Whilst looking through some archives, I came across some items of interest on a creature reported in the Beauly Firth. This stretch of coastal water outside Inverness is about six miles long by two miles wide and has some significance to our interest in Loch Ness as the mouth of the River Ness meets the Beauly Firth at its exit into the Moray Firth (see map below).
The first report was found in a couple of far flung newspapers and the clipping below is taken from the Schenectady Gazette of the 1st March, 1955 (a newspaper from Schenectady county in New York state).
The next account is sixteen years later and is taken from the Inverness Courier for the 30th July 1971.
"Was there a monster in the Beauly Firth on Monday afternoon? Twenty boys of the Newcastle Cathedral Choir, who returned home yesterday after spending a nine day holiday in Inverness are convinced that they saw such an object some miles west of Inverness in the Beauly Firth. The boys were returning to Inverness by train on Monday afternoon after a day outing to Skye, when one of the party, Peter Harrison, noticed a trail of foam in the middle of the Firth. He shouted to his pals, and the three leaders of the party - Mr. G. East, Mr. R.? and Mr. G. Bolton - to look out of the window of the train.
After two minutes there was a splash and a large, black slimy object appeared. It moved eastwards for 40 seconds, at a speed of 25 miles per hour before producing another splash, again creating a trail of foam. The boys, who said the object had one hump and was too large and too fast to be a porpoise, managed to obtain a clear sighting of the object, and each was able to draw a sketch of what they saw.
Only last week, a family from Cupar, Fife, walking along the shore at the Longman, claimed they saw a 'monster' in the Beauly Firth."
I don't have any more on this second sighting despite checking back in the Courier archive. The reporter takes a somewhat sceptical stance and suggests his own explanation for the sighting:
"Porpoises are frequently seen in the Beauly and Moray Firths, swimming in schools, while seals are occasional visitors, and there have even been bottle-nosed whales. There may therefore be a simple natural explanation of these sightings, especially as the foam disturbance may have been caused by porpoises in battle with salmon or other fish which can be an awe inspring sight."
The famous Nessie witness Alex Campbell was a correspondent for the Courier at this time, but it is not known if he was the author of this report.
What are we to make of these reports? Apart from simplistic explanations about porpoises which are regularly seen in those parts and are easily recognised by their dorsal fin, could this alleged beast possibly be our own Loch Ness Monster out of its regular "chez mois"?
Now reports of strange creatures have been reported from adjoining Loch Dochfour, the River Ness and now the Beauly Firth. No doubt more could be dug up with further investigation. But should we seriously say that these were not the Loch Ness Monster but the Loch Dochfour Monster, the River Ness Monster and the Beauly Firth Monster?
Probably not. That the monster could get to these parts is not impossible and has been discussed since the days of Rupert T. Gould in 1934. His motivation for this topic was obvious enough having authored the book "The Case for the Sea Serpent" not long before in 1930. Gould believed the Loch Ness Monster could be a stray sea serpent and hence an access route from the sea which did not prove too difficult was uppermost in his mind as he traced the route from Loch Ness to the Moray Firth in his book "The Loch Ness Monster and Others".
A passage up and through the River Ness looked the most obvious while the other journey through the Caledonian Canal looked rather more daunting to a sea serpent considering the number of locks that have to be negotiated.
The other option not taken up by Gould is the famous or infamous subterranean passage running beneath the Highlands and out to some unknown outlet in the sea. Going by the sightings mentioned here, perhaps subterranean advocates should concentrate their efforts to find this fabled tunnel in the Beauly Firth area. Whether such a tunnel actually exists is another matter...
What are we to make of these reports? Apart from simplistic explanations about porpoises which are regularly seen in those parts and are easily recognised by their dorsal fin, could this alleged beast possibly be our own Loch Ness Monster out of its regular "chez mois"?
Now reports of strange creatures have been reported from adjoining Loch Dochfour, the River Ness and now the Beauly Firth. No doubt more could be dug up with further investigation. But should we seriously say that these were not the Loch Ness Monster but the Loch Dochfour Monster, the River Ness Monster and the Beauly Firth Monster?
Probably not. That the monster could get to these parts is not impossible and has been discussed since the days of Rupert T. Gould in 1934. His motivation for this topic was obvious enough having authored the book "The Case for the Sea Serpent" not long before in 1930. Gould believed the Loch Ness Monster could be a stray sea serpent and hence an access route from the sea which did not prove too difficult was uppermost in his mind as he traced the route from Loch Ness to the Moray Firth in his book "The Loch Ness Monster and Others".
A passage up and through the River Ness looked the most obvious while the other journey through the Caledonian Canal looked rather more daunting to a sea serpent considering the number of locks that have to be negotiated.
The other option not taken up by Gould is the famous or infamous subterranean passage running beneath the Highlands and out to some unknown outlet in the sea. Going by the sightings mentioned here, perhaps subterranean advocates should concentrate their efforts to find this fabled tunnel in the Beauly Firth area. Whether such a tunnel actually exists is another matter...
I've never been very keen on the tunnel hypothesis as Loch Ness is about 52 feet above sea level. If there was a large tunnel system there, surely the Loch would eventually drain down to sea level. If there are smaller tunnel outlets to the sea that drained the loch slower than it is replenished by its rivers and water drainage from the surrounding hills and mountains, imagine the force and thrust of the water gushing through these smaller tunnels. I think that it would be a bit of a long shot for any large or even smaller marine animals to swim against this torrent for the six miles or so from the sea or Beauly Firth area into Loch Ness, unless someone can explain a tunnel system that would allow a milder outflow of water in the geological conditions of the area.
ReplyDeleteThe physics of two bodies of water connected by a tunnel is not quite my forte. One assumes what you say is true but a scale model experiment would be most interesting .. to me anyway.
DeletePete - I agree with you. Of the vertebrates, mammals, reptiles and birds would drown on the journey, amphibians couldn't survive in the firth, fish could easier swim up the river so that only leaves... well nothing.
DeleteAdditionally, the less dense 4 degree fresh water would be easily spotted wherever it emerged from the tunnel.
A very good point concerning the fresh water outflow into the sea. I suppose a very rough model experiment as GB mentioned, would be the tunnel of the Glendoe hydro electric plant that runs from the reservoir in the mountains down into Loch Ness, although admittedly the reservoir is about 1960 feet above the loch and not the 52 feet that Loch ness is above sea level, but the principal of drainage would be the same, but as I said, a very rough comparison. Even though Loch Ness is a lot deeper than the North Sea and if the tunnel was deep below sea level, the actual water levels would even out unless as I said before, the loch filled faster than it was draining.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, what if our theoretical tunnel was tilted towards the Beauly Firth from Loch Ness?
DeleteWould that offset the supposed outflow of water from Loch Ness to the Firth?
At what angle would gravity balance water pressure?
Hi again GB. The water would always level out at the lower level no matter what the angle of the supposed tunnel, even if it was an undulating or winding tunnel. However, the use of the word 'tilted' in your reply has given me a thought. If the tunnel ran from the depths of Loch Ness and then inclined upwards above the level of the loch and then travelled downwards into the sea, something that is at least possible in a mountainous area, this would allow a connection of the two bodies of water via an airlock, no matter how short this airlock was. There would be two levels of water in the tunnel, one at the loch level and the other at the lower sea level with a raised section of the tunnel connecting them. The water free airlock would start at the water level of Loch Ness, carry on upwards and then down to the lower sea level. If, for example, a diver was to travel this tunnel they would emerge from the water at the upper end of the passage then walk or climb down to the lower sea water level depending on the length and angle of the airlock, re-enter the water at sea level and swim out into the sea. As the LNM has been reported several times out of the water I suppose it could be a possible explanation to the tunnel hypothesis. A rough comparison would be the tunnels that potholers explore.
DeletePete - that sounds like the idea on Raynor's website - http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/tunnels.html
DeleteHi anon I have just read the article on Raynors site & it is exactly the idea that I was referring to. It has obviously been thought of before and somewhat dismissed as unlikely to occur but on a side note tunnels, caverns etc do occur in many forms of rock and are not exclusive to limestone. Limestone tunnels are formed by water processes as Mr. Raynor has pointed out but natural cracks and fissures can and do occur in many forms of rock, especially in geologically unstable areas. We are told that the highlands was like this millions of years ago and at one time rivaled the Himalayas in height. Over time things have settled down and we are left with what we have today which are mere molehills in comparison. Going back to the tunnel hypothesis, I personally think it is unlikely but not impossible.
DeleteIt's not totally clear to me how direct the access is along the chain from Dochfour, River Ness, Beauly Firth, and into the open sea.... but it made me think instantly of Heuvelmans's reports of our classic long-necked sea serpents from Scottish waters, such as the one from the Kyle of Lochalsh in 1893, to the marvelous account reported by J. Mackintosh Bell, in 1919, in the Orkney Islands -- Gould talked to Bell, and it's in Dinsdale's "Leviathans," along with a carcass story from the same area. I'll have to refresh myself on the details of the carcass, but I've always loved Bell's sighting for it's details and that the local sailors and fisherman told him they were familiar with the animal.
ReplyDeleteNot to far from the Beauly Firth, it seems.....
Would the carcass story be the account of the Stronsay beast.
DeleteWilly - for an idea of the topography from Dochfour to the sea there's Raynor's website again - http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/RiverNessJourney.html
DeleteApparently, it's the "Deepdale" carcass (now that I have "Monster Hunt," the U.S. version of "The Leviathans," in front of me) that was found on the main island of the Orkney's in late 1941. Dinsdale discusses it in some detail in the book, and explores it under the auspices of a decaying basking shark, in the way that Heuvelman's suggested that the apparent "long neck" appearance is the cartilgeneous bones leftover when the flesh has rotted away. I'd have to sit and read it right now (which I can't) to get Dinsdale's take on it and his analysis. But in the chapter on it, he highlights several sightings and carcasses in the Orkney's, including MacKintosh Bell's, and with a map.
DeleteAnd thanks, anon, for the link. I'll check it out.