Saturday, 6 April 2019

Harry Finlay and the Loch Ness Monster




The picture above will be familiar enough to Nessie fans being a sketch of what Greta Finlay and her son, Harry, saw back on August 20th 1952 from Aldourie Pier during a caravan holiday. I wrote on this seminal sighting back in March 2011 with a follow up the next month. Greta Finlay was interviewed by Nessie researchers Constance Whyte and Tim Dinsdale for their respective books in 1957 and 1961 but Harry Finlay was not quoted, mainly because he was thirteen years old at the time. The above sketch was his creation for Whyte's book while the one below from Dinsdale's book was likely based on it.




That is until now, when I managed to track down eighty year old Harry and telephoned him for a conversation back on the 3rd April. I was wondering how the conversation would go. Would it be a Harry who didn't want to talk about it or who would reveal it was all blown out of proportion or something else? Well, it turned out to be the something else as Harry told me he had indeed seen the monster close up, swimming past him on Aldourie Pier to the astonishment of himself and his mother.

Sixty six years on he was sticking to his story as he recounted to me how he recalled the events of that Wednesday lunchtime. It began innocently enough with Harry fishing on the pier with a recently acquired rod (photos of area taken by myself a year ago). Meantime, his mother was by the caravan parked just before the pier. Presently he heard what sounded like a boat approaching to his right, not the sound of an engine but the breaking of waters associated with its motion.





Turning his eyes to the "boat" revealed an astonishing "jet black" creature cruising past him until it was in line with the pier 25 to 30 feet away and then off south towards the main body of the loch before submerging in a "heavy surge of water" that broke upon the shore. It was a big, long necked affair with two humps each three feet long and three feet apart with two curious projections on a head not much wider than the neck. He reckons the neck was 4 to 5 feet high and the total length was about 20 feet but there was no discernible features one would call a mouth, nostrils or eyes on the "head".

He told me he called to his mother, who had also heard the water commotion, and rushed to see the sight which he said left them "rooted to the spot". I dare say I would have become statuesque as well. During the minute or two of this spectacle, they snapped out of it and raced for the box camera in the caravan. Harry said he got to the camera first while his mother watched and it was one of those old cameras which required you to look down into a viewfinder to bring the subject into view before snapping

He told me he was struggling to do this in his excitement and his mother took over the camera but by then it was too late as the creature was seen to submerge back into the dark depths. I asked how it went down and it was a curious affair as he said it went down without any new positioning from the head, neck or humps. They all went down in fixed unison and that was the end of that as a final surge of water broke upon the shore.

Afterwards, they told their story to his Dad, who was working in Inverness, and he was the one who reported it to the newspapers. Apparently, some unspecified time afterwards, Sir Peter Scott, the naturalist and Nessie advocate, offered to send some TV cameras to their house to interview them about the story in their front garden. But this was declined as they didn't want any further publicity.

He didn't know when this was, but my own thought was that this may have been for the 1957 BBC documentary, "The Legend of the Loch" which did include interviews with other eyewitnesses. They may have approached them based on the inclusion of the account in Constance Whyte's "More than a Legend".

Thereafter, Harry visited the loch a few more times but never saw the creature again. He grew up, did his National Service for the RAF and moved to Perth to work for the Royal Mail. Greta Finlay died around 1990 and Harry now tells his tale to his grandchildren. I suspect Harry is currently the witness to the oldest monster sighting on record who is still alive, though he wonders himself if the monster is still alive to this day as he doesn't hear much about his type of sighting. I suspect the particular monster he saw is no longer alive, but he can be assured that there have been other close up sightings of the beasts since 1952.

Now in assessing the whole affair with him, I brought to his attention the sceptic, Maurice Burton, who in 1961, suggested Harry and his mother had only seen a deer swimming past. He didn't know who Burton was and his reaction to this explanation consisted of "Nothing like that!", "Piffle!" and "No question" that is was not a deer. He said he knew what a deer was and that this was no deer. I could hardly agree more. Why can't these people accept what people are telling them? Especially from a range of twenty five feet.

The main reason sceptics pick up on the deer explanation is due to the "horns" Harry saw. He didn't actually know what these were and any similar word such as projections, tufts or stalks would have been just as suitable.  I wrote a previous article on this peculiar feature of the monster and there are not many such reports. I would point out the above drawings may give the impression that the creature had stopped to look at the Finlays but that is not true. It swimmed on past them and presented a side profile to them as indicated by the arrow on the map below. Also note that the original account from his mother put her at twenty yards from the creature and not Harry's 25-30 feet, but his shorter distance was from the front of the pier and not the caravan where she was.




Harry has, not surprisingly, been ridiculed for his story but he doesn't mind what people think. It is not so much a case of he believes he saw the monster but he knows he saw the monster. He does recount how his mother found it a frightening experience though when the literature says this made him give up fishing, he admits that he had barely taken it up anyway!

Now some allowances have to be made for the passage of sixty six years on the finer details of the account, but that does not take away from the reality that a large creature passed by them on that day. But Harry did also tell me that several hours later, a group of school children had reported seeing the monster in Dores Bay just about a mile and a half away down the coastline. This was another report I was not aware of.

A perusal of the online newspaper archives proved Harry's memory was perfectly intact on this matter as this report from the Dundee Courier from August 22nd below confirms. So are we to believe an outsized jet black deer decided to go on a swimming tour of Loch Ness, occasionally swimming underwater when the mood took it? Of course not and I am grateful to Harry Finlay for allowing this important account of the Loch Ness Monster to be revitalised, reconfirmed and brought back to public attention.





The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com









117 comments:

  1. Very interesting GB, the deer theory must surely be discarded forever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very interesting encounter indeed.
    It seems his recall is as clear as the day it happened. Good work in locating him after all this time. The two horn like projections were mentioned before bringing to mind Ted Holidays slug theory and the alleged Dr McRae film from 1935.
    If deer is the best explanation from the pseudo intellectuals then no wonder no meaningful progress towards identification have been made.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another sterling piece of investigative work and its great to hear that Harry Finlay is still around. He knows what he saw and there is no other explanation for it. Is there any way of knowing who the kids at Dores bay were and what they actually witnessed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am looking into it, but it looks like a microfilm job.

      Delete
    2. Good luck with that and hopefully a new name or two will surface. (Apologies for the pun).

      Delete
  4. Harry does hint on the rarely mentioned idea that the monster he saw was the single occupant of the loch and died long ago.

    Could it have been just one creature from the early 1930s and it died in the 1960s ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some do adhere to that theory - including my wife. :)

      Delete
    2. The occasional juvenile marine visitor which then becomes too large to leave the Loch hypothesis springs to mind.

      Delete
    3. Well if it was the sole occupant of the loch, it was a Methuselah Nessie around since the time of St. Columba, or maybe the last one of a dying breed and finally died, becoming extinct. But there is the idea of the itinerant Nessie, i.e. coming in from the sea, so maybe that's the reason they are still being sighted? Or, paranormal ghost Nessie is haunting Loch Ness! Does your wife believe in ghosts GB? :)

      Delete
    4. So Harry scanned the loch in order to make that declaration?
      How on Earth anyone can declare what's in a loch 26 Miles long i cannot comprehend.it borders on lunacy.Like saying the pleasiasaur is extinct- who scanned the ocean????

      Delete
    5. john, Harry made an off the cuff comment, not an unusual event in my years of blogging.

      Delete
  5. Great police work, GB...Definitely one of my favourite sightings!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very interesting article! Hearing from one of the eyewitnesses of this remarkable sighting adds weight to such an encounter. This one always fascinated me and I'm glad to know you spoke directly to Mr Finlay. It would be frustrating to have such an encounter and endure disbelief and ridicule - imagine knowing Nessie is flesh and blood because you were there and up close!
    Over the years I must admit that I have begun to question whether it was all a combination of hoax, mistaken identity, and confusion. This account and many others make me want to consider the mystery as real once again.
    I'm eager to learn the eDNA results, I do hope the experiment finds something of interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are far too many very high quality sightings for this to be hoax and / or misidentification.

      Delete
    2. There are just about zero photographs or videos that show anything monstrous - give me some examples.
      Tons of reputable witnesses I get it, not one damn clear photograph.

      Delete
    3. Plenty of photos, Jordan. Don't believe the pseudo-sceptic hype.

      Delete
    4. I'm no sceptic, I do believe something unknown found its way into the Loch and may have resided there for several decades. The eyewitness reports are so many and from people who have nothing to gain but ridicule yet still go on record. People who have been highly successful in life, sane, competent, genuine, and honest stick to their reports of what they have seen. People who know the Loch and its environment that can tell the difference between birds, otters, waves, and undocumented species of animal have reported sightings for too long to ignore.
      Yet there is no clear photo or video or film of something unknown living in Loch Ness. The James Gray photo's are compelling and I think Dinsdale's film first sequence is possibly a large animal. I'm simply making a point - where is one CLEAR image of what actually looks like a Nessie?? Rines head, neck, and torso photo looks interesting but not convincing.
      Dolphins, whales, sharks, sea turtles, manatees when filmed look clear in the water and photograph clearly - not one Nessie image is of decent sharp quality or even fair quality.

      Delete
    5. I follow this blog daily and own a copy of one of your books Roland, I appreciate your work and hope you are one day at the right place and at the right time camera ready. The info tells me something is in the Loch we don't understand but many times I have questioned it all in the last ten years - many great sightings and yet not one clear photograph. That in itself is a great mystery.

      Delete
    6. Yes, much like the UFO phenomena. Plenty of fuzzy, glowing object sightings, photographs, film, and videos, but not one that actually shows a nuts and bolts craft. Except the occasional model or CGI hoax. I to vacillate between believing and scoffing at the whole affair. Very frustrating.

      Delete
    7. I think with the size of the loch and its dark waters, mostly choppy conditions and the fact most sightings are seen from a distance is the key to the answer to your question Jordan.

      Delete
    8. Sure those are frequent conditions that would effect camera clarity and reduce the possibility of clear film or photographs but for decades there have been no positive captured image results. The Loch surface has become highly monitored for decades, the surface is visible from every direction surrounding it, the sun sets later due to the northern location. Not one person has had a camera on hand for ONE good photo?
      Not even the sightings lasting longer than ten minutes can produce a clear hump. At least a clear hump photo would be something, instead we get a blurred dark blot or waves that are just plain waves.
      Sensational stories from sane and honest people, lots of them. For example A. Boyd, he saw a large animal heaving from the water and since then has made efforts to pursue Nessie - credible man who saw it with his wife. There are tons of these examples.
      Nessie has got to be the most fortunate/elusive/luckiest champion of good timing ever to exist.

      Delete
    9. Jordan, there are good photos but people are over cautious with them and listen too much to the faulty arguments of pseudo-sceptics. That is their tactic, eliminate the best pictures and force enquirers into a no photos = no monster conclusion.

      So for me the H.Gray, MacNab, Cockerell, J.Gray, Johnston pictures are real amongst others. I expect good pictures, yes, and we have them.

      Delete
    10. Roland, what happened to the “Photographs of Nessie” page in the TOC to the right? I went there to refresh my memory on Nessie pics. Specifically the Cockrell photo and got: 'Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.” Are you editing?

      Delete
  7. Well done on tracking down a famous witness. There really can't be many living anymore of this calibre? Which does beg the question... why are there no sightings of this type anymore? Any why do modern sightings seem to lack the conviction of this witness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Modern sightings have convictions Mr titter.
      And there are still up close sightings.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure but witnesses don't seem to describe what they see in quite this detail anymore. Multiple witnesses at close range seems to happen less and less.

      Delete
    3. Kyle, yes sightings less than 100m are decreasing. I cover it here:

      https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-sightings-problem.html?m=1

      Delete
  8. I think the sceptics could not accuse a mother and young son of telling lies so as usual they look for an alternative to the monster.The best they could come up with was a deer, probably because of the projections on the head.Now if i thoughti was watching the monster in front of me at 20 yards i would keep watching until it vanished,a deer would have to come out of the loch therefore this would be seen, in fact Harry said it sunk down back under the water. This really is a wonderful sighting and one that the sceptics cant brush away, especially as you have tracked down Harry after all these years and his story stays the same.Wonderful work Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A regular deer would have to come out,but not an "AquaDeer",I refer you to my previous comment about the "AquaPhant" theory,wheras an escaped elephant swam in loch Ness encountered the oxygenated mussels and shock evolved into a completely amphibious AquaPhant,which explains Nessie! It can be the same for deer.i must credit Geordie skeptic for this idea!

      Delete
    2. AquaPhant theory. Hmmm, fascinating new theory. GB needs to follow up on that one.

      Delete
    3. Yes,it is a theory that's quite deep! Im planning an expedition to the loch where I will use submersible peanuts, electronically chipped to bait and track the AquaPhant..proving it's existence!!
      Alas,I'm having trouble attracting investors so it's been delayed.

      Delete
  9. As I said before, but for some reason my comment never appeared, this is good work Roland, first hand strong discription, well done. And as I said before, this account really should if at all possible be recorded for posterity. It is a truly valuable account.
    Not sure off the top of my head which sighting came first, but alister grant the young farmer who chased after nessie along with Hugh ayton in a rowing boat one evening many years ago, is still alive and well here in Dores. I've managed to make a video of him sat outside my van reminiscing about his sighting, which also is great to have on film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good idea, Steve. Harry has asked for a meet up, so we shall see how this progresses.

      Delete
  10. Can we see this video Steve?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That video would be interesting - I have always wondered about Aytons sighting.

      Delete
  11. I wonder how much Steve paid google to get a name check on Google Maps as a Nessiehunter ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It says "Nessihunter - Steve feltham" on my google.

      Delete
  12. GB: Great job tracking down Harry Finlay! For the past few years I'd been hoping you would, but was worried that it would turn out he was no longer with us. And wow what a story he tells!

    Steve: Could you post a transcript of your interview with Alister Grant?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I just read up on the Ayton sighting and it claims the hump was 12ft high on the water.Is this right ? It seems a bit big for me, but i know stories get changed over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cracking stuff GB.. i have always found this sighting very intrestin..always thought a mother and child wud not make up a story!! But the sceptical problem is summed up here...if they believe the story then the witness is mistaken hence the deer...but as harry confirmss..he wud of known a deer. A well known sceptic once told me he wasnt keen on u GB cus u wer misleading the public on the mystery..but sceptics making people think all harry saw was a deer is also misleading in my humble...classic case of pot caling the kettle black!! Great stuff by u and mr feltham trackin down long term people like harry...u both really do lead the way in this mystery.....cheers Roy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if Dick Raynor could give us his opinion regarding this talk with Harry? We haven't heard from him for a while and it would be good to hear from him sometimes in my humble, as Roy would say.

      Delete
    2. Pete, I think Dick is done with this blog and GB. What can he add but a skeptics viewpoint and what we haven't heard from him before. Before someone accuses me of speaking for him, I will add that I have no personal or close association with him, just my comments to him and his replies to me on this blog in the past. But I would suspect that he is “Lurking” Be that as it may. I have a high regard and respect for him. Just my opinion.

      Delete
    3. Roy, sceptics' attitude to eyewitnesses is, shall we say, less than useful.

      Delete
    4. The idea that a whole diverse group of human beings, every one of whom has seen something unusual, is subject to some kind of magic that makes them all subject to mass hallucination is ludicrous.

      Delete
    5. I can't remember where I read or what skeptic once posited that the harmonics from the hydro-electric power plant near Foyers was causing mass hallucinations in people sighting Nessies. Now that would really be ludicrous Martin. More ludicrous than the power of suggestion. LOL

      Delete
    6. Oh my goodness gracious! I got it wrong! My recollection abilities are failing me. The dim light bulb in my head just came on and I remember where I read something like that. The supposed phenomena affecting people's minds and causing them to see ghostly apparitions, or hallucinations, if you like, are in the realm of infrasonics, not harmonics, well, close enough. And it wasn't from the hydro-electric plant, but culverts around the loch. Nor was it made by a LNM skeptic putting forth this claim. It was just an article on Dick Raynor's website. You'll have to ask Dick if he subscribes to this theory. I won't put words in his mouth. LOL Anyway, hallucinations, or ghostly apparitions, you be the judge. Ghostly Nessies? See the article here:

      http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/infrasound.html

      Delete
    7. I totally agree with you John A. regarding Dick. Sometimes silence speaks volumes, as the old saying goes. I don't think he could explain this sighting away as freely as he does with others. It's probably best for him to ignore it altogether. (Cherry picking?)

      Delete
    8. John, the infrasonic-nessie link is pseudoscience. I covered it here:

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2016/01/more-on-infrasonic-nessies.html

      Delete
    9. Yeah, I thought you may have, I just didn't remember. I even commented!

      Delete
  15. In the absence of hard photographic and physical evidence eyewitness testimony is important but such evidence is less than perfect and subject to much interpretation.

    From 1963 to 1976 most Americans were happy to believe their president was shot from behind, however the first TV showing of the Zapruder film showed that the eyewitness testimony from that day could be wrong.

    ( big can of worms opened :) ]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but there were still plenty of witnesses that also heard shots coming from the grassy knoll area in front. Kennedy was caught in a crossfire. The Zapruder film confirmed gunfire from the front. So yes, there will be witnesses with varying accounts and interpretations.

      Delete
    2. In fairness, a gunshot direction can be hard for a non expert to work out. A large unknown animal drifting past, well that's another thing.

      Delete
  16. I doubt Dickie Raynor will come on here because we are not as gullible as the passengers he takes out on his boat and end up believing every sighting is something natural like a bird or a boat wake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a shame what happened to the old guard. I watched a video on YouTube recently featuring Dick Raynor, possibly at the tail end of his belief phase. It's possibly from the late 90s or early 2000s. Himself and Adrian Shine are a significant loss to this cause. I think that their own personal conversions, plus an absence of classic photo evidence (much as I hate to admit this, but the best photo evidence is clearly someway in the past, apart from maybe Gordon Holmes' extraordinary footage which has yet to be explained) have made it difficult for them to continue in this field. I have some sympathy, although I certainly don't agree with born again non believers driving their evangelical views as if there are no other.

      Delete
    2. I saw a video of the Gordon Holmes video also Martin, and some "expert" surmised that they where probably eels. Who knows. Vague at best. Sorry.

      Delete
    3. Big eels! And the masses gave no impression of being shoals, they were very streamlined. Not impossible I suppose, but then I know nothing of eel behaviour.

      Delete
  17. I don't think an arch sceptic will comment if he can't throw a wake or a log explanation at genuine witnesses. When it's the real thing they stay silent. In much the same way Burton denied access to the 1938 Taylor colour film. Such a pity a tourist trusted somebody to take it seriously by giving the film to an arch sceptic with the title Dr. No blame attached to Mr.Taylor.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes i have not seen any sceptics commentating on the recent webcam video .I think that video has stumped them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Which web vid u mean?? The fella from ireland last april?? I agree it is an intrestin video and all was quiet on this one...not many opinions given out....sadly! Mr raynor is a clever fella in my opinion..his photography knowledge is tops so we shud listen to his opinions though im bit worried aboout some of his explanations for sum vids and fotos...including his own video he claims are birds which to me is defo not....people see diffrent things! I feel the loch ness exhibition is part of the lack of sightings in recent years...if u visit here it makes u think that all ur seeing is wakes or waves..i think people who see things start believing they only saw a wake or a wave cus its drummed into them..bit like the deer in harrys sighting...which is clearly not... i look forward to mr felthams video with the farmer...if its available...cheers .Roy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imo,Raynor is s man who knows Nessie exists .However his job requires him to State the opposite. Unfortunately it has soured him.
      I haven't looked yet at alvarado or feltham..but apparantly skepticism pays!

      Delete
    2. What do I have to do with it john?

      Delete
    3. . .. And me, what are you saying I have to do with?

      Delete
    4. That's an interesting statement John. What basis do you have for it?

      Delete
    5. For hundreds of years large animals have been seen in loch Ness..anyone who pushes skepticism on it's existence is either demented or has an agenda.im sorry but a rational man cannot be a skeptic in the case of Loch Ness.

      Delete
  20. Well done The Loch Ness Exhibition then.

    I would think that that's a positive thing, if the Exhibition actually teaches someone to take the time to evaluate and interpret, if the object they are seeing on the surface is consistent with being a wave or a bird then it probably IS a wave or a bird and because of that we will be spared dozens of spurious "sightings" every summer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the exhibition wud prob tell u harry saw a deer....well done exhibition centre lol ..

      Delete
    2. I accept people can mistake waves or tree debris for "monsters". I just don't accept it being applied as a blunt instrument to all and every sighting.

      Delete
  21. I don't think that every tourist that visits the Lock Ness Exhibition Center is converted to a full blown skeptic. I would think that there is a collection of true believer, hardcore skeptic and agnostic. Think of the Exhibition Center as the Disneyland of the Scottish Highlands, a mixture of fact, myth, legend and fantasy. (Well, some of the tales of the LNM are fantastical!) People go there to have a good time and indulge in the possibility of an exotic, unknown creature in the loch, even skeptics, as opposed to pseudo-skeptics, of course. The tour boat rides are the E ticket attraction. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't been to the exhibiton for a long time. Perhaps Riitta can be me some free tickets. :)

      Delete
    2. A very large percentage do i believe john alvarado.. it has that effect...if u visit u will see...cheers Roy

      Delete
    3. What! Brainwashing people! Aww that's too bad Roy. I'm sure Adrian Shine will be happy to hear that. Well, I guess there's only one thing left to be done. I say we nuke the entire site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.

      Delete
    4. GB...I would if I thought you were serious, lol!

      Delete
    5. I was there five years ago, has anything changed?

      Delete
    6. A new section in room 7 where you can vote on what you think Nessie might be...mammal, amphibian etc...'monster is NOT an option.

      Delete
    7. Well if their stand is no LNM, why ask for a vote? No monster LOL!

      Delete
  22. Roy has a point. I visited the place about 10 years ago and driving back to Inverness i felt very negative and felt that every sighting was a mistake , it was only later after mulling over a few things i felt a lot of what was said was very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sceptics can ask where the carcass or live specimen is. That is how zoology works, they are entitled to walk away at that point. It is the ones that linger and try to demolish the idea of a large unknown creature with less than satisfactory theories about waves, logs, birds and liars that damage the investigation with half baked and untestable explanations.

      Delete
    2. Some sightings that make it so easily into the public domain are waves, logs & even birds, the Internet has made it increadably easy for any image that is remotely interesting to go round the world as the latest photo of Nessie. That is unfortunate, and it should be our job to identify those false alarms and remove them from the body of evidence.. And like it or not some potential eyewitnesses are provable liars.... Not all by any means luckily. But we should try not to be so nieve as to be fooled by reports that with just a little bit of scratching at their story reveals them as what they are, hoaxers. Take that head sighting from a week or two ago,the one where the guy said he was on a boat trip, saw the head appear, shouted to the other people on the boat, and took his snap. now that I have posted a photograph of the identical rock, which is infact at Dores beach, where no boat trip ever ventures, are we allowed to call him a liar? Or is correctly identitying that the cry of a sceptic?
      People often make up sightings here, I have learnt to accept that, and learnt to identify that, and when I spot a 'liar' iam not afraid to expose them, take George Edwards for another classic example..
      Some witnesses are liars, luckily far from all of them, and to deny that only makes you look nieve at best.
      Doesn't make me a sceptic however. I believe a huge number of accounts that convince me that we have something as yet unidentified to be explained here.
      The minimum requirement when investigating this fantastic mystery is an open mind, without one of them there is no point, whether your an arch sceptic or a tube thumping believer, there's no point unless you have an open mind as to what people are telling you has happened.
      Maybe some people on both sides of this subject should try a little harder to study the available evidence with their own entrenched blinkers off.
      Gullibility does not count as a skill, it represents the Lack of one.

      Delete
    3. Where have you posted this photograph Steve?

      Delete
    4. What proportion of tales you have heard would you class as liars, Steve? 10%, 50% or more? We've got Dick Raynor writing off Hugh Ayton as a liar purely by the expression on his face.

      Delete
  23. My Facebook page, "Steve Feltham Nessiehunter interactive collective".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing showing, so i will take your word for it.

      Delete
    2. Scrole back until the 18th March.

      Delete
  24. Hmm, extremely difficult question Roland, in my experience I would guess'timate that roughly 15% - 20% are deliberately setting out to fool, normally for nothing more than a laugh . Substantially less for commercial gain like George Edwards. The majority of witnesses, I believe genuinely mistake known phenomena. I think that possibly as few as 15%-20% are seeing something that is truly unexplained .
    That's purely my rough breakdown, having only spoken to probably more than 500 but less than 1000 people who are discribing experiences to me here at loch Ness in the last three decades.
    Luckily for me, even though the genuinely unexplained sightings are relatively few in the body of evidence it is still a large enough percentage to keep me fascinated and watching and waiting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough, how mnay of these jokers are locals or tourists?

      Delete
    2. Some of the 'evidence' that makes it into the media is truly abysmal. I can understand why a lay person could make an easy mistake with boat wakes etc, but a trained journalist investigating such should be rejecting it. But as Steve says, there are a hard core of sightings that are not so easily dismissed.

      Delete
  25. There's a small pattern to that off the top of my head. Nowadays what with there not being any real demand for background or foreground in a picture it could be that a person posting a dodgie photo on the Internet might not even need to visit the loch, the guy with the three seals forming two humps and a neck the other year certainly didn't feel the need to make a special trip to the loch in order for his picture to go round the world. He was from somewhere out near invergordon is that local? Or a tour guide from Edinburgh who thinks he will get away with faking something because there's no one really investigating this stuff, is he local?
    Glasgow? Local?
    As a generalisation I would say that a deliberate hoaxer is more often not a local to the loch, stuff like faking a sighting tends to stick to you round here, George Edwards is still considered to be a bit of a scumbag for what he tried to do by some locals.
    so fear of being looked down upon as a liar is more of an influence if you are going to remain living in the immediate area... Not so much if you come from say Wales, or America .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The jury is still out on the "tour guide from Edinburgh". I did my onsite investiogation last week. More to follow.

      Delete
    2. Your jury might be taking its time Roland, mines not.

      Delete
    3. My jury lives in Edinburgh, yours lives at Dores.

      Delete
    4. LOL Steve! The clearly PhotoShoped three humped seal is taken by some to be the real thing based on comments they make on YouTube. Talk about gullibility. But to be fair they don't know much about the LNM story, but a passing interest, to form a critical thought. If they were to focus on the head they would realize that it is in fact a seal! And there are plenty of posters on YouTube claiming to have genuine photos, meanwhile getting monitized for their crap. You also find videos such as “Loch Ness Monster spotted in timbucktu” or such and such and that sort as if Nessie were a world traveler on vacation. LOL

      Delete
  26. .... But then you get loch ness hoteliers like Donald skinner of Nessie land. I was once told by a lass who worked there that if any guest asked if a member of staff had seen nessie then they must say that they had, regardless of the truth, just make something up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Propaganda on the pro Nessie side is sometimes just as bad as what you hear from the other side calling witnesses liars. Hoteliers have their own, shall I say, selfish motives, to drum up business and draw in the tourists. I'm not saying tourism is bad , just the the lying. And I get it that it's just a little white lie, but it damages the credibility off seeking the truth of the LNM mystery. You can't have it both ways. As the saying goes, sometimes you can't win for losing!

      Delete
    2. Crikey! Loch Ness Monster sighted in Australia.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PorB0OEXTeo

      Delete
    3. Hawksbury river monsters
      Long necks
      A comment on a video about these long necks talks about 4 workers fishing off a wharf and the monster sneaking up behind them..until the supervisor yelled out to them and they scrambled ashore..he thought they would have been eaten.

      Delete
  27. Roland...sorry, I only just saw your email...I'm not on Facebook, so don't know which photo you're referring to!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mr Feltham u cudnt of put that post any better in my humble! I totally agree we need to get rid of all the mistakes and concentrate on the small % we are left with..i like the mr raynors and mr shines of the loch cus they help get rid of a lot of rubbish and false alarms...though my nag is sometimes they can be wrong...gordon holmes video for one...i think mr raynor favoured wind hitting the water and mr shine a seal...imo its neither..its defo living and seals dont move like that!! But i agree ..enuf evidence of something unusual in the loch but important to erase the fakes and mistakes...for example last year was supposidly a record number of sightings and fotos but i dont think any bar one or two cud of bin of a large creature!! Good to see u still believe in summit unusual after all these years living there with no sightings bar one...cheers Roy

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jordan, Ted Holiday in his first book on the subject mentions just that, the creature's uncanny ability to evade any kind of photo or film capture, despite people's considerable efforts. He progressed his view that the creature was supernatural in origin, as indeed the locals had long believed.
    On another point, I'm a photographer, and have some knowledge of the level of skill, luck and preparation involved to be able to capture a usable image of any unknown in Loch Ness (that also may well be a water breather and not prone to surfacing). One may well hit the jackpot, but then again one may die long before winning the lottery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That comment should have appeared as a reply someway up the page.

      Delete
    2. Yup, the Loch Ness Monster Hoodoo always strikes!

      Delete
  30. Elusive creature or possibly aquatic ghost, maybe the only phantom dinosaur. I believe the eyewitnesses which makes the camera and film misfortune all the more frustrating. It must be difficult for anyone who saw Nessie to have missed filming her by only seconds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel your pain and frustration. :( On the other hand, suppose we did get definitive proof and quality evidence though photographic, capture or carcass of some unknown creature, all the fun and intrigue of this great mystery would be gone...never mind, I want proof NOW! :)

      Delete
  31. The discussion here reminds me of why hoaxers are not, in my opinion, just having a bit of harmless fun. How many times have we met a person who has turned sceptical on a subject the moment they discover that a piece of evidence they'd believed in turns out to be a hoax? I think this is common. One or two successful hoaxes can make believers feel stupid and then decide to reject the entire subject.

    George Edwards seemed to create his hoax for tourism reasons, so he may wish to consider that his actions were ultimately counterproductive in that respect. Hoaxes like his chip away at the public's confidence in this very real mystery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may be right. The exposure of the Surgeon's photo as a hoax and the Rines “flipper” photo, which although not an intentional hoax, but a possible deception had somewhat that effect on me. Making me question my belief system in the LNM. George Edwards had his own motive as a tour boat operator in promoting tourism with his stunt. In the end it was counterproductive to himself and led to his becoming a laughing stock and self destruction to his reputation. Same with Frank Searle, though in his case, I think it was all his ego in search of recognition and fame.

      Delete
    2. Surgeons photo ,imo,is real.

      Delete
  32. I dont think anyone was going to pack their bags and rush off to loch ness just because of George's photo and i dont believe a photo or video of a maybe nessie is going to boost tourism.Loch ness is a tourist hotspot spot and will always get a healthy load of visitors with or without a monster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't think good photos boost interest in the mystery, and exposed hoaxes have the opposite effect, then you either weren't around in the 70s or you've forgotten how the public mood see-sawed in relation to the events surrounding the Rines images.

      You're presuming everyone else thinks like you, Gezza. There was enormous interest at that time, but it rapidly evaporated the moment hoaxes were postulated by the media. A sad time for those who remember.

      Delete
    2. I know that after the George Edwards incident people were coming into our store and actually ASKING where they could book a trip on his boat...and that's AFTER Steve's denouement!

      Delete
    3. Maybe they just wanted to meet the "infamous" Mr. Edwards in person? You know how people can be. "Oh, yeah, we met that guy who staged that hoax." Meh, peoples motives never surprise me. Take it from one who is cynical of human nature.

      Delete
  33. Yes but we are not in the 70's now Naturewatch, in them days a lot more people believed in nessie and yes i think most people would think like me in 2019. Riitta yes people who are in the area might ask about thr area of the photo when they are there but the point i was making is that people would not make their way up to Loch Ness just because of George's photo. That is my opinion anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hoaxes are part and parcel of the mystery I'm afraid... Its a free Loch so anyone can do wat they want really... U expect Tom dick or harry to have a bit of fun with birds shit on the window or trickin their mate in Loch tarff but u really wud expect a bit more off George Edwards!!!! Bit of an insult to lads he knows like Mr Feltham and Mr raynor!! I can see why Mr Feltham was annoyed at that hoax. What was the reason?? Tourism?? No.. Personally I think just a bit of attention.....cheers

    ReplyDelete