Subsequently, I have been to Loch Ness and visited their shop to have a chat with them about their experience. Firstly, they said the Inverness Courier article was an accurate enough account of what they had seen. I then asked them if there was a possibility it could have been a boat or some other familiar vessel seen on the loch to which they replied no.
Both witnesses came across as people who thought they had genuinely seen something and were not practical jokers or liars. They also rejected with a sigh the accusations levelled at them by anonymous comments on the Courier website that it was the tourist season and so it was time to put out some lies to boost trade. I quite agree with them, it is a nonsensical and libellous thing to say and unfortunately whenever a sighting is claimed from March onwards, this tired excuse is wheeled out by cynical observers. However, I did buy some stuff in their store and before anyone plays that cynic card, I was intending to buy some food for the drive home and theirs was the most convenient place to stop!
I then left the store and crossed the road to the Fall of Foyers milestone to have a look at the loch. The picture below is from Google StreetView but it underestimates what is visible from there to the unaided human eye.
As stated before, there is plenty of surface area visible for Nessie to put in an appearance. From my vantage point, I could clearly watch one of the white Caley Cruiser boats travelling up the loch and I managed to photograph it as it disappeared into the trees.
Assuming it was one of these boats then it would be 30 to 39 feet in length and 11 to 13 feet high. With those rough dimensions in mind, my own estimate of what I could easily see as a vertical neck like object would be at a minimum four feet. Below that may still be discernable but I do not have 20-20 vision even with glasses on, it depends on how good the observer's eyesight is.
As stated before, there is plenty of surface area visible for Nessie to put in an appearance. From my vantage point, I could clearly watch one of the white Caley Cruiser boats travelling up the loch and I managed to photograph it as it disappeared into the trees.
Assuming it was one of these boats then it would be 30 to 39 feet in length and 11 to 13 feet high. With those rough dimensions in mind, my own estimate of what I could easily see as a vertical neck like object would be at a minimum four feet. Below that may still be discernable but I do not have 20-20 vision even with glasses on, it depends on how good the observer's eyesight is.
My visit therefore reinforced my view that what the Hargreaves saw back in June was no optical illusion or misperception but a genuine sight of the Loch Ness Monster. Keep up the appearances, Nessie old girl!
One comment passed to me by email suggests the "neck" was merely a kayak with a mast of some description. This was based on the fact that when Steve Feltham interviewed the Hargreaves they mentioned a kayak/canoe was visible at some point.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is the comment admits the Hargreaves knew a canoe when they saw one and yet in this theoretical scenario when a canoeist erects a mast it suddenly becomes unrecognisable and therefore a monster.
This may sound like Occam's Razor seeking the simplest solution but it is not for it goes too far in its assumptions about the untrustworthiness of the witnesses' capabilities and what a canoe looks like.
Firstly, the object was visible for nearly five minutes and yet the witnesses could not figure out it was a canoe in that time.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly they said the object submerged for 30 to 40 seconds before reappearing. How does a canoe with a mast explain that? Does one have to now bring in more explanations such as the mast going up and down? But even this is no use as then it would become evident that the object was a canoe (though I do not accept they could fail to spot a canoe). And besides canoes do not disappear from sight for 40 seconds!
As one can see, apparently simple solutions beging to break down on further examination as more and more assumptions have to be brought in to sustain the argument.
Of course, if one does not believe Loch Ness is inhabited by one or more large unidentified creatures then it is no surprise that such arguments are sought.