Sunday, 15 February 2026

Earthquakes, Monsters and Hugh Gray


Some years back I acquired a copy of Captain Alastair Mackintosh's autobiography entitled "No Alibi". It was F. W. Holiday's 1968 book, "The Great Orm of Loch Ness", which was published seven years later, that alerted me to this book.  That all revolved around a Loch Ness Monster story in the book, but a couple of other stories caught my eye. Alastair Mackintosh (above) was born in Inverness in 1889 and spent his early years around the region of Loch Ness before embarking on a military career. The first excerpt is that eyewitness account of the creature seen on land.

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. 

This account was the reason for the reference in Holiday's book and I also covered it in my own book on land sightings where I wrote the following opinion:

Thus ends the account leaving perhaps more questions than 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 are 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 its 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 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 blasé 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 wishes there was more detail!

Do I have anything to add since I wrote the above words in 2018? I had another look for this account in various online resources, but Mackintosh's book remains the sole source of the story and indeed I could not confirm the personal details about Alec Muir. That does not mean Muir did not exist or held down that job at the Aluminium Works, such mundane details do not always end up in newspaper print. You basically have to take it or leave it as a factual story. The next story from the book involves no monster but is nonetheless spectacular.

Around this period, when I was in fact twelve years of age and at home, I remember being awakened one night by the violent shaking of my bed. All the bells—the handpull type, electric ones were still unknown - rang madly. I was and still am faintly uneasy in the dark. What with the shaking bed and clanging bells, I was really frightened until Mother came in to reassure me.

"It's only an earthquake, dear," she said.

Next morning Father ordered our wagonette and drove me over to Urquhart Castle with him. This is situated upon the north bank of Loch Ness, where the loch reaches its greatest depth - over six hundred feet. To my amazement the loch seemed to be boiling. For over a quarter of a mile there were enormous bubbles, each the height of a man. It was like a vast cauldron of sizzling water or, to provide a more modern image, balloons of detergent waste.

"What is it?" I asked my father excitedly. "It looks like a giant's washing-day."

"Must have been an earthquake in Italy last night," was his laconic reply.

He told me that whenever Mount Etna erupted, it affected Loch Ness and Inverness. Though never proved, it was thought that there must be some subterranean connection with Sicily. 


The author's age of twelve places this around 1901 and indeed the newspapers of the time relate this event as occurring about 1:30 in the morning of Wednesday 18th September. A series of foreshocks and aftershocks accompanied this event, although it was not a major earthquake being more the type that shakes plates off cupboards and chimney pots off roofs. Some seismologists believe the epicentre was near Dochgarroch, just north of the top end of Loch Ness. It is a well known fact that Loch Ness lies along a major fault line comprising the Great Glen running South West to North East but there are other subsidiary fault lines which could have been the stress points for this event.



I did not find any newspaper report which corroborated the massive bubbling event at Loch Ness, but I have no reason to doubt it as it has been confirmed and studied elsewhere in the world (see link) and a lot of this phenomenon is attributed to the release of methane gas from deposits deep below. But what exactly Mackintosh witnessed is not so clear. We can be sure it had nothing to do with Mount Etna in Italy which was quiet at that time.

The event happened somewhere out in the loch near Urquhart Castle but was confined to an area of about 400 metres, perhaps an extended area as he describes it as being like a "cauldron of sizzling water". So did the quake cause a fissure to open up down below releasing a pocket of methane? This seems more likely than layers of silt further up having any pockets of gas being shaken out of them. The energetic nature of the bubbling and its limited location dictates against this theory.

The bubbles "each the height of a man" likely were not that size when they escaped from the bottom due to the higher pressures below and expanded as they rose to the surface. Interestingly, looking at a geological map of the loch, we see that this area is the confluence of three different bedrock formations colour coded in the map below as shades of purple, green and brown. These each denote in order old metamorphic, old sedimentary sandstone and newer sandstone structures, all meeting at a point halfway across the loch where the main fault line runs. Quite possibly, these boundaries provided zones for ruptures to open up.




The only other effect reported from the loch was from the Dundee Evening Post of the 21st September which recounted how the quake caused the Caledonian Canal and River Ness to combine into a tidal surge heading northwards towards Inverness. But an effect of a more curious nature were strange lights seen by some locals as recounted in the Northern Chronicle of the 25th September.




Lights around the loch area has been discussed on this blog before. This is a phenomenon poorly understood but believed to be associated with tectonic activity. It is not a fleet of UFOs but perhaps a form of ball lightning. It is speculated that a combination of certain geological features around a fault line such as the Great Glen Fault could produce these atmospheric effects.

But to end our look at the life of Captain Mackintosh, I read with interest his time as an apprentice at the Aluminium Works beside the village of Foyers on the banks of Loch Ness. The picture of him at the top of this article portrays him at the time he was working there. Amongst his recollections of excessive drinking and Gaelic speakers from the Western Isles whom he did not understand, he talks fondly of "Foreman Gray" or to be more precise a man by the name of Hugh Gray. 

When I read this, I initially assumed this was Hugh Gray, the man who took the first photograph of the Loch Ness Monster in November 1933 thus giving us an insight into the man himself. Actually, it turned out to be his father, also named Hugh. Mackintosh entered his apprenticeship in Edwardian times, too early for our Hugh Gray who was still a child then. The story is shown below and I would not recommend doing this today!

Ours was a happy factory where men worked industriously, untroubled by class-wars and restrictive practices. That was until we had our first socialist agitator. I can see him now standing by the gates as we were all going out to lunch, telling us in a very loud Glaswegian voice that we were fools not to strike for more pay and less work.

"Join the happy band of brothers under the leadership of Keir Hardie . . . wealth and prosperity to all of us . . . Except the capitalists. Hang 'em from the nearest lamp-post."

They had said the last bit during the French Revolution .. . Foreman Gray nudged my arm, jerked his head and took me aside.

"Alastair," he said, "we're going to teach this chap a lesson. We're going to tie the b------ to one of the trolleys. I want you to go down where the railway line turns off to the pier. When you hear him and the trolley - and he's bound to be hollering blue murder - nip out, jump on and stand on the brake. Stop him just short of the edge of the pier."

Normally the trolleys were loaded with the aluminium bars, run down this way to the steamers to be taken off for rolling. Each truck weighed two tons. Considerable momentum would be gathered down the incline to the pier. Whilst I set off for the quay willing helpers were assisting Gray to hoist the protesting Glaswegian on to the makeshift tumbril. He was made fast and set moving.

Had I tripped running out of the birch-wood near the pier, or failed to jump on to the trolley as it passed, I shudder to think what might have happened. It might have plunged off the rails straight into Loch Ness, which was at least four hundred feet deep at that spot. As it was, I stopped him ten yards short of a very unpleasant end. Gray, accompanied by Mackenzie, the mechanics' foreman, untied the agitator, giving him a veritable king of kicks as they bade him walk those twenty-three miles back to Inverness and never return. 

Hugh Gray Senior died some years later in 1921, seemingly a well liked and upstanding member of the community there in Foyers, though it sounds like he did not suffer fools gladly! Meanwhile, Alastair Mackintosh, like many in those days, went to seek his fortune abroad in the British Empire, but eventually ended up living in London, having worked as a Royal Equerry as well as employment at Rolls Royce and United Artists. By the time he wrote his autobiography in 1961, a new wave of Nessie interest was rising on the back of Dinsdale's film and one suspects his inclusion of such stories was no coincidence!


Comments can be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com






Tuesday, 3 February 2026

Trail Camera Pictures of Nessie?

 


Back in May 2025, the "Quest" surface watch run by the Loch Ness Centre came to an end and as was my custom I left a trail camera pointing at the loch before I headed back down south. It stayed there snapping away images of whatever may have passed in front of it while I got on with the day job. It ran from the 25th May until the 7th July when the SD card finally filled up.

When I collected it after a gathering of the LNE at the end of August, I once again headed home and began to go through the 18,399 images on its MicroSD card. This would be a task that I would be dipping in and out of over the weeks ahead. I had placed my first trail camera at the loch over ten years before and based on subsequent experience I knew I would expect to see pictures of boats, kayakers, birds, mist and maybe jet fighters from Lossiemouth or perhaps a rainbow bending over the hills. 

Occasionally stranger images would leave me wondering what I was looking at. Maybe a strange wave effect or a trick of the sunlight? When I finally came to image number 13,810 shown above, I knew it was something no previous trail camera had snapped. It looked big enough to be of significance but also below the threshold of one hundred percent certainty that it was the famous Loch Ness Monster.

The camera was set up to snap three images in a row about a second apart when triggered and the three images of this curious object were taken at 6:18 on the morning of Thursday 26th June 2025. As you can see, the surface of the loch was about as calm as it can be, thus discarding any theories about the object being a wave effect. The object is also in motion as its position changes across the three images.

I spent some weeks musing about what to do with the pictures, but eventually submitted them to a press agency for publication. They were duly taken up by some media outlets, such as the Scottish Daily Record who published them on the 7th January 2026 and can be seen at this link. I must admit I was a bit disappointed it did not also appear in print for my clippings collection! So I let the media customers have their run and also read the comments by those interested in the subject on the various online forums. 

Now I add my own analysis to the three images shown below in chronological order. There is a mix of good and bad luck in these images. The good luck is that something of notable dimensions had actually passed in front of the camera. The bad luck was the mist over the loch reducing the light levels. Furthermore, the object is a bit further out than I would have liked and is on the terminating line between the reflection of the hills beyond and the reflection of the mist and sky. I would have preferred it to be more in the sky reflection area to provide a better contrast. But beggars can't be choosers in this game!





Behind the object to the left is a sort of wake and before it to the right as it moves from left to right is something creating further disturbance in the water. The distance between the front part of the main object and the source of the disturbance ahead is constant, suggesting they are likely connected under the surface. The source of this disturbance is as far from the main object as the main object is long, thus doubling the potential length of the whole object - and this does not take into account anything that is more than likely to be under the water. 

The two images below are the last one taken before this sequence and the first one after them. I am not sure what the pronounced white line just before the opposite shore is on each image. It is visible on other sequences on the SD card, though I thought it could not be anything to do with boats as they should be absent at this time of day. Perhaps it was the phenomenon known as Langmuir Circulation which produces lines of bubbles caused by the wind, but there was little wind and it looked more pronounced than that. Either way, it looks unrelated to the primary object of interest.




It was while going through the analysis that I realised the camera was in a configuration I had not anticipated. Instead of triggering the triple snap on a motion detection event, it was actually in time lapse mode with a setting of seven minutes! So I was getting here were groups of three snaps at 06:11, 06:18, 06:25 and so on. Getting the right configuration has historically been an issue due to the waves of the loch continually triggering motion detection events which can quickly deplete battery time and memory storage over typical in situ time of months.

This has led to some constraints such as not recording video clips. A 10 second AVI clip is about eight times bigger than a single JPEG compression image. One other constraint was the time limiter which turned off camera activity between 22:00 and 05:00 as I found that infra-red images taken in the dead of night lacked any real clarity and distance. But would these three images had been recorded if the camera was in the intended setup? I presume so, but I will never know for sure but perhaps time lapse mode now has a part to play in this ongoing project.

The three images were combined to produce a GIF animation sequence to show the object is in motion. It does not appear to be swift, but there is motion there. How fast will be determined with the size of the object though the stillness of the loch suggests there is little wind to drive any inanimate object forward.



But how large is the object visible in this sequence? After all, when it comes to controversy over Loch Ness images, size matters. When various photos claiming to be the Monster are produced, there is often no way to determine the size of the object with any precision, but that is not an issue with these images due to what is on the other 18,396 images on the SD card. By that I mean the various pictures of boats and kayakers passing the camera during the 43 days of operation. The main one for consideration is image number 9157 taken 11 days before and shown below.



This was chosen from the list of candidate boat shots due to it being almost exactly the same distance away as the object. In the shot we have objects of known dimensions - people. I picked the person on the far left and assuming they were in the normal range of human height from the waist up concluded that the length of the object was about one metre or three feet. Since the object ahead of the main hump was a hump length away, that gave a surface length of about two metres or six feet.

Though corroboration of this number is not really required, a mathematical analysis of the original SD card image also yielded a comparable length. This length can be computed if one knows certain other figures such as the pixel size of the image, the height of the camera, the focal length and the dimensions of the image sensor. This gave a hump length of 0.92 metres for the camera height of 2 metres. But at least this confirmed the maths for future use in other images. Applying the same type of maths, we can add an estimated distance to the object of about 44 metres.

The total length of the object is more a matter of conjecture but I usually apply the rule of thumb that a third of a marine animal's body length is usually above water when in motion. Applying that solely to the main object or hump gives a tentative total length approaching ten feet long. That is not exactly the thirty foot monsters oft reported in classic eyewitness reports, but it is potentially significant nonetheless as we look at a zoom in of the object.



The main object, which is presumed to be its back, has an elongated and flattish appearance which rounds off at each end, though there is some curvature to it in general. It is grey in colour but with little detail beyond that for reasons given earlier. It has been suggested that this may be a head rather than a back, which would make the animal a lot bigger, but I think that does not explain the smaller object creating the disturbance ahead - unless one wants to go down the path of the larger object chasing a smaller object like a fish.

How fast is the object moving across the three images? Since the length of the hump can be confidently estimated, the distance it moves across the images is estimated to be about half the length of the hump. The camera timestamp is only accurate to the second and states that one second has passed between all three images. That would give a maximum speed just below one mile per hour, but it could be slower.

That sounds a very slow speed but another part of the image suggests that is possible. I am referring to the wake behind the animal which is a curious shape. One may normally expect some kind of V-shaped bow wave at the front of the animal as it progresses across the waters but this formation is more concentric and if you look at the animated gif above, it spread out in a circular fashion as it the animal had just surfaced in a sedate manner. It all adds up to a rather laid back creature taking its time over things.

Which brings us to the matter of candidates for identification. What "scientifically approved" animal known to inhabit the area around Loch Ness could show three foot of back? The short answer is none of them and that is without asking about the three foot of wash ahead of it. Pike, salmon, otters and birds cannot attain such a length but the closest ones would be the harbour seal or grey seal. The grey seal is the larger species growing up to 2 metres as an adult while the harbour seal can reach 1.5 metres. It is a known fact that grey seals do swim into the loch looking for food and can stay for long periods of time.

I have never seen one personally and no seal has ever been snapped by any trail camera I set up in the last ten years. That is mainly down to the fact that they are generally not there to be photographed, but they do turn up and stay for a few days or even a few months. Normally, when a seal is suggested as an explanation for a sighting, I may say that we do not even know if a seal was in the loch at that time, but we can be fairly certain one was swimming around during that Summer.

On the 31st July, 35 days after the trail camera pictures, a Duncan Horlor took a video clip of a seal eating a fish near the Boat House Restaurant by Fort Augustus, you can view the entire clip here and note the smaller more rounded appearance of this harbour seal as it moves about. Looking around, people stated that a seal had been seen nearby in Inchnacardoch Bay and a gamekeeper told a fellow LNE member that two seals were currently living near the mouth of the River Moriston.



These were all topped by footage of a harbour seal taken by Alan Mckenna and other LNE members near Cherry Island only a few days ago lying on the nearby shallows. It even hung around to pose for his drone flying over which you can view on the LNE Facebook group here! You wouldn't get the Loch Ness Monster to be so compliant ... and yes, they figured out it was a seal and not said monster. 



As said above, the harbour seal is at best 1.5 metres long, though this one is likely smaller. Is this seal the same one recorded in July 2025 or the ones claimed further up at Invermoriston? We are told that these saltwater creatures cannot tolerate freshwater for long. However, the harbour seal, as hinted by its name, is more tolerant of freshwater than the grey seal. One is beginning to wonder if these seals are beginning to adapt to the fresh water in the loch due to their more frequent visits? We know that there are seals indigenous to freshwater lakes elsewhere which made the transition.

I would say that more seals entering Loch Ness for longer periods is not going to help assessing eyewitness accounts in the future! One also wonders what happens when they encounter the "big guy"  who rules the loch? One of the LNE team thought the seal above was looking a bit wary!

Looking at the profiles below of these two species of seal, the Harbour Seal is too small and this looks like the seal that was in the loch in recent months. But it is hard to see how the back of the Grey Seal could fit the high back profile of the animal in the trail camera pictures, let alone explain the leading area of disturbed water one metre ahead. Looking at videos of seals in action, one tends to only see the back on its own momentarily when they are diving and it is more concave, though seals can float on the back or front. The speed of the unidentified animal also is rather contrary to the more energetic movements we observe of seals in the region. This of course does not mean all potential species of pinnipeds are excluded.


Credit: New Bedford Whaling Museum

That is only my opinion and others may observe features I have missed, but my view is that it is not a seal, fish or otter leaving few other options to pick from. Of course, someone may propose it is a hoaxer swimming past the camera underneath a fiberglass hump. You get all kind of strange propositions in this game and you may even be told that is more probable than a ten foot animal of unknown species. Or maybe I have finally snapped one of the rotting vegetable mats once championed by Maurice Burton and being propelled by the expulsion of its decaying gases?

As for myself, it gives me some renewed vigour in managing the next set of trail camera placements. Maybe I will switch to more time lapse photography rather than motion detection. That at least gets rid of those annoying succession of waves but then again it would sit there silently as a potential ten foot hump and six foot neck monster swims by, but the next time lapse snaps are still minutes away! I just hope I do not wait another ten years for similar images, but not too soon either or people will think I am the next Frank Searle!


Comments can be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




Saturday, 3 January 2026

Nessie Review of 2025

 


As I was thinking about this year end review, a link to the Daily Mail coincidentally came in telling me that Nessie had been spotted five times in 2025. Not surprisingly, the word "spotted" was framed within single quotes indicating the article author was advising some caution. The information was taken from "The Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register" which went into further details at this link.

Now this is an improvement on the meagre total of three sightings in 2024, though my corresponding review article last year did argue that numbers can fluctuate significantly over the decades. In fact, that review article only had one "at the loch" sighting, but evidently two more turned up later to bring it up to three. So, I expect this five to increase and I am already aware of some accounts that will indeed increase that number by a few more.

The first register account is from the 22nd March at about 7pm and is of interest and I quote the testimony of one of the eyewitnesses visiting from London:

We were right at the point where the River Tarff connects to Loch Ness, on the north bank. At first I noticed a very quiet splash sound as if something was cutting stealthily into the water and this drew my attention to the south side of the water. There I saw something moving through the water. Between 130 and 160 feet away from us. It was paler than the jet-black water around it, but in the gloom it was impossible to determine a hue.

It was large and alive and swimming in the water - it was what I can only describe as a "hump" (as people often say) kind of like if a large seal or walrus was swimming in the water but for some reason it's head was hidden, like just it's back was exposed. Kind of graceful but very slow moving like 2 to 3 meters per second. It was too dark to pick out detail on it, but it wasn't uniform, there was texture there but hard to pinpoint what exactly.

And as we watched I realised that there was a second mass in its wake, perhaps it was hidden by the wake at first, or it had risen up as it moved - it was roughly the same size and shape as the leading mass but perhaps lower in the water. There was maybe 1.5 to 2 meters gap between the humps from my line of sight. I think until I saw the second hump I was thinking it was a seal that was behaving strangely.

It went in a roughly 20⁰ (east-southeast-ish) direction, towards the deeper water of the Loch and slowly submerged as it went and disappeared. It moved very gracefully and silently. Later when we talked about it, my partner told me that from her vantage point it was clear that the two humps were on one creature, that it was one long creature.

Sunset on that day was at 6:35pm, so the eyewitness' description of "gloom" would be correct but this is countered by the estimated distance of 40 to 50 metres which affords a distance that few eyewitnesses have the privilege of seeing the creature at. Nevertheless, clear camera images with such light levels is unlikely without more specialized cameras. But the account lacks some details such as the size of the humps and the duration of the sighting.

I would think this was a prolonged duration without any head being seen, which is unusual for a seal. The appearance of the second hump removes any seal theory because if one seal in Loch Ness is uncommon, how much more then is two. Since the witness says the back was larger than a seal and more the size of a walrus, that suggests the total hump to hump length was more than four metres and that is just the parts visible above the surface!

So we are off to a good start as we move onto the register's next account from the 23rd May at about 3:40pm during the "Quest" surface watches. One of the participants took a video clip of an object in Urquhart Bay from which this still is taken. Something "long and thin" appeared intermittently in the wake of a boat entering the bay before eventually submerging after three to five minutes.



I made an educated guess as to where the person was at the time, perhaps just before the entrance to the Castle car park which places the object and boat to the right of the tip of the headland visible at the opposite side of the bay. That would place the distance to the object at about a mile away with the distance decreasing over a number of minutes. I could not find the original video sequence and so not much more can be done with this. For example, the boat mentioned in the account is not visible in the zoomed image.

The 29th August and 15th October brought us two further accounts accompanied by video clips. The first was a two minute video taken by a long term local of something just under the water at Lochend causing what was described as an "unusual disturbance pattern". Naturally, we would prefer to see something physical above the surface of the water and so such items by definition can only ever be indirect evidence of a biological entity. Moreover, I again only had access to a still image and not the original video and so an assessment is more limited.

The second appears to be one or more photographs taken by a Peter Hoyle from Moray at 1:30pm who over an interval about 30 seconds observed "a dark shape sticking out of the water, moving from right side of loch to left from the middle". One of the images is shown below and it is evident it is a zoomed image indicating the object was a long way off and so little can be deduced from it.



The final item from the Register was from the 28th October when Mishawn Kiekle from Texas observed something from Urquhart Castle:

I first saw it and was like wow, that looks just like images I saw from the sightings website. It didn't look like a wave, it actually looked like the head of something popping up. it made a distinct pattern in the water I couldn't see anywhere else, kind of like its own wake. And than it was gone. From that distance I'd say the water pattern was at least 3 m long.

The picture displayed is again verging on pixelation and of little use. One wonders if it is the infamous pipe that resides just under the water to the south of the tower and appears depending on loch water levels and weather conditions? In this case, I would say not given the wake seen. That is the five accounts on the Registry site, but these days we now have the website of the Loch Ness Centre receiving potential reports from visitors and during the Quest weekend.

At their page another six accounts are listed which are different to the five on the register website. The first by "Annette" is likely that pipe by the Castle which one day will be removed! The next by "Diana" were some photos without any account and which the Loch Ness Centre tentatively identifies as a waterbird. The next is more interesting being a film of a wake taken by "Bob" on the 12th April.



Apparently, nothing broke the surface, although the Loch Ness Centre does not link to the video to verify that. I am beginning to think an archive of all these videos needs to be stored and made available online rather than fleeting appearance on forums which are designed to roll continuously like teleprompters. I do attempt to save images from Loch Ness, but some are missed, if they ever are fully published.

One final image from the Loch Ness Centre was taken by Graham from Abriachan on the 27th June. The website states that:

While walking his dog on a peaceful morning, Graham noticed a dark brown shape appear suddenly in the loch, around 150 metres from shore. It wasn’t drifting — it seemed to move. He managed a single photo before it vanished. From the image, it looks like it could be a shoreline rock, and some details are a little unclear — but the moment certainly left an impression.

The image itself looks like a zoom-in and is bereft of any frame of reference. I may be wrong but the rocks I have seen around the loch look more grey than brown and so I have asked if I could see the original. Context is everything and it may turn out to be something else mundane, but an uncropped image is always the first thing to ask for.



There is another sequence of photographs which have not been mentioned. They were taken by myself, or rather by one of my trail cameras one early morning back in June, collected at the end of August and finally discovered in October after trawling through tens of thousands of SD card images. I haven't decided what to do with them yet, don't bother asking to see them, they'll turn up soon enough!

To this array of claims of Nessie sightings, I now turn to the members of Loch Ness Exploration. I must give credit to founder Alan McKenna for his part in bringing the group to where it is now. I thought monster hunters were more like tigers than lions - they hunt alone, but I was proven wrong having met the people who I believe have been rewarded for their joint efforts with some singular experiences.

We start back in May with the third annual Quest event run by the Loch Ness Centre. I recounted my perspective on that weekend in a trip reported linked here. The third Quest weekend is a part of an annual review in and of itself but attached to that event came individuals seeking their own glimpse of the creature. So on the night of Friday 23rd May slipping into Saturday, Alan and Dave had gone over to a small inlet near the Castle to explore the waters there and had thrown some rocks into the deeper parts to see if something would stir. In Dave's own words:

As we started to walk away, we heard an almighty kind of splash right behind us! Obviously, it wasn't a rock because we weren't throwing anything in. We both turned around at exactly the same time to see. For me there was a split second of almost, like a slimy black hump that went very very quickly straight down into the water.

It was like it had come up and it had gone straight down with such a force that it created such a massive splash, almost like a torpedo. We both said at the time like a torpedo effect. Up and straight down and there was a massive wash, a massive splash that came after it and we could see that quite clearly because we had our torches on it as well and both at exactly the same time.

I can vouch for their excitement when they shortly came back to us and related what had just happened. It was late, dark and raining and only infra-red equipment would have any chance of resolving anything with the desired clarity for quality images. Nevertheless, I think that experience must have stuck like glue to Alan and Dave, it's the kind of fuel that powers future trips and indeed we were all back at the loch at the end of August to continue the underwater video and hydrophone experiments. An account was written up here and one stand out event was the experience of the lads from Glasgow who were camped out near Invermoriston:

However, the news from the campsite was that the Glasgow boys had had an unusual experience after we had all left for bed the night before. About 2AM, they were chatting away with a drink or two in hand when a huge splashing noise startled them from the shoreline down below. Not surprisingly, they were not too keen to go down and investigate the matter. Before anyone begins to think about the hallucinatory properties of alcohol, one of the chaps is teetotal.

This required some investigation and later we were back at the shoreline. There was nothing around that could be connected with the noise but if it had occurred further out in the loch, nothing probably should have been expected. Either way, we had our alcohol-averse colleague sit where they had been at night while we tossed various rocks into the water down below. We would then get his response from above as to how that sounded compared to the "big splash".

The first moderately sized rock we tossed in, he did not hear it from the tents. A larger one of about 10kg he did hear but it was a lot quieter than the 2AM noise. We stopped there realizing we needed Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime to throw something larger a sufficient distance into the loch to take this experiment further.

One can speculate about unscrupulous people fly tipping large items of garbage into the loch, but from what I have seen, anything rolled down from above is more likely to have its progress stopped by trees or just hit the beach below with little splashing going on. But, of course, nothing was seen and so all one can do is prepare for such a future happening by setting up infra-red cameras to record long segments timestamped which can be correlated to audible events.

But things took another turn on a return trip on October 31st when another midnight hunt by the Castle took place. Alan's video account is on YouTube at this link. Now I was not there, but four eyewitnesses were there as the baited underwater rig with the GoPro camera was lowered into the loch and the waters were scanned awaiting something to come along. Loud splashing noises had been heard to their left early on, but as the night progressed, the source of the splashing would soon be resolved. As one eyewitness, Chris, related:

As we stood (or sat) waiting patiently over the next 20 minutes or so, we heard what I can only describe as a childlike wail or a high-pitched woman’s scream coming from our left-hand side where all the splashing activity had been situated. It was very unnerving, and it sent chills down my back and made the hairs on my arm stand up.

I was standing next to Alan at the time of this chilling sound, just slightly back from the edge of the pier and we both looked at one another and asked each other what was that we just heard. I shone my torch onto the area where we heard the chilling sound, however, I could not see anything at all. I moved closer to the front of the pier after a minute or so and shone my torch out on the Loch.

Within the next few minutes, this “animal” appeared out of nowhere silently approximately 20 to 25 feet away from the piers edge in front of me. I was stunned! My torch was primarily focused on the front of this “animal” which was facing forwards towards the castle and suddenly it turned its head and looked directly at me. Its eyes lit up immediately with white eye shine, and I thought I could see what can only be described as a nose situated between its eyes.

I would reckon the head was the size of a football or basketball even and in my own opinion it was dog like. I did not see the body turn to face me; it was only the head of the animal that turned. I moved my torch light to the left-hand side of this “animal,” and I could see a slightly humped body shape. I would reckon the humped body shape was approximately six feet in length.

I cannot say with absolute certainty but I thought I saw gray colouring on the body with black speckled dots, however, I could be mistaken about this as it was dark, the “animal” was close to the water and only my torch shined any light onto it.

It submerged within seconds with a later splash to announce its final departure. Further baiting on the waters couldn't make it resurface. Meantime the GoPro video camera underwater recorded sounds which sounded like a guttural growl and which I believe are still being analyzed. Unfortunately, it did not capture any video of the animal. Chris sketched what he recalled of the animal.



The four eyewitnesses agreed it was not a huge animal akin to the thirty footers of the literature, but still big enough with the back estimated at up to six feet long. Was it the juvenile of a larger adult or was it a big seal, bigger than the grey or harbour seals of the surrounding seas? The sketch does not look like a seal to me with that raised back and spherical looking head. Neither is the long neck of tradition visible which leaves one pondering what was seen that night? The strange cries heard above and the guttural noises recorded below also require an explanation as opinions are sought of others who may know these subjects better. 

Another LNE trip was undertaken before Christmas but without any glimpse of anything unusual, but the hunt will continue into 2026 with expectations high for further adventures.

I wish readers a Happy and Prosperous 2026.


Comments can be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com





Saturday, 6 December 2025

Locating Margaret Munro's Monster

 


I blogged a piece a few years back about the area around Borlum Bay and the famous land sighting reported by Margaret Munro on June 3rd 1934. At that time a new tourist path had been opened going further into the bay which I had explored. However, I don't think my attempt back then to locate where her beast lay turning in the sun was accurate enough.

So it was time for another attempt as I came to the end of my recent trip to the loch in August. The original account states that Munro "watched the Loch Ness Monster for twenty five minutes on Sunday Morning as it enjoyed a sun bath on the shore, some yards west of Atlan Deor burn". The stream called "Atlan Deor" is a garbling of the Gaelic name as it was presumably transmitted vocally over the phone to the Inverness Courier offices. Its' actual name is "Allt an Dubhair" which I would say means "the dark stream".


So the above map marks the location of the stream whose source lies high amongst the hills south-east of Fort Augustus and it lies beyond the aforementioned tourist path, so it was time for a bit more clambering along the loch shore. While we are on the map, note the Glendoe Holiday Cottages in the bottom left of the Google Maps shot. This is the location of the original house where Margaret Munro was inside watching the beast through a pair of binoculars.

Wading through the loch water, it was not long before I came upon the Dark Stream trickling into the loch. Since the account states the creature was "some yards west" of this stream, the monster's location would be somewhere not far to the right of the picture below as "west" refers to the north-east to south-west alignment of that shoreline.



Swinging round in that direction toward Borlum Bay and another camera snap shows the location of the holiday cottages left of top centre from where Munro watched the Loch Ness Monster. Obviously, if I could see the house, then an occupant would see the beach. The distance from the house to the stream area is just over 650 metres. Since Munro was watching through 8x binoculars, this reduced the effective viewing distance to about 80 metres. So it would be reasonable to place the creature somewhere along the strip of gravel beach going off to the left in the picture.



We are told that Munro's employers, the Pimleys, walked this stretch after her account and found a stick depressed into the beach. Certainly, the granularity of this shoreline looked fine enough to accommodate such a scenario. The narrow width of the strip also backs up the statement that the creature was partially in the water - suggestive of a creature longer that the beach was wide.

I would also say that the strip of shoreline provides a convenient frame of reference to gauge the size of a large creature resting upon it. Based on my observations at this location, the proposed sceptical solution of a grey or harbor seal doesn't make sense as a typical member of either species would easily fit onto the whole shore unlike the beast said to be partially in the water.

From there, I looked back to the forest behind me, in the direction the creature was facing those 91 years before. Before me was a small half-stone and half-grass path leading into the woods. I walked along it to come into a circular area almost bereft of vegetation compared to the lush trees and undergrowth surrounding it. 




It was unusual in that I do not recall in my travels around the loch such a bare area compared to the growth around it. I jokingly thought to myself, this must be a curl up and snooze area for Nessie and she had just woken up and was heading back to the loch when Margaret Munro spotted her. The bare ground was, of course, due to the slime from her skin killing off the grass below.



Well, anyway, I mused whether this was a natural or man-made area. There was traces of human activity on the shore in the form of the usual little fires wild campers set up. I don't think this had anything to do with that. There was logging operations going on further up the hill towards the main south road and so perhaps it was connected to that. It could also be some natural form of dieback due to environmental factors such as disease, but the answer was not immediately apparent.

A visit back to this spot in 2026 to see how the area has changed may answer some of these questions. But for now Winter approaches with its cold winds, snow, hail and rain. I know some fellow Nessie hunters who aim to be back up at the loch before year end, so I hope the weather fares well for them and the beast puts in an appearance (thinking everyone has disappeared for Christmas!).


Comments can be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



Thursday, 30 October 2025

Thoughts on the Torquil MacLeod Land Sighting


I have not really blogged on this well known sighting from 1960 by Torquil MacLeod. I covered it in my land sightings book, but an email question from a longtime blog member and student of the LNM phenomenon led me to update the subject. The story is familiar to fans of the beast and was first published anonymously in Tim Dinsdale's book "Loch Ness Monster". Around 3:30pm on February 28th 1960, Torquil stopped his car south of  Invermoriston to check out an object on the opposite shore on the Horseshoe Scree.

Upon turning my glasses on the moving object, I saw a large grey black mass (I am inclined to think the skin was wet and dry in patches) and at the front there was what looked like an outsize in elephant’s trunks. Paddles were visible on both sides, but only at what I presumed was the rear end, and it was this end (remote from the "trunk"), which tapered off into the water. The animal was on a steep slope, and taking its backbone as an approximate straight line, was inclined about 15-20 degrees out of my line of sight: the "trunk" being at the top and to the left, and the tail at the bottom, in the water, to the right....

For about 8 or 9 minutes the animal remained quite still, but for its "trunk" (I assume neck, although I could not recognize a head as such) which occasionally moved from side to side with a slight up and down motion—just like a snake about to strike; but quite slowly. It was, to my mind, obviously scanning the shores of the loch in each direction. In the end it made a sort of half jump - half lurch to the left, its "trunk" coming right round until it was facing me, then it flopped into the water and apparently went straight down; so it must be very deep close inshore at that point. As it turned I saw distinctly a large squarish ended flipper forward of the big rear paddles—or flippers: call them what you will, but not legs. I did not see the end of the tail at any time, but the animal looked something like this ...

One of the sketches which appeared in the same book is shown at the top of this article. It looks like a binocular's eye view with the lens graticulates visible as well. Now I agree with others who have pointed out that a creature of that size at that distance of one mile would not fill so much of the binocular field of view. However, I do not think this is something suspicious or incriminating for we see this same use of "artistic license" elsewhere in Dinsdale's book as seen in the "binocular" view of his own sighting which led to his famous film a few weeks later.



Dinsdale spotted his creature at a similar distance away as Torquil and it certainly would not have filled the view of his binoculars either. I also suspect the angle of incidence in this sketch is too large. My theory is that someone on the publisher's editorial team was taking liberties with how binocular sketches were framed. The error is repeated over ten years later when Nicholas Witchell's "The Loch Ness Story" has a similar illustration. Here the artist also decides to reduce the number of graticulates from five to three. Now I am no expert on how many graticulates the various makes and models of binoculars came with, but I am sure it didn't vary with the same item.





But moving on, my esteemed colleague had emailed asking me what part of the Horseshoe Scree the monster had been seen by Torquil. Not knowing the answer myself, I read the original account again and came to the conclusion that Torquil MacLeod's monster had not been on the Horseshoe Scree at all, but somewhere else. I quote further from Torquil MacLeod's account:

I was able to pinpoint both my own and the animal's position on the 1 inch ordnance map (1 inch to the mile), the distance being approximately 1,700 yards - to within 50 yards. The animal was near a burn marked on the map, and I was only yards away from a house which was also marked - hence the accurate pinpoint.

That struck me as a curious statement. Here below is a beautiful view of the scree (or craig) from the opposite shoreline that my fellow Nessie fan pointed me to. It is one of the most distinctive natural features around the loch - yet MacLeod uses an unnamed stream as his frame of reference to pinpoint the creature's location and not the clear and unmistakable contours of the horseshoe.




In fact, in his letter to Tim (reproduced in Dinsdale's book) and another letter he wrote to Constance Whyte quoted in Witchell's book, Torquil makes no reference to the Horseshoe Craig in either. So where exactly did MacLeod see this massive beast? Looking at my ordnance survey map of the southern part of the loch, no stream is marked on the Horseshoe, but somewhere is a stream that Torquil explicitly references.

Clearly, Nessie was not doing whatever Nessies do on the scree. I brought up Google Maps to show the streams nearest  to the scree. The burn called "Stream 1" is about 340 metres from the southernmost part of the scree, while "Stream 2" is about 750 metres away. The "Stream 3" is the furthest at 1600 metres north of the scree. Since MacLeod states he was 2.5 miles out of Invermoriston when he saw his monster, I have also measured out that distance using Google's "Directions" feature.




But how do we determine which of these three streams the creature was near? I noted that Tim Dinsdale in his book reproduced a survey map to accompany his week of watching around the loch between the 18th and 23rd of April 1960. His diary mentioned him hearing of a man who had seen the monster partly out of the water "near a place called the 'horse shoe' ...". On his map Tim marks the location of some notable land sightings without naming them. There is one dot beside the annotation "Horse Shoe" which could only be that of Torquil Macleod but since the map is about six miles to the inch, it lacks the required accuracy to pinpoint the location.

In fact, I am not sure Tim knew the exact location himself if he relied solely on Torquil's letter, who would become seriously ill with cancer and sadly died just before the book was published in May 1961. Thus more detailed information on the subject may have passed away with him. So we must return to MacLeod's direct testimony and some number crunching where he stated:

I was able to pinpoint both my own and the animal's position on the 1 inch ordnance map (1 inch to the mile), the distance being approximately 1,700 yards - to within 50 yards. The animal was near a burn marked on the map, and I was only yards away from a house which was also marked - hence the accurate pinpoint.

Torquil on his map had the house near him marked as well as the stream beside the creature. Given that, it is no surprise that he confidently states a distance with an accuracy of less than 3% and that should be our main guidance in this matter. A distance of 1700 +/- 50 yards equates to 1554 +/- 46 metres. If we take the end of the 2.5 miles distance as our location for Torquil, which of the three streams is the closest to his estimated distance?



So "Stream 3" is closest at 1620 metres followed by "Stream 1" at 1720 metres and "Stream 2" at 2120 metres. Of course, it partly depends on how accurate the 2.5 miles statement is. I double checked the numbers using a good old fashioned inches ruler on a 1.25 miles to the inch paper ordnance survey map. Curiously, that gave me 1600, 1770 and 2170 metres respectively, which I think I would trust more than Google. 

The only way to make this work for the stream nearest to the Horseshoe (stream 1) is to draw out 1700 yards onto the nearest point on Torquil's road and measure that distance to Invermoriston. That comes to 2.8 miles instead of 2.5 miles. If MacLeod knew exactly where he was, I would think he figured out the miles from Invermoriston. Now the Google Street View places us about 180m south of the entrance to the Loch Ness Highland Cottages. The view of the loch is quite good here especially if one also expects less foliage in February 1960.




The other point to note is that the angle of viewing for our favoured stream is as good as the other streams. If viewing directly opposite is an angle of zero degrees and ninety degrees is basically looking down the same shoreline then our stream is just over 40 degrees as is stream 1 but stream 2 is 55 degrees, so it is at no disadvantage there. So what does the area around this stream look like? Over to Google's Loch Ness boat view.



The stream is just slightly left of centre here and with a steep slope and paucity of foliage, it fits with MacLeod's description of the creature lying on the slope. You could pick left or right of the stream, but the left of the stream looks a barer patch to me for a monster to lie on. Of course, who knows what it looked like in 1960. But does this conclusion change anything else about the story? Various people including myself have written previously on this and made our deductions and speculations.

For myself as I looked over the relevant chapter in my book "When Monsters come Ashore", I saw some minor errors but nothing substantial. Others such as Ronald Binns and Dick Raynor had expressed their opinions on what MacLeod saw. Binns' "man in a boat" theory did not seem affected but I was uncertain about Raynor's "herd of feral goats" theory.

He postulated that a group of such animals had congregated up the side of the slope to form a clump looking Nessie-like from a mile away. Aside from existing counter-arguments, it seemed to me that this new proposed location was set on a less steep slope than the Horseshoe. I reckoned the Horseshoe had a gradient of up to 60 degrees while the new location was more like 40 degrees. This would flatten the appearance of a clump of goats to an observer on the other side - assuming goats are ever seen there.

There are some unanswered questions such as what map Torquil used as I do not see the proposed stream on some contemporary OS maps. When I am next at the loch, I will conduct a further investigation at the location. To finish, I overlaid Torquil's monster onto the location with a guesstimate of relative size!





Comments can be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com