Saturday, 7 November 2026

Concerning Cary, Holiday, Rines and the Monster



Australian cryptozoologist, Paul Cropper got in touch with me recently concerning an incident from the 1960s at Loch Ness which involved some well known names of that time. The context was our mutual friend Tony Healy who I had the pleasure to meet up with in Edinburgh back in 2012. Paul is working on Tony's unpublished work about his epic global tour visiting famous monster sites between 1976 and 1980 and which he wrote up into a manuscript a few years later.

The focus of this article is on Robert Rines who was at the loch multiple times during the 1970s and claimed his one and only sighting back on the 23rd June 1971. This account has been related in book and documentary form at various times, though some wrongly place it in 1972. Paul found this typical account from "The New Yorker" dated 27th November 2000:

The first and only time Bob Rines saw the Loch Ness monster was June 23, 1972. He was fifty years old, a patent lawyer from Boston, and had been a monster hunter for two years. He was sitting at tea with his second wife, Carol, and their friends Wing Commander Basil Cary and his wife, Winifred, at the Carys’ cottage on the shore of the loch. About five o’clock in the afternoon, Basil Cary walked out to the porch to fetch his pipe.

Shortly thereafter, the others heard him shout, “I say, that can’t be an upturned boat!” They leaped to their feet and rushed outside. Cary was running off the porch, telescope in hand. “Grab the binocs!” he called back as he ran. Rines snatched his Super-8 camera and hurried across the road in front of the house to a sloping field that looked directly onto the water. There, moving through the loch, was a large, darkish hump, covered, as he could see through the telescope, with rough, mottled skin, like the back of an elephant.

Using a fishing boat moored across the bay for comparison, Rines and his companions estimated the hump to be about twenty-five feet long, and four to six feet out of the water. The hump moved out on the loch against the wind current, turned around, headed back in their direction, and then suddenly, in front of them, submerged. “The hair went up on the back of my neck,” Rines says with a happy sigh, recalling that afternoon. “I’ll never forget it as long as I live. My God, at that moment I knew there was something in there. I knew it was an animal! And that’s what’s kept me going all these years.”

An interesting postscript to this was provided in Dennis Meredith's "Search at Loch Ness" (p.57) when Rines met local farmer Alex MacLeod a year later and it turned out they both had the same sighting when MacLeod had been out fishing! What became of the film sequence that Rines took is a minor mystery, Roy Mackal does not even mention it in his 1976 analysis of 22 items of film footage and all I could find was the still frame below taken from Nicholas Witchell's book. I can see what might be a hump to the left at the end of the white line of water which I presume is the wake of the object.



But going back to Tony, he naturally would have visited Loch Ness during his tour where he met up with that enigmatic figure, Winifred Cary. He had a conversation with her concerning her time at the loch as well as Robert Rines during which that 1971 sighting came up with some surprising details. I quote from Tony's manuscript with his permission:

For many years, she explained, she’d been aware of her ability to map-douse the location of lost pets, lost valuables and underground water. Her talent had become so well known that three firms had employed her on different occasions to find water beneath the town of Inverness. Eventually, on June 20, 1965, Ted Holiday, the most unconventional of monster hunters, asked Mrs Cary if she could possibly divine a favourable location for his surface watching. Intrigued by the idea, Mrs Cary held her dowsing pendulum over a map of the loch and eventually received the strong impression that a surfacing might soon occur near "Whitefield" cottage.

Sure enough, on the following day, Mr Holiday and a couple called Eaves saw a large, black hump surfaced very close to the shore at "Whitefield". As Ted aimed his movie camera and began to squeeze the trigger, the Eaves’ dog barked, causing the creature to suddenly submerge. "Was it because of your success with Ted that Dr Rines asked for your help on the night of the ‘flipper photographs?" I asked. "Well, partly, I suppose", she replied, "but it was mainly because of his own sighting in 1971 - that was a result of my dowsing too, you see".

Well now, this was strange: I’d read that Dr Rines and his wife had experienced a very good sighting in Urquhart Bay. I also knew they’d seen it from the Cary's cottage – but nowhere had I seen any reference to dowsing being involved.

The sighting occurred on the evening of June 23, 1971. Dr Rines and his wife, good friends of the Carys, had dropped by for a visit, and after dinner the subject turned to Mrs Cary’s psychic powers: "Just for fun, I got out the pendulum and map and tried it again, and as soon as I did so I became aware that something had just surfaced in Urquhart Bay."

"That’s right", agreed Wing Commander Cary, enthusiastically. She said: "Look out the window right now and you’ll see it!" And sure enough, there it was: a great big, 20-foot-long hump moving across the bay!

As the others observe the creature through a telescope, Dr Rines, with commendable presence of mind, grabbed his 8 mm movie camera and began filming. Unfortunately, the light was too poor for anything much to register on the film. So it was that incident that led to dowsing being tried again in 1972 – this time in conjunction with the boats, sonar and underwater strobe camera.

The Carys confirmed that a grid system had been worked out which covered the whole of Urquhart Bay. After the boats set out on their nocturnal mission, Mrs Cary concentrated on a map in her parlour. Whenever she sensed the location of one of the creatures she called out the window to her husband, who flashed his car’s headlights in a prearranged code to guide the boats to the relevant spot: "Of course," Mr Cary added with some understatement, "we were all very pleased with the result."


Winifred Cary has been referred to at various times in this blog's history. A compendium of her own claimed sightings was written back in 2020 here which includes a map locating her sightings courtesy again of Tony Healy. That article also mentions the story of Cary being used to dowse for camera rig locations in Urquhart Bay. But going back to our main story, two things stand out for me.

The obvious one is the use of dowsing again to locate the Monster by Winifred. Doubtless, readers will have varying opinions on the subject of dowsing. Some will swear by it and others will think it is a lot of hokum. I myself need more convincing but Rines seemed to have been convinced by its power. But I do accept that Rines had a genuine sighting and that case was strengthened by it being a multiple witness sighting, especially the independent corroboration of Alex MacLeod.

Now it does make sense that the dowsing side of the story has some truth to it. Why would the Academy turn up at the loch the following year with all that apparatus and then go off and employ the use of a controversial psychic to map out likely locations? The implication is that perhaps Rines had been impressed by Cary on a previous meeting, namely on the 23rd June 1971. I don't doubt there was a pendulum being swung over a map when the Monster put in an appearance, but let each decide if that was significant or a coincidence.

Nevertheless, there seems to have been a bit of censorship going on across the decades to exclude this awkward story in order to maintain the technological reputation of the Academy of Applied Science and its founder Robert Rines. How much of that editing policy was down to Rines, the particular author or publisher is a matter of debate. 

When Tony conversed with Winifred Cary, her conclusion that "we were all very pleased with the result" would have been a statement acceptable to many, but time has not been kind to the 1972 "Flipper" photograph when the unvarnished original was later compared to the contemporary "enhanced" version. There is still something odd there that requires an explanation, but in the maelstrom of peat particles, even sceptics see their "Elvis" in this slice of "toast". Either way, one could no longer say they were "very pleased" with the outcome and hence the efficacy of the dowsing side of the story drops in proportion.




But there is another matter which demands our attention and that is Ted Holiday. We read above that in 1965, Holiday had asked Winifred to locate a good spot to be at if and when the Monster put in an appearance. Whitefield Cottage was the reply and:

Sure enough, on the following day, Mr Holiday and a couple called Eaves saw a large, black hump surfaced very close to the shore at "Whitefield". As Ted aimed his movie camera and began to squeeze the trigger, the Eaves’ dog barked, causing the creature to suddenly submerge. 

Holiday recounts this incident with the Eaves family in his book, "The Great Orm of Loch Ness" with the context being the 1965 Summer expedition organised by the "Bureau" - the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. After a couple of weeks conducting various searches along the shores of Loch Ness, we take up Ted's account a few days before the sighting which includes some relevant musings about Monster hunting techniques:

I lived and slept on the shore, moving from point to point for the slightest of reasons or for no reason at all, shifting ground from instinct rather than from logic. We had tried to photograph the Orm using military planning and, so far, had failed. I was now trying the oldest technique known of encountering an animal — an absorbed concentration on the end in view, leaving the details to look after themselves. This method works surprisingly often.

On the 17th and 18th, I stayed on the Whitefield shore at the spot where Fraser and Cameron had been fishing. On the 19th I went to watch Tor Point and then, on a hunch, doubled back and spent the evening watching Foyers Bay from the north-west shore. The weather had again turned chilly and rough and nothing unusual was seen. If Nesa was really protecting her beasts from our cameras, she must have found me a very unpredictable observer and a grave threat to Orm security, since the 17-inch Newman was shifting about the loch almost at random. The camera was now as erratic as the monster. Quite suddenly, this system paid off.

On the 21st I returned to Whitefield and the day, which began cold and rough, took a turn for the better and the evening was lovely. As usual, I parked in a woodland glade beside a burn and only thirty yards from the pebbly beach. A couple called Mr and Mrs Eaves were near the beach having a picnic. After ex-changing pleasantries, I went down to catch trout. It was a calm evening with plenty of midges about.

Mr Eaves had a new sort of tape-recorder in his car and, on my way back from fishing, he invited me to examine it. Mrs Eaves was seated in a deck-chair on the beach, contemplating the loch. Suddenly, she let out a yell, which sounded like: 'The monster! It's here! The monster!'

I have often seen people become excited on seeing what they think is the Orm. Usually, they are mistaken or the alleged sighting is so inconclusive as to be worthless. At the same moment, however, Mr Eaves gripped my arm and pointed.

Close inshore, against the beach, the water had taken on a flat appearance as if something large, moving beneath the surface, had altered the set of the ripples. On seeing this, I made a dash, seized the Newman, and planted it firmly on the sawn-off stump of a tree. Eaves joined me and we crouched like runners waiting for the starting-pistol. Mrs Eaves was standing up, peering at the loch, and so, unfortunately, was their dog, which was tied to the deck-chair.

About 20 yards to the left of the flattened water, and directly opposite the mouth of the burn, I saw an object starting to emerge. There was no doubt that it was a hump. Silhouetted against the water, it looked jet black. It was rising vertically in a peculiar manner, as if the mass, below water, was shortening and thickening and this thickening was building itself above the surface.

On seeing the hump, Mr Eaves half-shoved the lens of the Newman towards it in his eagerness. His wife was excitedly shouting something and their dog started to bark, determined not to be left out of the act. By then, I had the hump square in the frame of the wire viewfinder and my finger had actually found the button-release for filming when the hump collapsed. It collapsed in a sort of muscular spasm, far quicker, indeed, than it had emerged. There was a distinct roiling of water as the Orm moved out of the shallows at the mouth of the burn. Some small waves came ashore and then it was gone.

I felt exhausted at this further incredible disappointment and sat down, no longer interested in looking at the loch. Mrs Eaves then came over to tell her side of the story. While she was admiring the view through binoculars, a hump rose right into her field of vision. It was black and seemed to have a serrated ridge. She estimated it to be as long as their family saloon-car less the boot.


Holiday adds that he went round to Strone by the Castle the following day, checked that the main rig was functional and had lunch with the Carys, but nowhere in the book does he mention consulting Winifred on the matter of dowsing for the Monster. In fact, reading his account above, he seems to put his luck in being in the right place at the right time down to his own instinctive approach to picking locations on a hunch and on that day the "system paid off".

One could conclude that Holiday was taking the same approach as Rines in suppressing this contentious item to maintain an air of science in his Orm book. After all, at this stage Holiday was still invested in his biological invertebrate theory of the Monster with none of the paranormal connotations of his later views. Maybe, but if Winifred had indeed directed him to Whitefield, why offend her as a friend by taking the credit himself? 

As Holiday became more open in his paranormal views from 1970 onwards, there must have been no fear in now crediting the psychic powers of Winifred Cary in his new psychic world of monsters? However, his later books, "The Dragon and the Disc" and "The Goblin Universe" make no such admissions. The closest we get is in the latter book where he says:

Mrs. Cary is a forthright old lady whose opinions sometimes border on the brutal. After a colorful and amazing life in British India, she returned to England shortly before war broke out to become a major in Special Operations Executive. But running parallel with this military pragmatism is a strong psychic disposition which Dr. Omand detected instantly.

One of her favourite afternoon diversions is to watch television horse-racing and to pick the winners. Although she knows nothing of form, the quality of her precognition can be judged by the fact that she picked the first, second and fourth runners in that year’s (1973) Derby. But she never bets or allows her predictions to be used for betting, holding that to do so would be to destroy the gift. 


Paul Cropper and myself wondered why Holiday didn't acknowledge Cary across those years of writing? I did not think Cary requested anonymity as the whole thing about directing underwater camera locations in 1972 did not seem to be hidden from the teams involved.  Since Holiday's "Goblin" book was published after his death, maybe his friend, Colin Wilson, had edited it out of the final manuscript?

But thinking about it further, Holiday stated he was already in the Whitefield area in the days leading up to the 21st June. If he was already attracted to that area based on his aforementioned "instinct" then perhaps he viewed Winifred's advice as not so much new information but corroboration for the "hunch" he already had concerning the Whitefield area? In other words, two people are telling the same story but from their own perspective and possibly own bias. That seemed a more harmonious explanation and that is probably as far as I can go with that.

In conclusion, does Winifred's tales of dowsing for Nessie lend itself to the idea that the Monster is some kind of paranormal phenomenon acting like a psychic beacon for psychics to locate? I would say not going by the opening lines of Tony's conversation with her when she states that her abilities were used to find lost pets. So just replace "I can't find Tiddles, can you help me?" with "I can't find Nessie, can you help me?". Unless of course you regard moggies as some kind of weird paranormal creature!


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

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




Tuesday, 6 October 2026

Two New York Sea Serpent Stories

 



I recently received a couple of Sea Serpent stories from a fellow cryptid enthusiast with whom I have been conversing for about a year now. He has a friend called "Laura from Pennsylvania" whom he has persuaded to write down her eyewitness account as well as draw the sketch shown above. There are actually two accounts, the other being a story she heard concerning some other people. But first, Laura's own story which I pass onto readers without any further analysis.

In the 1980s, my mom drove my sister and I to Stormville Airport Flea Market – in April and September. We took the Taconic Parkway North from the Bronx.  We traveled over a bridge, which is called the Amvets Memorial Bridge (it’s from 1931 and 40 feet wide and about 750 feet long) that crossed over the New Croton Reservoir.

We traveled early in the morning and the sun was just coming up when we left the house, so by the time we reached the bridge, it was daylight.  My sister sat in the front seat because she got carsick, and I was in the back seat. I was looking to my left of the bridge and my sister was looking to the right of the bridge – we were more than half-way across the bridge.

We both gasped and yelled “What is That?”  This monster was not that far from the shoreline and it was as clear as day.  It was traveling pretty fast too, you could see the flippers flapping away and it was very dark in color – a major contrast to the blue of the water. My mother continued driving, but we regret that we didn’t say stop the car – because I had a camera! What a missed opportunity for a once in a lifetime shot!

We talked about what we saw every time we went up there, hoping for another glimpse of what we saw… now, think of it – we never thought to ask – which direction were you looking?  Years later, when we were going back to Stormville, I glanced at my sister and she was looking to the right – I asked her if she was looking to the right that day we saw it and yes, she was looking the opposite way of me!  We never realized that we were both looking in different directions and just how big that monster was!

I saw the front end of this monster – a very long neck with “flippers” and she saw a long tail! We totally believe we saw a Plesiosaur – there is absolutely no doubt in our minds that we saw what we saw!  It still gives me the chills to think that this monster still lives! Here is a picture of the bridge – we were about ½ way across when we spotted it.




Location wise, the bridge is shown on the Google Maps screenshot below. I am not sure whether I should class this story as Sea Serpent, Lake Monster or River Monster. As stated, the bridge crosses over a body of water called the "New Croton Reservoir" which is itself part of a system of reservoirs supplying water to New York. The reservoir joins to the great Hudson River via the two mile stretch of the River Croton but a dam obstructs most of the way.



My correspondent vouches for Laura's trustworthiness and if anyone knows of similar stories from that region, then let me know. The second story goes back to the 1960s and goes as follows.

This story was relayed to me by my older sister who was about 7 at the time, recalled the boys telling this tale. The year was about 1968 in the Bronx, New York …. Local boys aged 10-15 years old, always exploring, walked to Bronxdale Avenue which was about 2 miles from their home. There is an entrance now to the Bronx Zoo, but back then there was no official entrance except for a broken chain link fence.

Boys being boys, went through the fence and traveled to about 180th Street – which by foot is approximately 2.5 miles.  The Bronx River travels through this area and there is also a waterfall that was closed off to the public.  The entire area was a forest.

The boys went exploring through this area – where no visible human life ever traveled - except Native Americans!  It was very overgrown with ancient trees.   They were about ¼ mile from the waterfall and were at the water’s edge, it was very dark because of all the trees, except for a small beam of light shining through the trees, when all of a sudden a huge neck extended out of the water reaching at least 12 feet, very slimy looking, dark in color, had a snake like face and was looking directly at the boys.  They didn’t wait to see what it was going to do!

Thankfully, the boys ran home and told their tale to the other kids – these were not kids that exaggerated at all and were good “Catholic” boys.  This tale was told throughout the neighborhood for many years.  Somewhere someone has a drawing of what they saw, because my sister saw them drawing it! Here is a picture of the falls:




This admittedly third hand account is more urban in its context as shown in the second map below. This occurred on the Bronx River in the environs of Bronx Park which flows about three miles south into the Atlantic via the larger East River. One can only assume that whatever the creature was, it was a brief visitor to the river and was soon heading back to the ocean. It certainly was not an escapee from the Bronx Zoo! But again, comments are invited as to strange aquatic tales from the region of New York. My thanks again to Laura for these stories.







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

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com


Saturday, 26 September 2026

A sighting from 1954


The Daily Mail today relates an account from Loch Ness where an army major notes an encounter with the beast in his journal. The leading title says "Revealed after 72 years - the journal entry with extraordinary
eyewitness account of a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster" and goes on to say this before I hit the Daily Mail paywall:

It has lain largely forgotten and gathering dust for decades. The daily journal lovingly collated by Major Bill Davidson in the 1950s mainly recounts his successes or otherwise fishing the deep, dark waters of Loch Ness near his family home. Until you get to the…

I was intrigued to find out more and asked Google's AI search assistant to tell me more about the story. Obligingly it pierced the paywall and told me this:

In July 1954, an extraordinary eyewitness account of the Loch Ness Monster was recorded by Major Bill Davidson, an Army officer on leave from the King's Own Scottish Borderers. While staying at his family’s cottage near Urquhart Castle, Major Davidson, his mother Winifred Cary, and his sister Daphne observed an object in the water for roughly 20 minutes. His forgotten firsthand account, preserved in his personal fishing and game journal, was publicly revealed by his son, Bob Davidson:

"Saw the Loch Ness Monster for 20 minutes. No doubt about the speed and size of this thing. Like a huge snake's head sticking out of the water at half a mile's range. Sometimes diving, stopping and backtracking. Large Vee wake behind it. Last seen heading towards Dores several miles distant."

At the mention of Winifred Cary, it soon became apparent this was not a new sighting for it is related in the 1968 book, "The Great Monster Hunt" by David and Yvonne Cooke. They visited the Cary family at Loch Ness where Winifred recounted some of their past sightings including this one:

I didn't see anything again until a fortnight later, when my son Bill came up for a visit. He is in the Army, and he was on leave from his outfit. Bill was with me on the hill about half past nine in the morning, and we were just standing there looking at the loch, which was flat calm. As we were watching, this huge black thing just rose up out of the water right below us off Urquhart Castle. It was at least fifty or sixty feet long. We could judge the size because we know the castle is fifty feet high. In any case, we know the look of the fourteen-foot boats on the loch, and if you put three of them end to end it was still bigger than that.

The thing must have been at least four or five feet out of the water. It was just like the bottom of a turned-up boat. Bill said afterwards he thought he'd seen a head and neck when it first came up, but I couldn't say that I really did. I just saw this great hump, and as it came up there was this terrific commotion in the water and it just lay there. We stopped an AA man [British Automobile Association patrol-man] named MacIntosh, who was passing on his motorbike, and he came up and stood beside us and watched it as well.

Now assuming AI has not hallucinated the Daily Mail text (and I will update this article if necessary later), one account emphasizes the head and neck while the other focuses on the hump, but we now have some form of corroboration for the Winifred Cary account (I am not sure if there is an independent account by the AA patrolman). I was initially thrown by the story as how could Bill Davidson be the son of Winifred if her married name was Cary? Perhaps a son from a previous marriage or something? That aside, the account does not appear in the newspaper archives I searched, though we have a few other interesting accounts from 1954.

It is also noted that Major Davidson's journal was mainly a fishing journal of the loch. I like experienced anglers of the loch for the sceptics cannot so easily dismiss their observational skills garnered over the years. Since it would appear that he put his account in writing shortly after the event while the Winifred account is related over ten years later, I would probably put more trust in his account.

Curiously, I realised the Cary/Davidson account had the look and feel of another famous sighting around that time at the same spot. She describes a fifty foot black hump surfacing beside Urquhart Castle. Unlike Winifred Cary, who admitted she was transfixed by the scene and didn't get her camera, Peter MacNab may have seen the very same beast one year later by the castle but captured it on film. Unlike us, I highly doubt he had knowledge of Winifred Cary's previous account.



As I have said before, I believe there was once a big alpha beast in the loch measuring at least fifty foot long and it was the main creature that led the headlines from the 1930s. It died around the early 1960s and its bones now lies partially buried under about five inches of silt awaiting discovery by one of those clever ROVs that occasionally patrol the depths of the loch. Where this bull monster actually gave up the ghost is a bit trickier to ascertain.


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

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




Saturday, 19 September 2026

An Interesting Satellite Photograph


The Inverness Courier yesterday published an image from Google Maps which had been spotted by a Julie Fraser which caught my attention. The text of the article is as follows:

Loch Ness Monster spotted from space? Possible Nessie sighting made in Google Earth and Google Maps satellite images

Has Nessie been spotted from space? One eagle-eyed future tourist looking to research a visit to Inverness certainly thinks so. For, in what has already been a busy year for potential Nessie sightings, the latest possible snapshot has been made on Google Earth. And not only is there one mysterious object in the water, but three - a “little family of Nessies”, said Julie Fraser after making the discovery.

She has now reported the images to The Official Loch Ness Sightings Register and is waiting back to hear back to find out if they will be recorded as the 17th potential sighting of the legendary beast made this year. At the time of writing, 14 in-person encounters have been officially recorded in 2026, with two further sightings made digitally through webcams of the iconic loch. If accepted, Julie’s sighting will be the third one made digitally since January. Speaking to The Inverness Courier, Julie, who is from the north-east of England, said:

“Last weekend I opened Google Earth to look around the Clan Fraser cemetery on the east shore of the loch - I'm planning a visit to Inverness later in the year and was just playing when I spotted the three objects. Taking a closer look and enlarging the images they really do look like a pod of whales. Obviously there's no specific date but there's a Google 2026 and the trees are in full leaf so it's recent. There's an image of a pleasure boat with a wake but no wake from the three things. They don't like like boats and look like whales or something similar with an arc to their back. I'm not a crank. I'm not as familiar as probably local people but it definitely looks like something significant to me.”

She continued:

"The Loch Ness Sightings got in touch yesterday and said they're going to have a look. I had a look yesterday and they're still there. The thought of a little family of Nessies is so exciting."

When I last checked the Loch Ness Sightings webpage, it was not listed but when I looked at the image, my first impression was "kayakers" but I decided to look further into the image which was still available on Google Maps. The location of the three objects is off the shoreline at a point almost exactly halfway between Whitefield and Dores on the south side of the loch. 

The entire loch area is actually a patchwork of different satellite images stitched together over some time period and so the particular sub-image in which the objects appears is of a different shade and water texture to areas elsewhere. No other objects are seen on the loch in that particular sub-image and one cannot be sure whether the nearest boat to the objects in the next sub-image was there days, weeks before or after them. However, what is the same is the scale of the whole picture.

First, an estimate of the sizes of the objects was required. I did a max zoom into the objects which provided a 10 metres "ruler" on Google Maps. I first measured the total length of each object knowing that some of that might be water disturbance. From left to right the lengths were rounded up to 7.1m, 6.8m and 6.8m which were pretty similar results.



However, each object did not look the same and indeed each of them had a kind of broken and segmented look to them. So an estimate of the longest unbroken segment for each came out as 5.2m, 5.9m and 3.5m. As a double check, I looked for an object on the loch which was of a known length. That turned out to be the "Spirit of Loch Ness" cruise boat docked at Fort Augustus. It's length is 21m which gave size estimates for the three objects of 6.0m to 7.5m or 19.7ft to 24.6ft.



An estimate of the distance of the rightmost object from the south shore was made and this came out to about 185m while the distance between the objects was about 12m. So the first thing to ask is if the objects are actually on the surface of the loch? Since there is no indication of any wakes to signify this, one has to consider whether they are above the loch? I consider them too small to be clouds when comparing them against what are obviously clouds in the overall image. If they were birds, one would expect to see wings and the same goes for airplanes. So we will take them to be at the surface of the loch. 

Did they look like anything else on the loch? Here is a compilation of what else was in the complete image of Loch Ness. They are all boats of varying sizes and I had a pretty good look but did not see anything else that was unusual. The three objects look nothing like these boats and so I considered logs and birds. It seemed unlikely that three long logs would be floating parallel to the shoreline at almost the same distance apart.   



Could they be three lines of birds? Well that was more plausible than logs and better explained the segmented look to the objects. That is, each "node" of the segment could be a bird. However, even the smallest node came out at 80cm long. Or perhaps they are a very isolated set of wave effects? What that could be and whether one could find a prior image example to prove it, I don't know.

Then I came back to the kayakers. A typical kayak on the loch would be about 3m to 4m long and would generally have the thin long shapes we see on the image. Unfortunately, I scanned the Google Maps image of the loch for any sign of kayakers and found nothing that I could compare against the three objects. Undeterred I swept the map southwards towards the popular boating resort of Loch Lomond looking for the telltale torpedo shape of a kayaker. I found some candidate images though one could not be definitive that it truly was a kayak. Be that as it may, one image at the same scale is below.



We see two kayaks of the same length progressing towards the shore and they both come in at about 4.5m each or up to 3m short of the longest object. The other difference lies in their relative appearances. As expected, the two kayaks have a more solid appearance to them in contrast to the broken appearance of the three objects. I would finally add that 185m from the shore seems a long distance on Loch Ness for kayakers. The trail cameras I run by the loch have shown many kayakers passing by over the years and they are all close to the shore for safety purposes. I do not recall seeing any out this far.

 


Having looked at the "normal" explanations, if there were three large animals in Loch Ness (which I obviously believe), what would they look like? The estimated lengths are in keeping with was has been reported over the decades. Indeed, a length of 6m to 7m is at the lower end of what cryptozoologists estimate for the animal. However, one would expect a more solid appearance like the kayaks and perhaps of a darker hue.

One could speculate the segmented appearance from above could consist of the tip of the tail, two or more humps and finally the head. But then again, there is no indication of a bulbous body or the long neck so beloved of Nessie theorists. However, the absence of wakes is consistent with reported behaviour. Unlike the boats, which tend to keep moving, these animals are at perfect liberty to slow to a stop. But overall the images are a bit of a conundrum whatever angle they are looked at and further comments are invited to suggest other possible explanations.


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

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com





 

Saturday, 12 September 2026

Those Classic Nessie Photos and other Objections



I read something on Facebook recently which gave a summary of arguments for and against the mystery of the Loch Ness Monster. The first piece of text summed up support for a large unknown beast in the loch in the following manner:

The monster is real. People fail to take photos or videos because they're transfixed by shock and awe. Apart from people who took old B&W photos decades ago that is. The monster isn't seen because it hides in the mud at the bottom and at the sides of the loch. The corpses somehow immediately dissolve or get hidden. Skeptics use psychobabble when they say Nessie is all in our minds.

For the opposite side we get this summary:

After 93 years of near continuous searching, and the last 20 of those with every local and visitor carrying a camera phone, we'd categorically have really good evidence at this point if the Loch Ness Monster was a real animal rather than a socially constructed myth.

People may already be noticing that the texts are not quite balanced, so let me make some comment because when arguments are reduced to soundbites, information can be lost in favour of persuasion. Starting with the statement of the "sceptic", it is doubtful that the loch has been subjected to 93 years of "near continuous searching". Much of the loch has been obscured by trees over that time and the south side of the loch has been even less visited than the north side. Tourists glancing at the loch for seconds whilst driving or for only minutes on the shore lack the focused concentration which characterizes meaningful "searching".

After the 1930s and a gap of 30 years, the word "search" did became more meaningful for a period of 10 years when the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau conducted organised searches, but the literature of the time demonstrated that this was not without its problems when looking for a creature exposing about 26 square feet in an area covering 26 square miles. 

The last 20 years has certainly ushered in the era of pocket cameras that were made for close up pictures of family and friends or distant majestic mountain ranges. The problem is the monster is highly unlikely to get as close to you as your wife by the front door and it is certainly not as big as a mountain. Mobile phone pictures and videos turn up every year from the loch and it is no surprise that objects hundreds of metres out in the loch do not turn out well when the light gathering capabilities of such devices are inadequate to provide the necessary data.

I just returned from a trip to the Moray Firth and kept my eyes open for any sign of dolphins or orcas. After five days we saw a small pod of bottlenose dolphins at Portknockie. With this argument about mobile phones still fresh in my mind, I took my mobile phone and attempted to take some still images and video. The dolphins' position was easily pinpointed as they swam just beyond the small rocky islands beyond the bay which on a map came out at about 340 metres. 


If you're having trouble spotting anything in the picture I don't blame you, so the zoom in below reveals the dolphins. I leave the reader to decide if the photograph proves beyond reasonable doubt and purely on the basis of this image alone whether I snapped two bottlenose dolphins.



Before that, we had spotted some harbour seals hanging out in Cullen Bay which is a mile further along the coast. They were about a hundred metres out this time as seen below. In this picture, the seal is basically floating in the water with its head pointing upwards. In this case, I used the digital zoom to magnify the view by a factor of seven, but unlike optical zoom, this procedure does not gather more image information. In fact, it required binoculars to identify the object was a seal and also its species.



As you can see, the mobile phone camera pictures are not very impressive, and these involve known creatures one has a reasonable chance of spotting! Ideally, an Orca would have been a better comparison shot as they are of a more comparable size to the Loch Ness Monster. Of course, if I had a professional camera with telephoto lenses set upon a stable tripod ready and waiting, the pictures would be a lot more impressive. Indeed, professionals do take such images as they know the best places to set up their equipment and wait because there are over 100 dolphins regularly swimming along these shores. The Loch Ness Monster is a little less predictable on that score. So to "categorically" state that we would by now "have really good evidence" using these mobile phones does not stack up for me.

We do have good photos taken over the years, the trouble is that too many former "believers" are now geared to reject them all because they have burned their bridges with cryptids and there is no turning back. They are indeed left with a myth, but one which they themselves have "socially constructed" with their own public narrative.

Moving onto the "believer's" statement,  most of it is hyperbole. Not all people "fail to take photos or videos because they're transfixed by shock and awe" but some do miss that opportunity because their eyes are glued to a scene which is unfamiliar to them and their brain holds them to attention while it processes this new information. I do not get why this basic reflex should be thought of as impossible, consider the more extreme example when some danger is visibly approaching and your brain kicks into survival mode and almost instinctively takes control of you whether you want a picture or not  - run!

Does the caveat that this does not apply to "old B&W photos" taken "decades ago" present a paradox to the reader? What is being referred to here are the "classic" photos taken during a 27 year period between 1933 and 1960. Opinions may vary as to what pictures should be so labelled but there are at least seven of them which are the Gray, Wilson, Cumming, Stuart, Cockrell, MacNab and O'Connor photographs. Their regularity is uneven with a big gap of 17 years between two clusters of 1933-1934 and 1951-1955.

So the suggested paradox is that these classic photographers did not seem to suffer from "shock and awe" yet everyone after them does because they are too "shocked" to produce more quality photos. The sceptical answer is that there is no paradox as the classic photos are all fake, so no one would be in "shock or awe". But the resolution of this supposed paradox is more complex than that. Firstly, there are photographs of similar and better quality since 1960. Included in that group are the Gray (2000), Johnston (2001), Jobes (2011) and Kelly (2018) pictures. Of course, people will dispute these pictures as well and of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and you're getting one particular set of opinions in this article!

As a consequence, this paradox argument has become somewhat dated as it came out of the 1980s when more sceptical eyes were turned on the classic photographs. By that time, no high quality pictures had come out of the searches of the 1960s and 1970s, hence their revisionism. There were still pictures of lower quality which I number at perhaps 5-10 images from that 20 year period (excluding Searle and Shiels) and one may ask why the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau did not produce the goods, but their aim was to deliver quality 35mm film and not still photographs.

Overall, if total eyewitness reports per decade are compared against all photographs taken then their ratio varies between 1% and 3% until the 1990s onwards where sightings dip per annum but number of photos increase such that the ratio shot to over 40% in the 2010s. The "best" plot line below is that subset of photos which I consider on a par with the classic photos and the sightings count is the left axis. Each year on the horizontal axis represents one decade, so 1960 is 1960-1969 and so on.




So the only question remaining is why the occurrence of the best pictures has this uneven appearance? There is one main explanation which is big enough to merit its own upcoming article, but I would also ask why this rate is so uneven if all such photos are presumed fake? After the Peter O'Connor picture of 1960, we see no sign of a detailed surface photograph which sceptics could dismiss as a fake for twelve long years! This is despite the 1960s being the most publicity rich decade for the Loch Ness Monster, it should have been a magnet for fakers to try and cash in on the story.

But moving on, the statement that "the monster isn't seen because it hides in the mud at the bottom and at the sides of the loch" presumably is moving on from photographic images and onto sonar. But it is a fact that the increasing use of sonar and more sophisticated technology continues to produce more anomalous images as commercial vessels ply their trade up and down the loch. The problem is interpreting this new class of image as most people tend to view them like an optical image in the same manner as images seen on the surface. 

Sceptical interpretations tend to dismiss them as ghost images reflected of the sides of the loch or inconclusive because the calibration of the device is questioned. Yet when asked what a reflected ghost image would actually look like is not conclusively answered. But at other times the predicted large upside down crescent image expected of a large animal are seen but still dismissed because - after all - there cannot possibly be large creatures in the loch!

As to whether these creatures resort to the bottom or sides of the loch to live (not "hide") is largely irrelevant if sonar hits are being produced when they do actually take to the abyssal region. Furthermore the statement that "the corpses somehow immediately dissolve or get hidden" implies there is no explanation for missing corpses, but there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. When such animals die, they first of all sink to the bottom as positive buoyancy leaves the lungs or they no longer move their limbs to stay afloat. 

As decomposition sets in, any gases produced that get caught in body cavities produce positive buoyancy causing the carcass to rise and return to the surface. But in the case of Loch Ness (and any other deep body of water) this is retarded due to the extreme pressure of hundreds of feet of water causing these gases to compress and therefore proportionally lose buoyancy. In fact, for every 10 metres of descent, the pressure doubles and so at the greatest depth of 230 metres, the pressure exerted is 23 times that at the surface.

Finally, do "believers" say that "skeptics use psychobabble when they say Nessie is all in our minds"? That is accurate enough for the purposes of this article and I agree with the definition of "psychobabble" as "repetitive, formulaic speech that claims to offer insight but lacks genuine meaning". This goes back to 1934 when scientists blamed mass hysteria for the phenomenon and said it was more a problem for the psychologist than the zoologist. You would think this theory of "wishful thinking" would be less relevant the closer an eyewitness got to the object being observed.

However, even with encounters within 100 yards or less, this theory is almost fanatically applied irrespective of the description of the object or the observational skills of the eyewitness. Hence the term "psychobabble" is appropriate when a scientific sounding explanation is indiscriminately applied to everything in the hope that something sticks. Now I don't think anyone denies that people will look at a distant object and wonder if they're looking at the Loch Ness Monster.

If an object is halfway across the loch or further, clarity is unlikely to be available without the aid of binoculars or some known frame of reference like a nearby structure. People may indeed imagine certain features are visible based on a needless extrapolation of the little visual data they have. So, some will err on the side of caution but others will believe it could be the famous inhabitant of the loch. But it has usually been the case that such long distance accounts are not presented as the best evidence anyway unless some other factors come into play. 

The person who posted these original texts did so anonymously, and little wonder as I wouldn't be publicly admitting that I owned them either. So I will end here and rather let other Nessie fans swallow this Jonah than wade through further objections myself but also as I'm on admin alert this week checking out game cameras to set up soon for the winter!


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

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com