Review of "River Monsters" Loch Ness Special

Though I suspect most readers have seen Jeremy Wade's "Legend of Loch Ness", the two episode special may be viewed by British viewers for a limited time at ITV's online catch up website. The obvious spoilers will now ensue.

The first episode focused on Loch Ness as Wade attempted to form a picture of what he was looking for by pouring over old reports, speaking to contemporary witnesses (Val Moffat's account from 1990, reproduced below by the show) and local expert, Adrian Shine.  However, the analysis began to take a turn in a certain direction as Jeremy discarded all long necked sightings as irrelevant to the investigation.

Now I have spoken in the past about cherry picking the data to suit one's theory. Admittedly, the sightings database is not a perfect representation of the mystery. It includes unrevealed hoaxes and misidentifications; but it also contains real experiences by people of an object unclassified and unknown. Add to that mix, inaccurate descriptions of the creature (as opposed to misidentified birds, waves, etc) and you see the magnitude of the work.

To this we can add the second unmentioned but discarded class of land sightings. With apologies to Oscar Wilde, to lose one class of sightings may be regarded as a misfortune; but to lose two looks like carelessness. But we defer to Jeremy as he develops his argument.

Having decided the Loch Ness Monster has no long neck, it opened possibilities to our renowned fish catcher. But first, he indulged in a spot of fishing at Loch Ness. Casting his line more in hope than realism, he pulled up a few eels. That surprised me somewhat as I was more expecting char, trout or something else. But a sturdier form of rod would appear later as Jeremy moved on.

Seeking a more ancient route, Jeremy looked at the well known but unknown Pictish Elephant of Highland symbol stones (below). What this might represent has always been a matter of debate, but in this program it is linked to the St. Columba story and then to Norse Mythology. Quite how I am not sure, but it provided the stepping stone to the next episode.

In episode two, it was off to Iceland as Mr. Wade linked the Loch Ness Monster to Norse monsterology. He surmised something that lurks in the cold depths of the North Atlantic could be a creature known to the Vikings and somehow made its way to Loch Ness.

That creature is the Greenland Shark, a twenty foot plus, two thousand pound plus brute that wouldn't think twice about snacking on a polar bear. It is a life largely mysterious to science but it is believed to grow at a slow rate due to the cold and who knows how long it lives for. Armed with sonar and a sturdy 2000 foot line, he attempted to catch one over an indeterminate number of days.

The small dorsal fin is seen as an advantage in Loch Ness Monster morphology as it allows a more hump like appearance on the loch surface. However, the picture above suggests a rather flat back on this shark which does not look capable of presenting the classic "upturned boat" presentation.

One interesting aspect of this creature as they fished for it was its invisibility to their sonar systems. The Greenland Shark possesses no swim bladder to register on sonar and it was plumbing depths of up to 2000 feet below. That made me contrast and compare it to our sonar shy quarry in Loch Ness. Does Nessie have lungs or a swim bladder? Perhaps not, though those flexible humps may contain gas of some description at various times.

Eventually, a smaller 400 pound Greenland Shark was pulled up but was too big to land on the boat. After looking it over, they let it go back. Again, because of its lack of a swim bladder, it was a creature that could be pulled up from the depths without suffering the equivalent of the bends and a ruptured swim bladder.

With that the search concluded. A Nessie sized animal from the seas surrounding Scotland had been suggested and in some ways it was not too dissimilar to the Atlantic Sturgeon theory favoured by more sceptical researchers. Apart from issues around long necks, how would such a creature get into Loch Ness?

This was not discussed, but I would presume they may favour a smaller, juvenile creature swimming in the River Ness. Only seals (and perhaps porpoises) have been proven for sure to make it into the loch from the sea, but no evidence for sturgeons or sharks is forthcoming.

Do I think the Greenland Shark is a credible theory? No, I don't, but in terms of size, weight and cold adaptability, it is perhaps the one animal in the region that comes closest to the large creature that occupies the attention of this blog.

A New Sighting from 2012

The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports today on Gary Campbell's recent comments about the lack of Nessie sightings since 2012. In response to this, a retired Royal Mail worker by the name of Ken  Ross, contacted him to recount his sighting and his four photographs from October 25th 2012. His story begins as he was driving from his home in Inverness to Fort William and as they passed the village of Inverfarigaig.

"My wife said she could see something strange in the loch so I stopped in a lay-by and took four photographs. It looked like a boat wake, but it wasn’t wide enough to have come from a boat, was about 200ft long and travelling at a fair speed for a while then stopped – there wasn’t a boat to be seen for miles. I don’t know what caused it and didn’t give it a great deal of thought until I saw Gary’s appeal to get in touch.”

I can't really add much more at this point. The location itself is a highway for cruise boats, but the witness says he saw none and was convinced it behaved in a way different to a wake. Indeed, boat wakes don't just stop, they just dissipate slowly. I have seen a couple of videos like this recently which show some unusual surface activity without anything solid revealing itself. 

I refer readers first to a video below from April 2010 which I highlighted some months back by way of comparison. Also, there follows a strange water disturbance filmed from the tower of Urquhart Castle filmed on the 24th August 2010 near the location of the first video. What these could be is a matter of conjecture and may all well be classed as having the same cause (hat tip to jimmy_sher for second video).

And for those in the comments section, this photo was requested.

Sandra Mansi's Painting of Champ

Cryptid researcher, Paul Cropper, has unearthed another gem with this painting from 2007 of Champ done by the famous Sandra Mansi who took a picture of the creature back in 1977. Compare this painting with the actual photo below. Paul thinks the painting is somewhat Brontosaurian in nature and Sandra may have used some dinosaur painting as guidance.

Bigfoot and Nessie

The two great cryptozoological mysteries of the age, the hairy hominid stalking through the North American forests and the large creature swimming in the inky blackness of Loch Ness. They have vied for the top cryptid slot for decades.

But, in recent years, Bigfoot has certainly been to the fore of public consciousness thanks to its presence in the United States of America with the resources, zeal and "can do" attitude of ordinary  Americans who form an army of hunters and researchers in the subject. Bigfoot websites outnumber Nessie websites and perhaps also the number of people who accept its existence.

However, recent events in the Bigfoot world  have got a casual Sasquatch believer such as myself taking more notice. I refer to the controversy over the alleged Bigfoot shot by Rick Dyer over a year ago. This event apparently happened as he took part in the filming of a British made documentary called "Shooting Bigfoot" which will hopefully soon be broadcast on the BBC's BBC4 channel as part of their new "Storyville" season.

Towards the end of that documentary is a claimed scene of Dyer racing out of his tent in underpants to shoot the seven foot creature dead. There is also an alleged scene of another Bigfoot assaulting the film producer, Morgan Matthews, and leaving him with a noticeable black eye and other injuries.

However, Dyer has a serious credibility problem in that he faked another dead Bigfoot back in 2008 and is generally disliked by other Bigfoot researchers for his arrogant manner. In other words, even the majority of the Bigfoot community are lining up with the usual sceptics to condemn him. In a sense, Dyer is the Frank Searle of the Bigfoot world.

Dyer says he has the taxidermied corpse and is beginning a tour with it. So you have a documentary with some kind of footage and a stuffed animal. Whether you believe it or not, this is going to prove very interesting.

Rick Dyer claims there is a forthcoming press conference to announce findings of an unknown university's examination of the corpse. His cause is not helped by the postponement of said conference on Sunday. The longer this drags out, the bigger the doubts.

I can't imagine a "Shooting Nessie" documentary. Firstly, you need a very good reason to own and use a gun in Britain and, secondly, even if you shot one in the water, it would most like sink without trace and without hope of recovery. Mind you, a "Finding Nessie" series has some appeal.

So, is it a mockumentary backed up by a fake Bigfoot body or something else?  Either way, it makes for good reading. If he has the real deal, cryptozoology will never be the same again, but don't hold your breath quite yet!

WHALES

On another point, scientists now say they can count whales from space. If they think they can do it with whales, why not Loch Ness Monsters? See this BBC article. Of course, people have attempted to point out strange objects on Loch Ness from satellite images before, but nothing that looks conclusive. Searching the loch from above has been attempted in a minor way in the past, but it is an expensive way of doing it. Maybe one day, we will have a satellite webcam feeding images of Loch Ness every time it passes overhead to a worldwide audience of hunters.

1975

To round things off, this item appeared on eBay bringing back childhood memories of more feverish days. It is the Daily Mail from November 25th 1975 as interest continued to mount about the Rines underwater photos. A mere snip at $198!

First blank Year since 1925?

Gary Campbell, president of the Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, has been quoted as claiming that 2013 was the first year in which no there were no sightings of the Loch Ness Monster since 1925. You can read the story here and here amongst others.

He admits that people did come forward on three occasions claiming to have spotted the creature, but these have been dismissed as waves and a duck. I presume one of the reports was the wave-like Nessie or Nessie-like wave filmed by David Elder last August. That one is certainly in the inconclusive category which leads to a problem in deciding what is and what is not a Loch Ness Monster sighting.

In fact, it depends who you ask. Ask any of the leading sceptics whether such and such is a sighting of Nessie and you will get the answer "No" at all times in all places. In other words, no sightings ever since 1925. Ask people such as myself, Gary Campbell, Steve Feltham or other pro-Nessie researchers and you will get a "Yes", "No" or "Don't Know" depending on the case.

The other point is that there is often a delayed reaction in people coming forward with accounts, sometime decades past. The classic example is 1933 when the monster hit the headlines and people started to come forward with stories of sightings going back 40 years!

So I am confident not only that the creature has been spotted in 2013 but that these stories will be forthcoming in due time.

In fact, I have already mentioned a story which has "Nessie" written on it for me. To requote from my review of 2013, it appeared on the Facebook page of the cruise company, Cruise Loch Ness. It goes like this:  

Three different people came to the Wheelhouse today to tell me that they had seen something in the Loch on the 2 o clock cruise. They all described a long black thing on the surface behind the 'Royal Scot' it was visible for a few seconds before disappearing. I wish they'd said something when they were watching it, as I was busy looking where we were going and missed it !! 

This happened on April 5th just the day before the "Nessie at 80" Edinburgh Symposium. The skipper, Marcus Atkinson, gave me further details: 

I was skippering the Royal Scot when this happened, and it was me that posted on Facebook. It is unusual because, over the last few years no-one has ever mentioned seeing anything, then on one trip three different people from different parts of the boat came to the wheelhouse and mentioned seeing something? I remember that it was a flat day with no wind, and everyone pointed to the same spot on the loch.

At the time I didn't think much about it because - they were all pointing to the place on the Loch where the Royal Scot turns around. This off the horseshoe scree and on a windless day the wake from our voyage up will slowly move across the Loch, at times it does look like several humps moving across the water. Because I didn't see it, it's hard to say anything really. Other than I wish someone had pointed it out at the time!

The Marjory Moir Story Revisited

I showcased this classic sighting from 1936 in a previous article. You may think that would have been it but a comment submitted to that article recently has brought it back to life in more ways than one.

Marjory Moir passed away some years back but before then her account was recorded on audio tape back in the early 1980s by her granddaughter. The transcript of that conversation is given below as Mrs. Moir relives that exciting day fifty years previously.

The other fascinating thing about this new information is that one of the witnesses is still alive today and living in Scotland! Indeed, she had a second sighting of the creature, although it was not as spectacular as this famous account. She was the youngest of the party and is called "Ann" here to respect her anonymity.

The recounting of this story begins with some words from her granddaughter:

I am the granddaughter of Marjory Moir. She was one of the most sensible, down to earth people you could meet. She had a very interesting life, which included living and travelling in America and other far away places. She was intelligent and articulate and was absolutely not the kind of person that needed to invent stories to gain attention. She had many interesting tales to relate about her experiences and travels, of which the monster sighting was just one.

As several members of my family had seen the creature, it was simply common knowledge in our family that it did exist. It was a recurring topic of conversation over the years, and accounts were retold and discussed by all family members, with the details never changing.

A few years before my grandmother died, I asked her to tell me again about the time she saw the Loch Ness monster and recorded the conversation onto cassette. I still have the recording in my possession and it is six and half minutes long.

When this was recorded my grandmother was in her mid-eighties and a little forgetful, but nevertheless able to relate her experience very clearly. 

I notice there appears to be some confusion about who was driving the car on the day of the 1936 sighting. As I mentioned, my grandmother was becoming forgetful in her eighties, and although she remembered all of the others who who were there, she forgot to mention Mrs Grant Shewglie on the cassette recording. So who was driving and who had to move the car to make way for the other vehicle is not totally clear, but probably the earlier accounts are more accurate as her memory was obviously fresher then. However the details about the sighting itself remained unchanged, also during the numerous retellings and discussions of the subject within our family over the years.

The four other people in her car that day in October 1936 were:-

1. Her sister Barbara, also referred to as Bab or Baba

2. A girl, nine years old at the time, referred to as "Ann". (edited)

3. Her husband Jack's mother, 'Granny Moir'

4. A friend, Mrs Grant Shewglie who she forgets to name in this account.

Mrs. Moir now recounts her story. The event happened on the road north of Foyers. The picture below from 1951 gives an idea of the background to the story that day. The interviewer is designated as "I" and Mrs. Moir as "M".

I: "Tell me, you saw the Loch Ness monster, didn't you?"

M: "Hmm?"

I: "You saw the Loch Ness monster - haven't you?"

M: "Oh yes I did indeed. I got one of the best views ever got of it. We watched it for fourteen minutes."

I: "Tell me about that. When did it happen?"

M: "Well, oh what year was it? Before we came to Edinburgh. Bab and I were coming back from - we'd gone to Foyers, which is about fifteen miles up towards Loch Ness from Inverness - fifteen miles. We went out for afternoon tea and we had Granny Moir. Jack's mother was with us. There was myself and Barbara, Granny Moir and Ann. How many? How many people's that? Me and Baba and Granny Moir and - and em, Ann. Five of...four of us.

And we were coming - I was driving, and of course there was a part of the road that was very near the loch, and no trees between us and the loch, and - and eh, Baba said; "Oooh!" she said; "There's the Loch Ness monster." and I stopped the car. And sure enough here was this thing on the top of the waves. So I got - stopped the car - pulled the car into a sort of layby, and we went down to the edge of - of the loch, in amongst the pebbles, and we watched it. It would be about a third of the way across the loch.

At that particular place the loch would be about a mile and a half wide, and we went down to watch it, and it would be about a third of a mile from us. And it was a - it had three humps, a little hump and a big hump and a smaller hump, and a long neck with a head, you know. And we went down and we watched it. And it dipped - it kept dipping its head into the water and playing itself, and then all of a sudden it turned and fled - turned round away from us and went straight across the loch, and it made a terrific wave on the shore, and Ann had to get out of the way of the - of the - of the wave. It came up onto the shore.

And then it, it - you could see the top of its head or the top of the middle hump all the way across the loch to Drumnadrochit, and there it turned. It came straight back to where it was before and Ann was standing like this (gestures), scared of it. And it came right back to where it was originally and took up its position, but there were no humps on it this time, the back was straight. Previously the back had been three humps, but this time the back was straight but it still had the curved neck and dipping its head in the water.

And we watched it and watched it. And eventually there was a hoot, hoot, hooting on the road. It's a very narrow road, and somebody a - a baker's van or something was coming and I had to come up and move the car on. So by the time I came back from moving the car to let this other fellow past, it had disappeared. But it was a grand view of it. Three humps: a wee hump, a big hump and a little hump and a neck like that (gestures), and it would be about thirty feet long I should imagine. Nobody's ever discovered what it is."

"Oh yes, that was the Loch Ness monster. And I remember they (her grandparents) lived in a farm away up at the top of Dores. A farm called Urquhart."

I: "Oh yes."

M: "Lovely part of the country and eh, he (her father) used to be annoying the farm workers. It was quite a big farm, and my grandparents were good workers and it was a good farm. And he used to annoy the kids - the - the workmen, and my father said that - that they used to frighten him by saying that if they - if he didn't behave himself the em,...oh... 'something' would get him - the oh, the Gaelic name for the - for the monster - the Gaelic for a water horse, whatever that - I can't remember it unfortunately. But they said that if he didn't behave himself that the water horse would get him, using the Gaelic word which meant the monster. So the monster must have been there many, many years ago.

"Oh yes I've seen it. People don't believe me but I have seen it - watched it, stood on the shores and looked at it and saw it. And it was in television and I was on the radio about it too. They gave me a fiver for talking about it (laughs). Och, it's been a very interesting life you know."

I: "Yes I think so. You've only seen the monster once then?"

M: "Only once I've seen it, yes."

The Gaelic for "Water Horse" is "Each Uisge" and it is not surprising (to me) that old tales of this creature in Loch Ness were known to locals from the nineteenth century. So it is great to read this witness testimony coming back to us over the decades and also exciting to know that one witness still lives today.

You may have your own views on this story but it certainly continues to hold the status of "classic sighting" amongst believers in the Loch Ness Monster.

Jeremy Wade at Loch Ness

Finally, the two part episode of "River Monsters" at Loch Ness will be televised on British TV on 11th February at 7:30pm. Presumably, part two follows next week. This was first televised in the USA in May last year. More details here.

By some strange coincidence, I will be starting my talk on the Loch Ness Monster on the same day at the same time. Thank goodness for video recorders!

The Dornoch Dragon and Nessie

Over at Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog, I stumbled upon a reference to my book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness". The subject in question was the Dornoch Dragon which was reputed to have terrorised that Highland town in the 13th century.

The point of referencing that story in my book was to highlight the difference but co-existence of dragon and kelpie stories in the folklore of Highland times. The Loch Ness Monster is a Kelpie, but it is no Dragon. You can go over to Beachcombing's website to get the story.

But what interests me is not so much the story but the source. I picked up on the story from a letter to The Scotsman newspaper on the 1st January 1934. The author of the letter was a Mr. David Murray Rose. 

Mr. Rose had previously sent a letter to the same newspaper mentioning some pre-1933 references to a strange beast in Loch Ness. These are important references but they have been dismissed by sceptics because he does not state his sources. Now for those who think Nessie is merely a media creation of the 1930s, such pre-1930s references are inconvenient and the sooner they are debunked away the better. Now I admit he does not state his sources, but I accept they exist. This week's article on the Dornoch Dragon has reinforced that view.

The article ends with doubts being cast upon the veracity of Rose's account and again poor old David Murray Rose is in the dock. But then help came along in the shape of Mr. Borky (who I believe also frequents this blog). Borky informed Beachcombing that there is indeed an earlier source for the story and refers us to the Folklore Journal, volume six, published in 1888. You can find a link to it here.

So David Murray Rose is vindicated in this letter to The Scotsman and therefore I would suggest that he is also trustworthy in his other letter on the Loch Ness Monster. Of course, the task is to find these original sources and that is not a simple task if they have not reached the scanners of Google Books yet.

I examined Mr. Rose's research material in Edinburgh when I was researching my book. Suffice to say, my two days there was not enough to cover the vast volume of boxes there. Indeed, trying to read his pencilled handwriting was no easy task either! If I ever retire, I hope to revisit them.

On a side note, I noticed that the 1888 Folklore Journal stated the following:

The dragon killed by St. Gilbert (before-mentioned) must have been a salamander, since it was born from a fire which has lasted seven years. It lived in fire, and its breath burnt all the forests of the Highlands : onlv a man who should see it before it saw him had power to slay it, St. Gilbert dug a hole and hid himself in it, so as to get the first sight of it. 

Interestingly, the Loch Ness Monster was also reputedly referred to as "The Salamander" in the 19th century. Is there a connection here between dragon and kelpie?  As it turns out, folklore has an interesting view of the salamander. The old Gaelic dictionary of animal names say this:

SALAMANDER. — Corr or corra-chagailte ; Teighiollas ; Urchuil or urcuil. 
Fire-form, sometimes fire-bird. 

A belief exists, or existed, that one of these nondescript creatures grew in any fire that was kept burning continuously or incessantly for seven years, hence the reason for extinguishing all furnaces periodically within that period ; it need hardly be added that the reason is of a more utilitarian and prosaic nature in cities. 

Of Sir Robert Gordon, the Third Baronet of Nova Scotia, it is said of his wizardry:

He is said to have fitted up a forge, and here night after night for seven long years he sat watching the glowing embers, until at length his patience was rewarded by the appearance of a live salamander. From this creature he tortured many an unearthly secret.

Perhaps not the salamander of modern day theories, but I wonder if the two were connected?

And finally, I also stumbled upon this piece from 1907:

The Adder as a swimmer — I do not suppose that the adder which was discovered swimming across Loch-Ness knew what it was attempting. Apart from the doubt whether snakes have long sight, it is obvious that a creature whose eyes are always close to the ground must have a very near horizon, and can, therefore, have no notion of the width of a large piece of water. - (to P. C. Inverness.) 

Snakes swimming across Loch Ness? You learn something every day! The sceptics can add that to their list of misidentifications!

A Photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

Trawling around the Internet as I do for Nessie information, I came across this photograph on a website compilation of holiday snaps. The owner of the picture had been to Scotland and elsewhere in Europe from the USA and had decided to put up a montage of her experiences. However, one of the pictures shows something a bit more than normal.

Here is a zoom in on the object of interest. It would appear the the picture was taken on the 15th July 2006 but the camera time is set at 0421. The location is given as a point off the Clansman Harbour at the north end of the loch but closer to the opposite shore, so the photographer was probably on a cruise boat (see map below).

Now I have tried several times to contact the owner of this photograph (who I believe is called Nancy) but without success and this basically leaves me in a bit of no-man's land. The reason I say that is because if I did establish contact the day after this article posted, several replies may be forthcoming. 

For example, the owner may say "It's a Photoshop job, I was just fooling around.". In that case, there is not much more to say and we move on.

Or she may say that is a genuine picture and we can take it from there.

Or she may come up with some other reply such as "The cruise boat had a Nessie sticker on the window for tourist Nessie snaps."

Of course, it may be the photographer is unable or unwilling to make contact.

But despite these unknowns, perhaps this is an opportunity to explore an area of Loch Ness Monster images that provokes debate. I am referring to digital images of the creatures and the argument over whether they are digitally manipulated images.

Of course, manipulated images of the Loch Ness Monster go hand in hand with the mystery itself. The 1977 Shiels picture is perhaps the best example, but the MacNab picture from 1955 has also been put under the scrutiny of sceptical enquirers.  However, such alleged images form a small part of the overall set of images. Others have been accused of being staged props or misidentification, the rest are genuine images of the creature.

PHOTOSHOPPING

Now one question levelled by sceptics today is why the clarity of the classic black and white pictures is not repeated today with superior cameras. However, when a photograph such as this turns up, it is automatically dismissed as a fake. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The "too good to be true" syndrome kicks in almost by instinct.

Now it may not have escaped your attention that the lake cryptid world has no lack of digitally faked images. A search for images of "loch ness monster" on google will throw up a good number of such "photoshopped" images (to quote the vernacular for such images). How can you distinguish the real from the fake? For me, this photograph is the catalyst to explore this more modern aspect of cryptid forensics more closely.

At the "lowest" level of analysis, the aforementioned snap judgements are oft to the fore. A picture appears on a cryptid website and not long after we get the photoshopping comments. People will look at such images and get a "feel" for whether it looks right or not. Of course, this involves a mixture of objective and subjective assessments, but we need something that eliminates the subjective.

At this point, I would have to point out that there are two types of photoshopped images, those that are intended to deceive and those that are intended as an obvious joke. The latter are not that difficult to spot. Those that intend to deceive put a bit more effort into their creation.

IMAGE ANALYSIS

One website I consulted gave five rules for detecting a Photoshop event:

1. "Software" metadata in image file is "Photoshop"
2. Image is compressed to JPEG file by Photoshop (which has some unique pattern)
3. Image is compressed to JPEG file twice (which has some other unique pattern)
4. Part of image has been cloned from another part of it
5. Image color or brightness is deemed abnormal which should be manipulated

I can't say I will exhaustively apply all these principles today - I am no expert on digital manipulation - but the need to "ramp up" on this aspect of Loch Ness Monster investigation has become more apparent to me.

On the first point of the metadata, this is part of the Exif (Exchangeable image file format) data that makes up JPEG, TIF and WAV image files. This data contains information on the circumstances of the image such as camera make and model, date and time, exposure time and focal length. Since the data does not actually describe the image, it is called metadata. You can see this for yourself on a Windows system by right clicking on a picture file and selecting "Properties".

However, on trying some images, finding the clue of subterfuge via the metadata was not as clean cut as one may think. One website that seems to be popular in looking for anomalies is imageedited.com.  This will run some basic tests on an uploaded image file and hazard a guess as to whether the image has been changed. 

When I ran this photograph through it, the decision as to whether image editing had occurred was "Probably" though it did not list any image editing software as a culprit. Is this a decisive conclusion? I do not think so. When I ran another of the owner's photographs from Loch Ness which was no more than an ordinary snap of the castle, it gave the same result!

It seemed apparent to me that both images had undergone some changes in preparation for web site hosting. One possible explanation being the downsizing of the image to a smaller size. I also wondered if an editing software program could be masked by running it through a subsequent, less suspicious program?

MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Seeking to take this further, I came upon the website fotoforensics.com. On top of the metadata analysis I just mentioned, two further tools are employed to ascertain the originality of a photographic image. The first is called Error Level Analysis ("ELA" hereafter). This works on the principle that a JPEG image should uniformly and roughly have the same level of data compression (JPEG is a process which compresses the original image to a smaller file size but usually with the loss of information). Any differences in compression rate in an image is suggestive of digital modification.

The website allows you to upload a file for ELA conversion which outputs an image. The guidelines given for that new image are summarised as follows:

Edges. Similar edges should have similar brightness in the ELA result. All high-contrast edges should look similar to each other, and all low-contrast edges should look similar. With an original photo, low-contrast edges should be almost as bright as high-contrast edges. 

Textures. Similar textures should have similar coloring under ELA. Areas with more surface detail, such as a close-up of a basketball, will likely have a higher ELA result that a smooth surface.

Surfaces. Regardless of the actual color of the surface, all flat surfaces should have about the same coloring under ELA.

With that in mind, I looked around for some faked Nessie pictures to analyze. In each pair, the first picture is the original and the one below is the ELA image. The first one presents an immediate problem as this white Nessie has an ELA which is higher (i.e. more complex) than the sky of a similar hue. 

The next picture is taken from Claudio Diaz's Lake Monster Facebook page. Claudio has produced various Photoshop reproductions and these provide an interesting comparison (indeed, Claudio's opinion on this matter is solicited). Here we see that the brightness of the edges around the "monster" are not consistent with other low/high contrast edges indicating a problem.

Another image from the Lake Monsters Facebook page shows a more indistinct hump image nestling within the reflection of Urquhart Castle. This fuzziness is mirrored in the indistinct lack of edge in the ELA image. A harder image to judge, but perhaps others have an opinion.

Now I bring in the same process for the main photograph of our interest. The result is that, unlike the other pictures, the object here is barely visible in the ELA image. Is this significant and is it an indication of no digital manipulation? Perhaps, but there is no foolproof technique here and it would have helped to have the original and larger image.

JPEG QUALITY

The second analysis tool is JPEG Quality. Each time an image file is opened in a graphics editor and resaved, there is a potential loss of image quality (this depends on the quality level selected). The loss of quality can be estimated and compared to other images. 

Using our fotoforensics tool, the JPEG quality is estimated to be 85%. When another of the Loch Ness holiday snaps from the owner was put through this filter, its quality level was also estimated to be 85%. This suggests both images went through the same sequence of events. If the Nessie photo had gone through an extra level of processing to add the "monster", then it would be possible for it to have a lower JPEG quality.

CONCLUSIONS

So, some conclusions may be reached, but I suspect an expert digital manipulator could produce an image which only experts could judge at the pixel level. Since the owner of the photograph has not replied to my requests, the jury has to remain out on this one.

But certainly, judging it purely as an image (independent of its source), it is a good one. You can see the precise detail that the object possesses as one observes the glint of the sun reflecting off the head and to a lesser extent off the humps. There is also the reflection of the neck on the water. Moreover, the image has packed more detail into a smaller area than the other images we compared here.

On the opposite side of the coin, the second hump to the left of the main hump looks out of place. What could that mean? Also, the zoomed in pixellated area to the left of the neck reflection looks a bit strange, but how valid is an image judgement when individual pixels are resolved?

So, I am bit new to this and would welcome comments from others who may have more experience of image analysis. I would also like to know when sceptics regard a photo as no longer "too good to be true" and not "photoshopped".

 

Forthcoming talk on the Loch Ness Monster

I will be giving a talk on the Loch Ness Monster to the Edinburgh Fortean Society on Tuesday 11th February at 7:30pm. The venue is the Counting House pub on West Nicolson Street in Edinburgh. The Society's website can be found here.

The talk will look back on the year past from the point of view of the Monster as well as the Loch Ness area. That will include excerpts on my own work as well as some stories from the area (some of which have not reached this blog!).

Entry is £1 only and the talk will have a Q&A session at the end. Finish time will be about 10pm. Hope to see you there.

 

Frank Searle Speaks!

A fellow monster hunter, Scott Mardis, altered me to an interesting YouTube video on Frank Searle. To be more precise, it is by Frank Searle himself and is described as a cassette recording he sent out to subscribers of his newsletter in 1979. My thanks to Terry Sly who owns the YouTube channel for putting this online.

You may or may not want to listen to the whole tape before I discuss it below. If you listen first, be warned there is a two minute silence at 28 minutes which is not a fault. The discussion by Frank can be divided into five sections:

 
The Search for the Monster

This is the main section consisting of Frank's views on the creatures as well as the attempts to track it down. Not surprisingly, he is somewhat scathing of organisations and expeditions he regarded as profiteering enterprises. The Loch Ness Investigation Bureau does not escape his judgement as he accuses the organisation of non-existent camera watches in the last few years and an amateurish approach. 

People involved in those latter days may choose to answer this themselves, though in my recent tribute to the late Roy Mackal, it seems there is an implication that the search had moved from surface camera watches to other techniques such as sonar, hydrophone and so on.

He is equally scathing of Robert Rines and the Academy of Applied Sciences and suggests the prevalent theory of the time that the famous "Gargoyle" photograph was none other than the monster prop for the 1969 Sherlock Holmes film. Frank even claims he has a shot of the sunken prop underwater, but gives no indication as to how he obtained this! It seems Frank's view of the AAS would not be far off that of modern sceptics!

Frank goes with the popular theory of its time, the advanced or modified plesiosaur theory. Though he also says the creature is not an air breather. Are these two reconcilable? Thinking also that there may be thirty animals in the loch, he splits them into three or four families which keep to their areas of the loch. An interesting view, though what makes him think that is not clarified.

Of course, there will be agreement between Frank's Nessie views and other monster enthusiasts. I agree with him that sightings are not much more than ten per year but I do not agree with him when he dismisses land sightings as all fabrications and misidentifications. Again, sceptics and Frank Searle meet on common ground. Curiouser and curiouser!

What would Frank do if he had unlimited exploration funds? He would dredge the loch for those Nessie skulls and bones. Now this kind of operation is objected to today, but given the loch floor covers over ten square miles, that would seem to be somewhat over protective. But then again, how much surface would you have to dredge to hit Nessie gold?

Review of interesting cases

The recording goes silent for a couple of minutes after 28 minutes, but don't adjust your controls as Frank does come back with a selection of his own alleged sightings and others from the literature.

Interesting points around Loch Ness

A whistle stop tour of the loch then begins as Frank begins near Dores and heads south and then north along the loch with various observations. One interesting statement he makes as his imaginary tour goes past Alltsigh is how he claims to have had his first sighting, not when he pitched his tent in 1969 but in 1965 when he was on holiday at Loch Ness.

Folklore

Some old folk tales are related as Frank relates the tale of the Witches Burn running by his tent and the soldier ghosts that reputedly march between Ballacladich and Dores.

Monster Hunting Tips

Finally, some monster hunting tips from our controversial figure as he sums up his time there with 25,000 visitors to his caravan exhibition, 2,000 letters answered, 38,000 hours of surface watching, 38 sightings and 9 pictures! The video finally puts up a picture of the interior of Frank's caravan exhibition which I took in the early 1980s. I am not aware of any other such snaps, but would like to see if any are out there to add to the historical Nessie archive.

I would also have to ask Terry about the Searle gravestone at the end of the video. I am not sure it is that of Frank Searle, who I believe died in 2005.

How the tape turned up is a story in itself. Terry's father was John "Sparky" Sly, a piano player, who met Frank Searle in the 1970s when he took his piano up north to try and "serenade" the monster. You can see a clip of a conversation he had with Frank Searle below. After that, Frank sent his tape and newsletters to the Sly household. How many of these tapes survive today is not known, so again, thanks to Terry for putting it online on his YouTube channel.

Joe Zarzynski and Loch Ness

Here is a book I never got round to buying until recently and so I briefly review it here and will add it to the Nessie bibliography.

Joe Zarzynski was active in the search for The Loch Ness and Lake Champlain Monsters in the 1970s and 1980s. He made various trips to Loch Ness but his main focus was on his local cryptid, "Champ" on which he wrote the 1984 book "Champ - Beyond the Legend". Below is a picture of him (right) with famous monster hunter, Tim Dinsdale.

In 1986, he wrote this book which combined two of his major interests, lake cryptids and underwater archaeology. At 111 pages, it is an afternoon read with about 60% of the book devoted to Loch Ness, so it qualifies for the book list. However, the book is not just about underwater wreckage.

The subjects covered in the book from a Loch Ness point of view are the Zulu-class boat wreck of Temple Pier, John Cobb's "Crusader" boat, the Wellington Bomber, the Sherlock Holmes monster, and the 1930s Steam Engine. Non "wreckage" items include the Goodyear Blimp, Ken Wallis' autogyro, submarines and atmospheric diving suits, Nessie boat collisions, giant nets and so on.

One thing I noted was the reference to the Zulu-class boat and I recalled a recent article on divers at Loch Ness which included a reference to a Zulu-class wreck, but off Foyers on the other side of the loch and discovered much later in 2002. Also, since the book was written, parts of John Cobb's boat have been located. Doubtless, other wrecks lie across the bottom and sides of Loch Ness and most likely a number of Nessie carcasses.

Since those days, Joe has left the cryptozoological field and has pursued his other love of investigating shipwrecks. You can find an example of that here. He still supports cryptozoology and believes there is something to the Champ phenomemon.

Tales of Multiple Monsters

What better way to start an article on multiple Nessies than this recent creation by Jack Rumney? Being inspired by the new Kelpie statues near Falkirk, he transported them to the home of Kelpies, Loch Ness. As said here before, Loch Ness has more weird creature stories associated with it than any other Scottish loch (and perhaps any other lake cryptid).

THE RECORD

So how many sighting reports do you think have been made which mention more than one creature? This obviously meant a bit of digging about and my thanks to Charles Paxton for his help. As it turns out, the answer is surprisingly few. Out of over one thousand reports that have made it into newspapers, books and other written sources; the total number is nineteen or perhaps 1.7% of the entire database. What I have managed to find are listed below in chronological order:

1. Miss Fraser 24th June 1934 ("More Than A Legend" p.84)
One monster and smaller one swimming side by side.

2. Farmer 29th June 1934 (Dundee Courier and Advertiser 30th June 1934)
Two humps half a mile apart.

3. Mr. R.Scott July 12th 1934 (Evening Telegraph 13th July 1934)
Two creatures inferred by time and distance between Urquhart Bay and Fort Augustus.

4. Angus MacRae July 14th 1934 (Inverness Courier 17th July 1934)
Two huge objects (one fin-like) moving 100 yards away between Altsigh and Castle. One was forward and to right of other.

5. Robert Neish A weekend of July 1934 (Aberdeen Press and Journal 5th Feb 1942)
Two eight foot necks with cow like heads at point opposite "Johnnies Point" moving about.

6. Colin and Archibald Campbell September 1936 (Aberdeen Press and Journal 22nd Sept 1936)
Two humps 15ft apart near Fraser's Point.

7. C.B.Farrel (2nd hand) 3rd January 1937 ("More Than A Legend" p.84)
Monster reported at Foyers and then within 15 minutes at Borlum Bay 10 miles away.

8. Andrew Smith and Anthony Considine June 1937 ("More Than A Legend" p.83)
Three small creatures seen swimming away from stern of boat near Fort Augustus. Three feet long, lizard like with four rudimentary limbs and distinct necks.

9. Robert Gourlay 13th July 1937 (Aberdeen Press and Journal 14th July 1937)
At Brachla near Abriachan. Big, black, shiny object with two smaller ones either side.

10. Mr. S. Hunter Gordon 1939 ("More Than A Legend" p.39)
Two humps moving in parallel and a few yards apart moving up loch, breaking surface every 200 yards or so.

11. Sandie Grant and Mr. Scott 8th January 1943 ("More Than A Legend" p.83)
Large animal seen moving towards Corrie's Cave while a similar object disturbed water near Horseshoe.

12. George Carpenter August 8th 1943 (LNIB sighting report)
A report of three monsters seen from the air (heads only).

13. Kenneth Key September 1952 ("Loch Ness Monster" 4th edition pg.18)
Three heads seen moving in V formation towards shore, no necks. 

14. Mr. D. Campbell 16th June 1957 ("Loch Ness Monster" 4th edition pg 115)
Seen near Dores, two objects initially mistaken for rowing boats 150 yards apart. One did a right angle turn around the other and then both disappeared. Seen from a hillside a mile away.

15. Alex Campbell 16th July 1958  ("The Loch Ness Story" p.81)
One large hump heading diagonally across the loch while the other lying quietly beside.
Seen near Fort Augustus Abbey.

16. Mr. Connel Sept 1969 near Dores ("Project Water Horse" p.189)
Three pairs of double humps, each extending about 20 feet. Sunk in unison and seen at half mile distance.

17. Mrs Robertson August 18th 1970 Fort Augustus ("Project Water Horse" p.189)
Head and neck with double hump with smaller one hump and head neck splashing behind. Seen at 300 yards from Fort Augustus.

18. Frank Searle 12th June 1975 (Searle p.91)
Two small creatures seen in stream heading towards loch.

19. Ian Dunn and Billy Kennedy 12th July 1976 (Alex Harvey Band - "The Loch Ness Monster")

Four triangular humps moving about.

To give you some detail on some of these events, case number two is shown below (click to enlarge).

Then we have the extremely rare case of two long necks being seen. This is case number five and I actually did not know about this report until recently when I did a more focused search at the library. It is a collector's item, only one of two reports made of two long necks.

ANALYSIS

If anyone thinks they can add to this list, let me know. So what does the list tell us? Firstly, one item on this list tells us that not everything is to be explicitly trusted. You may guess I am referring to Frank Searle's story of seeing two juvenile Nessies clambering in a stream. Now whether Frank is telling the truth here is largely lost in the noise of his known hoaxing. If I had to start filtering supposed hoaxes and misidentifications from what is dubbed "real", there would be plenty of scope for our own bias and prejudice to skew the outcome. So everything stays.

The most creatures reported are four in our last account but the complete list is twelve sightings of two creatures, six sightings of three and one of four. At least five of the nineteen reports involve smaller creatures accompanied or unaccompanied by what one may call the adult. There are no reports of multiple creatures seen on land.

Note we only cover multiple visual sightings and not sonar. I have not looked into sonar contacts in regard to whether they display multiple and simultaneous hits.

But what constitutes a multiple sighting? Obviously, when two long necks are reported or humps are travelling in parallel as opposed to in sequence then we can mark those as multiple. However, some are less clear. Case number six refers to two humps fifteen feet apart. Now, it could be conceived that this is one creature or two. Each case has to be assessed on its individual facts. So, for example, it may be speculated that the famous MacNab photograph is in fact two creatures, one smaller than the other (this is my own opinion).

Roy Mackal in his study of sightings for his book "The Monsters of Loch Ness" had 66 out of 251 sightings display two or more humps (26%). A fair number of these could be multiple animals, but it would be pretty much a subjective judgement as to which is which.

The other factor is time and space as demonstrated by cases 3 and 7 where single creatures are observed but separated by a large distance and short time. The presumption here is that the first creature observed could not get to the location of the second sighting in time and therefore these are distinct animals. Again, there is a degree of subjectivity involved here in how fast a Loch Ness Monster is inclined to move. My own view is that these creatures are largely inert but can move when a suitably large threat or opportunity arises.

STATISTICS

Things become more interesting when the distribution of sightings is analysed. The spatial distribution looks unremarkable and accords with a random spread but this cannot be said of the temporal distribution.

The first thing that struck me was how 26% of the reports happened within a mere 20 day period over June and July 1934! These five cases occurred during one of the busiest periods for Loch Ness Monster reports. Between June and July 1934, we have about 50 reported cases and so our five cases constitute 10% of that record as opposed to the overall statistic of 1.7% which makes it nearly six times higher.

The year 1937 is also curious in giving us 3 reports out of a total of about 23 reports but the 20 day period in 1934 particularly raises a question I will return to. The final anomaly is of the opposite kind in that we have no cases of multiple monsters reported since 1976! That is a gap of 37 years which seems intolerable from a random, statistical point of view. If we extrapolate the post-war period reports beyond 1976 out to 2013, we may reasonably expect perhaps 8 or 9 reports. A big zero would seem to defy expectations, no matter which way it was viewed.

So why the big gap? Doubtless, the drop in recording of sightings has contributed to this void, though I am not entirely convinced this is the sole reason. Is the feared drop in the monster population due to overfishing of the surrounding waters being reflected in this statistical space? I sincerely hope not and rather hope that a closer look at that period of time may yet yield something.

MONSTERS AND THEORIES

So what can be gleaned from this subset of the sightings database? A result of less than 2% of the entire database suggests that the Loch Ness Monster is no pack animal. This analysis suggests the Loch Ness Monster is more a tiger than a lion. Most of a creature's life may be spent in isolation ploughing lonely furrows along the deep basins of the loch (when it can be bothered to move). One may then presume that proximity of creatures happen for at least three rare reasons, raising offspring, mating and territorial conflict.

The first we see in several of the reports though the other two are somewhat more difficult to demonstrate. The lack of multiple large creatures would suggest mating is not a frequent event (i.e. it is multiennial). Considering the creatures live in darkness, it is no surprise that I will now compare them to the reproductive cycles of deep sea fish where animal growth is slow, longevity is long and sexual maturity is reached at an age comparable to humans. The lack of multiple animal sightings is consistent with this view.

Territoriality is a more complex matter requiring a more detailed analysis of the sightings database.  I will leave that for another day.

Though not a full explanation, the statistical anomaly previously mentioned for the summer of 1934 has some explanation in multiple animals. It is a well known theory that the road blasting and dumping of numerous tonnes of rubble into the loch during the A82 upgrade stirred the Loch Ness Monster to the surface.

The year of 1934 has the highest proportion of reports at about 140 or nearly 13% of the total whereas the annual average is more like 1.25% per annum. If multiple animals as opposed to one animal are being stirred from the depths during those seminal years of 1933 and 1934, then a multiplication of sightings is more understandable (though I suggest not the only explanation).

Why we should have such a high concentration of multiple creatures over a 20 day period is not known or accountable from our monster theory. It is simply not known what went on over that period of time.

THE SCEPTICAL THEORY

Now if you are sceptical about all these musings about creatures in Loch Ness, I now focus on how all this applies to the conventional sceptical theory on the Loch Ness Monster. Or to put it another way, does the sceptical theory predict that only about 2% of reports will be of multiple monsters?

I suggest it doesn't make any predictions at all expect in a broad, general sense and it is a reactive rather than proactive theory. By that I mean, the theory is mainly brought out when a sighting makes the news, some normal explanation is offered and it is then put back in the box.

Actual quantitative studies based on the theory are few and far between. In other words, the theory lacks detail and precision. So when the question is asked "What percentage of reports will be of multiple monsters?", do not expect an answer.

However, it is my opinion that the theory is flawed and our 2% is lower than the sceptical theory would allow. As you can guess, the theory is a composite one in which "Nessies" turn out to be wave effects, debris, animal, hoaxes and so on. Now within each of these subsets there is scope to allow for the so called misperception of multiple Nessies.

For example, witnesses misidentify logs, birds, otters and deer as Loch Ness Monsters. Each of these has the potential to create a "long neck" event. The total percentage of single long neck sightings is less than 10%. The total percentage for multiple long neck sightings is less than 0.2% which is one fiftieth of the single neck total. Water fowl and otters are not solitary creatures and there is always a good chance that when one is seen there will be another within the field of view. Better than one in fifty I would suggest.

The same applies to tree debris being washed into the loch from streams, there is again a good chance of two logs putting in an appearance. In the case of deer swimming across the loch, it is accepted that these rare events tend to be singular.

When I met sceptical Loch Ness researcher Adrian Shine at the recent "Nessie at 80" event, I put the question to him why multiple long neck reports are so rare. His reply was that people are less likely to be fooled by two birds than one. I agree that the more birds you see, the less likely you are to see monsters, but on reflection, how true can that be for just two necks?

For example, people readily report multiple humps. As mentioned above, they made up 26% of Roy Mackal's analysis. The readiness with which people see two or more humps suggests (from the sceptical theory point of view) that multiple long necks should not be as rare as the statistics suggest.

Likewise, it is strange that humps seen in a configuration suggestive of multiple animals (i.e. in parallel or a sufficient distance apart) are not more reported. The sceptical theory tells us that the waters of Loch Ness present a fluid and dynamic environment for all manner of strange hump like events to be seen. Yet only 14 of the 19 reports above fall into that category giving us a paltry 1.3% return over 80 years. May I suggest that this is not enough?

ANOMALIES

Then there is the mystery of the twenty days of multiple creature events in June and July 1934. How does the sceptical theory account for this? Birds, deer, otters and logs are pretty seasonal and predictable in their behaviour and so patterns of events should not be so concentrated according to the sceptical theory.

Clearly, some event happened back then which caused a flurry of "multiple creature" events. A catalyst that was unlikely to cause a repeat again for the next 80 years.  Sceptically minded replies are welcomed.

One suggestion that can be dismissed is the suggestion that two seals got into Loch Ness at that time. This theory was suggested by one sceptic to account for the spring 1933 sighting by the Mackays. To suggest our mythical pair of pinnipeds were still there over a year later is simplistic - as is the suggestion they came back.

In fact, it is highly unlikely that two regularly surfacing seals would have escaped everyone's attention during a time when the loch was being so keenly observed. Seals are regularly searched for by the authorities so as to not disrupt the salmon runs. There is no report of any seals in Loch Ness during those times and so we take it that none existed.

And finally, how does the sceptical theory accommodate the fact that no multiple sightings have occurred since 1976? Surely something is also wrong there?

CONCLUSION

Now if we credit witnesses with being more credible than the sceptical theory implies, then it is less of an anomaly that so few reports are of multiple creatures. Misidentifications and hoaxes form a minority of the reports and so the percentages drop. Moreover, statistical anomalies are less anomalous when a non-seasonal group of monsters is introduced to the mix.

It is admitted that a "monster" theory can also lack precision and detail in these matters (we can't even agree on the subphylum). But I am not the one admitting that the mystery has been solved by the application of logic, science and critical thinking. It is clear to me the conventional sceptical theory is no better in that regard (if not worse).

The record states that we have multiple large creatures in Loch Ness. The upper limit of four implied in these reports should not be regarded as the actual number inhabiting the loch. It is hoped that some recent multiple animal report will turn up to confirm all is well population wise at Loch Ness.