Thursday 1 March 2018

A New Book on the Loch Ness Monster

Coming your way is a new book about the Loch Ness Monster by the author of this blog and entitled "When Monsters Come Ashore". As you may guess from the title, it is the first book on the creature that dedicates itself to a study of a mystery within a mystery - alleged sightings of the monster on land. We have a few dozen of these stories gathered over three centuries and they are the most provocative of all monster accounts.

This aspect of Loch Ness lore has always fascinated me and indeed has prompted debate amongst monster believers as to what it means for their view of the creature. Even the notorious Frank Searle pronounced that all land sightings account were rubbish!

The book draws on material from this blog amassed over these past seven years as well as adding new material written especially for this book. Cases covered and unique to the book are the famous Arthur Grant and Torquil MacLeod incidents and also added is the most recent land account - the Ian Monckton incident (who the author managed to contact last year). You can also expect a few others items, such as the Una MacPherson case. Who is Una MacPherson you may ask? Buy the book and you'll find out!

As stated elsewhere before, one day this blog will cease to exist for whatever reason and this book is the first step in transferring that knowledge to a more permanent, physical form. The original intent was to do it all in one book, but at 600+ articles and counting, it was decided to split the job into at least three books, of which this one constitutes the first. 

Copies can be purchased from the UK at this link and from the USA at this link. As with my previous book, "The Water Horses of Loch Ness", there is no plan to put this in Kindle format for the reasons stated above - moving from the digital to the physical.

 The author can be contacted at

Nessie to Feature on British Coinage

The Loch Ness Monster will feature on the British 10p coin as part of an A-Z series of British icons. This dovetails nicely with my other hobby of coin collecting, though I assume this coin will appear in general circulation. The image looks a bit better than the usual cultural representations, though I am pretty sure Nessie never smiles! Urquhart Castle appears in the background so you don't confuse Nessie with Mhorag or Lizzie.

This is from the Royal Mint website - where you can pick up a silver proof version for a mere £35:

The elusive Loch Ness Monster is next on our list, A highland sighting that’s not to be missed!

Nothing gets the mind wondering as much as traditional British folklore. And the top of all the mythical beasts is the Loch Ness Monster. 

Reportedly a huge monster which mauls and drags its prey to the depths of Loch Ness, it has been described by the lucky few to set eyes on it as ‘the nearest approach to a dragon I have ever seen in my life’. 

It was during the 17th century that Britons really took an interest in Nessy. In 1871 D. Mackenzie spotted an object, similar to a log or an upturned boat “wriggling and churning up the water”. After this story was passed to Rupert Gould, interest in the Loch Ness Monster increased.

I spotted four mistakes in this short description, I will leave it as an exercise to readers to spot them.

The author can be contacted at

Monday 26 February 2018

The Peter O' Connor Photograph (Part IV)


Having taken a rest from the previous three articles on this intriguing photograph, I now consider some other objections to its authenticity. The first is taken from Maurice Burton's 1961 sceptical work, "The Elusive Monster" and makes the claim that the light configuration in the picture suggests a camera elevation of twelve feet (about 4 metres) rather than O'Connor's two feet. He also claimed that the object was no more than 15 feet away (New Scientist, January 1969). He added the further thoughts that the photograph showed the object was in water less than a foot deep with the object itself no more than three foot across.

Now Burton states these numbers but makes no attempt to demonstrate how he came to them. No maths, no diagrams, no nothing. It seems we just have to take him on trust in this matter. As it turns out, Burton had been relying on someone else to do the maths and that person was a Neave Parker, former RAF photographic analyst turned wildlife artist. In fact, Parker was an accomplished monster artist as the drawing below shows. Going by this, perhaps Parker had a mutual interest in goings on at Loch Ness?

So, as things stand, what Burton says here should not be accepted unless the maths and the assumptions made in the calculations are brought to light and can be verified by independent parties. Enquiries made to Loch Ness researchers who had made contact with Burton in the past managed to reveal the name of Neave Parker, but nothing else as regards calculations.

But taking these numbers at face value raises one or two issues. A calculated camera elevation of twelve feet is hard to envisage from a visit to the site where the photograph was taken. Assuming the foot to eye distance was about five feet, that leaves seven feet of height unaccounted for. There were some raised areas along the beach such as the one mentioned before where I found the circularly arranged stones, but I would not give that much more than three feet above the usual beach level.

The only two options I could think of was either to fall back to the wooded area as the hillside begins to rise to the road or climb up one of the occasional trees that grow out of the shingle. The problem with the first scenario is that being so far from the shoreline would undoubtedly bring the beach into the foreground of the picture. But why would a hoaxer even step back that far?

Concerning the second scenario, a typical picture of the trees along that beach is shown above. One could conceivably climb seven feet up a tree to take the picture, but that makes no sense either.  Apart from introducing an unstable photographic environment as the tree groans under ones weight, it also risks injury as such trees are rather thin trunked. To that one could add the foliage interrupting the field of view as it sways between you and the loch. But again what advantage is gained from taking such a picture seven feet up in a tree as opposed to the safe terrain of the beach?

As a consequence, I suggest the numbers stated by Burton make no sense from a practical point of view and so we move on to another objection.


The following objection to the photo was posted as a comment at the end of one of the other O'Connor articles I published.

The distortion of the circular ripples emanating from the left of the image can be calculated by extending these into an ellipse on a graphics package and dividing the short axis by the long to give the cosine of the angle at which they were viewed. This turns out to be somewhere between 62 and 65 degrees (the reproduction of the photograph is distorted such that it no longer conforms to the original aspect ratio of the negative, although this is only by a few percent.) 

Should the object be at the claimed distance of 75 feet, then the camera would have to be 35feet above the water level to account for the geometry of the ripples.

In summary, the equipment used could not have produced a flash exposure of a subject (whatever that subject indeed was) at the distance claimed, but instead the picture should have shown the subject and it's surroundings lit mainly by ambient (sun) light.

Also, the distortion of the ripples in the picture suggest that it could not have been taken under the claimed conditions, that is, at the distances claimed.

I would point out that the statement "the claimed distance of 75 feet" is not quite accurate as O'Connor told Tim Dinsdale he was "within 25 yards of the creature". Needless to say, "within" is not the same as "at" and estimating the distance of an object without a frame of reference in low light can lead to errors. As we focus on the commenter's ripple calculations, I have four problems with this interpretation of the photograph.

First, the calculation does not make sense. If the stated angle of viewing was indeed 62-65 degrees, then the height of the observer to an object 75 feet away would have to be 160 feet and not the stated 35 feet. However, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he may be referring to the angle between the hypotenuse and the height of the observer, in which case the viewing angle is 25-28 degrees which agrees with the commenter's alleged 35 feet height. But if the commenter really did suggest 62-65 degrees, there is a contradiction in his analysis.

Secondly, there is the assumption that the ripples in the picture will be circular. That is an essential requirement to calculate the angle of incidence. However, these waves are coming into the shore and that means they will suffer from the effects of refraction. That is, the part of the wave nearest the shore will slow down in relation to the rest of the wave and this is going to result in the overall arc distorting and becoming non-circular. This has not been taken into account.

Thirdly, there is a lot of perspective leading to foreshortening in this picture considering how close the subject matter is. That will again distort the apparent elliptical shape of the wave. This also has not been taken into account.

Fourthly, an angle of incidence of 62-65 degrees is calculated. But just where exactly does this point of incidence occur in the photograph? The arc used to calculate the angle takes up half the height of the photo (or more depending which arc is chosen). Since the angle of incidence from the camera decreases as an object recedes from the camera position, then the angle of incidence of the object in question will be less than the angle of incidence of an imaginary object visible at the very bottom of the photo. The wave arc used is too big to give a precise answer. This also has not been taken into account.

The great thing about using mathematical equations such as these is that it gives ones analysis an air of authority and accuracy. However, equations are useless without numbers to plug into the input side of the equation. They are even more useless if the numbers plugged in are speculative assumptions rather accurate numbers.

On a final trigonometrical note, assuming our commenter meant 25-28 degrees, I note that when I apply Burton's 12 feet height and maximum 15 feet distance, I got a viewing angle of 38 degrees. When I attempted my own calculation of these ripples, I got 33 degrees (see picture below with an ellipse ratio = 106mm / 2x146mm = 0.363 gives 32.7 degrees). That is a 13 degree difference in calculations.

Did Neave Parker use the same ellipse calculation? If so, this looks just as much art as science. But one may say these calculations are way above what one would expect from O'Connor's account. If he was waist height in the water and was up to 75 feet away from the creature, that gives an angle of incidence of no less than 2.3 degree based on a water to camera height of three feet. Quite a difference, but my aforementioned objections to the objection makes it all look rather imprecise.


Now from this and my previous articles on this subject, you may have guessed that sceptics have been all over this photograph like a rash looking for anything that can give them a reason to dismiss it. Even the most obscure and tiny blobs of light or darkness are transformed into die cast objective facts that settle the case for those with a solution looking for a problem.

There was, however, one feature on the photo that seems to have evaded all their fine tooth combing and interpretations. I am referring to what looks like a bow wave emanating from the presumed neck of the creature. If you inspect the zoom in below, you will see two lines either side of the neck moving out from right to left of the picture. There is also a light area on the water under the head which I take to be the reflection of the head-neck from the flashlight and forms no part of what I interpret as a wake.

If that is the case, then it poses a problem for sceptical theories which all presume the object to be static. If the object is indeed moving, then some kind of bow wave should be visible either side of the neck and what we see here is perfectly consistent with that idea.

That thinness of the neck compared to a typical boat hull would suggest a less pronounced bow wave which is tighter to the creature's profile. Also, if O'Connor was also as low down in the water as he said, there would be a foreshortening effect visually drawing the two bow waves closer together. Which of these two factors  is most influential in the picture is not readily apparent. Indeed trying to analyse this theory by comparing similar animal wakes proved to be challenging. 

What I was trying to find was a creature in motion with the body followed by a gap and then the head-neck. Long necked water birds looked an obvious choice, but every image I found had no water gap between body and neck. Turtles fared no better while snakes gave you a water gap behind the "neck" but little in the way of body. Finally, the otter came to my rescue with this photo below.

So compare and contrast as best as one can between two creatures of very different genres. What I did notice was the lack of bow wave immediately to the side of the main body in either the otter or O'Connor picture. This appears to become more visible further to the back in the otter photo, but we do not have an image of the water to the left of the O'Connor creature's rear and so cannot confirm the main body bow wave is there.

Mind you, there are some creatures which swim with little in the way of bow waves as this slow moving crocodile demonstrates. It is to be noted O'Connor's creature was not described as moving at a fast clip when he describes it as moving "at a fast walking pace". The case for the object moving in the photo is stronger and has a thin lined wake pronounced the funeral for various sceptical theories?

There is another reason why I do not think the O'Connor object is stationary and that is shown in the montage below. If an object is stationary (like the island in the drawing) then incoming waves will diffract around it to create a mesh of constructively and destructively interfering waves.

The problem with the O'Connor photograph in this regard is that we only see waves coming in from the left. If, as is reasonably assumed, the loch waves were roughly heading towards O'Connor, then we ought to see diffraction occurring around the alleged stationary object and waves also bending in from the right to create some kind of discernible diffraction pattern.

I don't know about you, but I only see waves coming in from the left, which to me suggests again that this object is not stationary.


Quite why the various sceptical researchers have failed to comment on these features may seem a mystery, but it is not to me. One leading Nessie sceptic devotes a whole research paper to this picture and makes no mention of this bow wave or lack of diffraction pattern. Perhaps their negative bias towards the photograph blinded them to these and that is why you should always read the arguments on both sides if you are serious about coming to a conclusion.

Don't be fooled by researchers who are always putting down research by those who advocate the existence of such creatures. Indeed, such people may now tell us how they always knew of these features but quietly dismissed them as unimportant. In some cases, that may well have known about them, but I await comments from those who will try to say that not only is it not a bow wave, but it is not even a defensible position to take. Not only should there not be a diffraction pattern, but it would be idiotic to expect one.

The author can be contacted at