but at the same time a major shift in one's perception of reality is required. Of course, if someone is already inclined to believe in supernatural events then perhaps the leap is not too great. In fact, I dabbled myself with this theory in the 1980s, but took a step back to let outwardly simpler theories have priority.
Indeed, the fact that such a theory should gain some prominence does point to the realization that no one theory seems to explain everything about witness sightings (and that includes the the log/deer/wave/birds/hoax theory of sceptics). One may suggest some identity for the creature but it falls short in explaining some aspect of behaviour or morphology.
For this paranormal theory, there is a solution is available but at the expense of some big assumptions.
Wednesday 20 April 2011
Sighting of Loch Ness Monster from 1990
I sometimes wonder how many sightings of the Loch Ness Monster go unreported? There is the strange account of the seagulls I found on an Internet comment board (see link). I also spoke to someone originally from Inverness recently who claimed a friend saw something strange in the loch some years back. We only get the slightest details or they never fully surface. However, Chris Sharratt while working at Loch Ness in 1990 had a strange experience which he posted on his flickr account and which I reproduce here:
Ok, I will try to keep it short, but I will tell you the facts surrounding my sighting of what might have been the Loch Ness Monster!
The idyllic 3 years I told you about in my last post, looking after a new salmon farm on my own in the wilds, came to an abrupt end when we discovered the loch we had the fish cages in (not Loch Ness itself) had zillions of small water flea type organisms that were passing on a parasitic disease to the young salmon.
So all the fish were moved out, and I moved companies and became site manager on a similar juvenile-salmon farm which actually was (and still is) on Loch Ness itself, near the tiny shoreside village of Dores.
For a year or two I was still caretaker of the other site, even though all the fish had long gone.
This meant that occasionally I made the journey from the Dores farm at the start of Loch Ness, right along the road that follows the south side of the loch to the small inland loch near Whitebridge that once was my daily office.
Anyway, it was one such day while I was on my way to inspect the old site that I saw the Loch Ness Monster!
It was a crystal clear sunny day and Loch Ness was the calmest I'd ever seen. Like a mirror with steep green forested mountain sides reflecting above the dark depths below.
I was about half way down the side of the 37km loch and the car was climbing up from the loch side road where it meets the hill at Inverfarigaig. As I looked down admiring the calmness of the loch, something looking very alive, dark, solid and large broke through the glistening surface rose up for a second, then was gone!
I had stopped the car and watched with disbelief as the rings from the wake crept out not so slowly from the centre of the loch and spread far, reaching each side of the 3km wide loch within only a minute or two!
Now I have never believed in Nessie, but what I saw that day was bigger than any other creature that could possibly be there! Seals occasionally make it up the River Ness and can be seen where the river runs through the city of Inverness, but that is close to the sea! Where I was when I saw what I did was 25km from salt water, and anyway it was larger than any Seal!
So there is my story which is factual. The only question is ... what was it I saw??????
I asked Chris for more details and he essentially said it was a "single lump" which sounds reminiscent of the most common type of sighting which is one hump breaking the surface. What could surface and then submerge again so quickly? Some sceptics suggest some sightings can be logs floating to the surface from gas eruptions below. However, Adrian Shine's work at the Loch Ness Centre proves that very little gas deposits are produced from the sediments at the bottom of the loch. There is an area in Urquhart Bay which produce some gas from decaying material deposits but the sighting did not occur there. Besides, one would only anticipate small objects such as branches, etc being driven up and that from shallow areas.
In other words, it looks like Nessie had surfaced again in one of her fleeting appearances.
Thursday 14 April 2011
Owning the Loch Ness Monster
An old story from 2009 caught my attention recently and made me ask the question: "If Nessie was captured, who would own her?". The story was an article on how bookmakers William Hill and the Natural History Museum had an agreement where the museum would provide expert advice on verifying the existence of the creature but also in return having the option of displaying the beast.
The story is here.
The article seemed to imply that William Hill would somehow have property rights on the carcass or live animal else how could the museum gain access to it? One doubts that such an event was likely or even legal. If a carcass was found by myself or anyone then the same procedure that applies for finding treasure trove should apply. Since Loch Ness is in Scotland then common scots law would apply (unless superceded by EU Law which we assume not here).
In such a case, if the item is regarded as precious or of national importance then the Crown of Scotland would have first claim on it. A panel from the Crown Office will ejudicate the matter and normally offer the trove to the appropriate museum or institution. Since the Crown Office will normally allow a reward to be paid to the finder, it is then up to the museum to raise the funds to purchase the items at "market value".
What is the "market value" of a live or dead Nessie? I doubt the Scottish Parliament would allow such an iconic item to leave the nation and hence outside bids would be disallowed unless they agreed to leave the body on show in Scotland.
I would suspect given William Hill's offer of £1 million in 2007 for positive proof of Nessie, that such a figure would be the starting bid!
The story is here.
The article seemed to imply that William Hill would somehow have property rights on the carcass or live animal else how could the museum gain access to it? One doubts that such an event was likely or even legal. If a carcass was found by myself or anyone then the same procedure that applies for finding treasure trove should apply. Since Loch Ness is in Scotland then common scots law would apply (unless superceded by EU Law which we assume not here).
In such a case, if the item is regarded as precious or of national importance then the Crown of Scotland would have first claim on it. A panel from the Crown Office will ejudicate the matter and normally offer the trove to the appropriate museum or institution. Since the Crown Office will normally allow a reward to be paid to the finder, it is then up to the museum to raise the funds to purchase the items at "market value".
What is the "market value" of a live or dead Nessie? I doubt the Scottish Parliament would allow such an iconic item to leave the nation and hence outside bids would be disallowed unless they agreed to leave the body on show in Scotland.
I would suspect given William Hill's offer of £1 million in 2007 for positive proof of Nessie, that such a figure would be the starting bid!
Thursday 7 April 2011
A Strange Loch Ness Monster Report?
I found this piece in a newspaper comment section following on from a none too exciting Nessie article. Apparently it occured around 1979 and involved a "James" from the town of Lewes:
Well I for one believe in the monster. Some 30 years ago I moored my boat on the shallow water shelf at Urquart castle about 100 feet or so from the abyss where the shelf ends and plunges 700 feet or so into eternal night. At dusk there was a huge disturbance in the water just off the edge of the shelf and a flock of 50 or so seagulls were sucked down and all vanished all in less than a second. So yes I believe that there is at least a huge predator living in the loch.
Now whether this was the monster is a debateable point, I have never read of such behaviour in all my time reading the literature. Could it have been a whirlpool? Though I am no expert on how water currents interact, this seems unlikely and is not a phenomenon I have read about at Loch Ness.
Could it have been the actions of underwater gases? Again, one would expect such an event to cause an explosion rather than an implosion of water.
A curious incident for which I have no ready explanation. Whoever you are James, tell me more!
Well I for one believe in the monster. Some 30 years ago I moored my boat on the shallow water shelf at Urquart castle about 100 feet or so from the abyss where the shelf ends and plunges 700 feet or so into eternal night. At dusk there was a huge disturbance in the water just off the edge of the shelf and a flock of 50 or so seagulls were sucked down and all vanished all in less than a second. So yes I believe that there is at least a huge predator living in the loch.
Now whether this was the monster is a debateable point, I have never read of such behaviour in all my time reading the literature. Could it have been a whirlpool? Though I am no expert on how water currents interact, this seems unlikely and is not a phenomenon I have read about at Loch Ness.
Could it have been the actions of underwater gases? Again, one would expect such an event to cause an explosion rather than an implosion of water.
A curious incident for which I have no ready explanation. Whoever you are James, tell me more!
Friday 1 April 2011
More on Greta Finlay
As suspected, current skeptics put Greta Finlay's sighting down to a common roe deer or similar. In my opinion, this is a nonsense theory as too many things have to come together to make it sound believeable.
Let me tell you about my recent deer experience. Not at Loch Ness but in a wood near my place of work where I sometimes go for a lunchtime walk. As I walked I noticed something moving to my left and I stopped to look more closely. It was a deer with two more at about 50 yards away. In fact, it was a deer side on to me but face towards me (in a Finlay like pose). The fact that it took me less than a second to identify it as a deer should come as no surprise. The only surprise was that I did not expect to see any deer near this semi-built up area. As it faced me side on, the ears were very much pricked up in an alert condition (after all, it knew I was there). After some seconds, I moved and they then trotted off in the direction they were pointing.
So this is all pretty much matter of fact, it is very unlikely in those conditions I will mistake a deer for anything else. But suppose there was a legend of a big cat in that forest which is occasionally claimed to have been seen by some but in general has never harmed anyone and is just regarded as creepy. How would that have affected my deer episode?
So, if I had walked the forest with that at the back of my mind, would I have been fooled into thinking the deer was now a big cat? Since I know what a big cat looks like, it is again not very likely. On seeing the deer, one's brain may add the extra processing option of "Big Cat" to the list of possible identifications but the match would fail. The deer is a better fit.
Likewise with Mrs. Finlay at 20 yards from her creature. Various possible contendors would flash through the brain. The "deer" and "nessie" templates would be fitted against what is seen and the winner would be the deer. Obviously, at further distances where visual data becomes less accurate then no identification may be possible and guesswork becomes involved. But at twenty yards - no.
So, to repeat the unusual sequence of events from a deer perspective:
1. The Finlays turn round to see a deer standing in the water 20 yards away.
2. Both fail to recognise it is a deer because they "want" to see the monster.
3. The deer obligingly keeps it ears pinned back to avoid obvious detection.
4. It covers itself in mud to appear black and slimy.
5. It also hides any facial features like eyes, nose and mouth.
6. The appearance of this common deer somehow strikes terror into the witnesses.
7. The deer manages to stay faceward towards the Finlays so they do not see
the giveaway muzzle of a deer (and ears).
8. The deer decides to become a furry submarine and submerges never to appear
again. OR
9. It gave the impression of sinking but was actually making it way to the
shoreline to complete the deception by bolting to the trees.
Now let's talk about logic and the scientific technique as sceptics love to apply. If a theory does not adequately explain the data then it should be discarded. Occam's razor applies - find the simplest explanation that requires the least assumptions. That seems obvious but sceptics persist in this theory rather than the more obvious one from their point of view - the testimony was fabricated. That is, the Finlays were liars.
Now perhaps sceptics just don't like to go around libelling and defaming people as liars. After all, this is a litigious age. It would be "kinder" to say the witness was just deceived by an unusual set of circumstances.
Unfortunately, in this case, I don't think this applies. The deer theory does not fit. That leaves them the following options:
1. The witnesses lied.
2. Someone deceived them in a "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" scenario.
3. It was an unidentified large creature largely as described.
4. Don't know.
Which one shall be picked? if they are true to their logic, option one seems the best choice.
I personally go for option three!
As a final aside, why don't Nessie believers apply Occam's Razor as well and come to the same conclusion that all close up accounts are lies? The reason is because such a theory again requires too many assumptions - despite all the varying characters, it requires that every witness had an abnormal propensity to lie and stick to that lie despite the potential criticism and ridicule they may receive - from their peers and of course sceptics in general.
Let me tell you about my recent deer experience. Not at Loch Ness but in a wood near my place of work where I sometimes go for a lunchtime walk. As I walked I noticed something moving to my left and I stopped to look more closely. It was a deer with two more at about 50 yards away. In fact, it was a deer side on to me but face towards me (in a Finlay like pose). The fact that it took me less than a second to identify it as a deer should come as no surprise. The only surprise was that I did not expect to see any deer near this semi-built up area. As it faced me side on, the ears were very much pricked up in an alert condition (after all, it knew I was there). After some seconds, I moved and they then trotted off in the direction they were pointing.
So this is all pretty much matter of fact, it is very unlikely in those conditions I will mistake a deer for anything else. But suppose there was a legend of a big cat in that forest which is occasionally claimed to have been seen by some but in general has never harmed anyone and is just regarded as creepy. How would that have affected my deer episode?
So, if I had walked the forest with that at the back of my mind, would I have been fooled into thinking the deer was now a big cat? Since I know what a big cat looks like, it is again not very likely. On seeing the deer, one's brain may add the extra processing option of "Big Cat" to the list of possible identifications but the match would fail. The deer is a better fit.
Likewise with Mrs. Finlay at 20 yards from her creature. Various possible contendors would flash through the brain. The "deer" and "nessie" templates would be fitted against what is seen and the winner would be the deer. Obviously, at further distances where visual data becomes less accurate then no identification may be possible and guesswork becomes involved. But at twenty yards - no.
So, to repeat the unusual sequence of events from a deer perspective:
1. The Finlays turn round to see a deer standing in the water 20 yards away.
2. Both fail to recognise it is a deer because they "want" to see the monster.
3. The deer obligingly keeps it ears pinned back to avoid obvious detection.
4. It covers itself in mud to appear black and slimy.
5. It also hides any facial features like eyes, nose and mouth.
6. The appearance of this common deer somehow strikes terror into the witnesses.
7. The deer manages to stay faceward towards the Finlays so they do not see
the giveaway muzzle of a deer (and ears).
8. The deer decides to become a furry submarine and submerges never to appear
again. OR
9. It gave the impression of sinking but was actually making it way to the
shoreline to complete the deception by bolting to the trees.
Now let's talk about logic and the scientific technique as sceptics love to apply. If a theory does not adequately explain the data then it should be discarded. Occam's razor applies - find the simplest explanation that requires the least assumptions. That seems obvious but sceptics persist in this theory rather than the more obvious one from their point of view - the testimony was fabricated. That is, the Finlays were liars.
Now perhaps sceptics just don't like to go around libelling and defaming people as liars. After all, this is a litigious age. It would be "kinder" to say the witness was just deceived by an unusual set of circumstances.
Unfortunately, in this case, I don't think this applies. The deer theory does not fit. That leaves them the following options:
1. The witnesses lied.
2. Someone deceived them in a "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" scenario.
3. It was an unidentified large creature largely as described.
4. Don't know.
Which one shall be picked? if they are true to their logic, option one seems the best choice.
I personally go for option three!
As a final aside, why don't Nessie believers apply Occam's Razor as well and come to the same conclusion that all close up accounts are lies? The reason is because such a theory again requires too many assumptions - despite all the varying characters, it requires that every witness had an abnormal propensity to lie and stick to that lie despite the potential criticism and ridicule they may receive - from their peers and of course sceptics in general.
Friday 25 March 2011
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
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday 22 March 2011
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 ...
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 ...
Saturday 5 March 2011
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.
Thursday 24 February 2011
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.
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.
Saturday 5 February 2011
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.
Saturday 22 January 2011
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
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:
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
Wednesday 19 January 2011
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.
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.
Sunday 16 January 2011
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.
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.
Sunday 9 January 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)