Thursday 20 August 2020

The Monsters of Achanalt

 


Achanalt is a small village on the road between Ullapool and Inverness in the Highland region to the north and west of Loch Ness. It has a nondescript loch amongst other nondescript lochs in this lonely wilderness setting. However, back in 1935, a man by the name of Robert Lawson Cassie (b.1859) came forward with some incredible tales of monsters swimming in these lochs and rivers. The cryptid stories appeared in two books entitled "The Monsters of Achanalt", volumes one and two. These were published in 1935 and 1936, created a minor stir and then disappeared from view as general interest in Scottish loch monsters waned. But first, where is Achanalt on the map of Scotland? The general locality is circled below and is about 40 miles from central Loch Ness. 



Zooming into that area reveals various small lochs and lochans and river systems surrounded by general mountainous terrain with a small population. Loch Achanalt (centred in the picture) itself is described as a body of water about three quarters of a mile across and a maximum depth of nine feet. You could walk around the loch in about half an hour. This is no more than a puddle in terms of lochs and would have escaped our notice if Cassie had not taken up his pen. However, other local lochs of various shapes and sizes are included such as Loch Rosque, Loch Crann, Loch Culan, Loch Luichart and Loch Garve.



By dave conner - originally posted to Flickr as Wester Ross - Loch Achanalt


But to give a flavour of what Cassie talked about, I quote two stories about monsters he claimed to have sighted with friends.


A VISIT TO THE WESTERN WATERSHED

On Thursday, August 29, I ordered a motor car from the Achnasheen Hotel. We left the Auld Hoose at 2.30 p.m., and our journey was by Achnasheen Loch Rosque, Loch Crane, past the watershed, the highest point on the Glen Docharty road, and down the brae as far as the vicinity of Kinlochewe, where we finished the outward trip. Our party consisted of Mr., Mrs., and Master MacMahon, Aberdeen; Mrs. Macrae, the Auld Hoose, Achanalt; the chauffeur, and myself. Stoppages were made at convenient points for scrutiny of the rivers and lochs. Creatures of varying sizes were noticed where the river was easily visible. Loch Rosque is about six miles long by half a mile wide. For the greater part of its length it is screened from the road by trees. We stopped twice at gaps in the wood before reaching the west end, where we made a very thorough survey. At the breaks I was able to distinguish at least a dozen of the immature reptiles, mostly about mid-loch, and showing only the briefest glimpses in the rough water. It was impossible to guess at their length. In most cases they escaped the notice of my companions, but experience made them unmistakable to me. Stopping at the western end of the loch, we all saw a number of large reptiles — about six at one time. general trend of their progress was across the loch to the brae of the south shore, where there was a tendency to leave the  water at the base of the high hill that rises steeply from the loch.  Their probable lengths would be from thirty to fifty feet.

Mr. MacMahon took various photographic exposures under favourable conditions. Proceeding a short distance farther, we left the car when we reached the nearest attainable point to loch Crann. It is a small, roundish, pond-like loch joined to Loch Rosque by a short and narrow stream. Reptiles were seen in this burn, and there were some five longish ones visible in Loch Crann itself. As they were partially submerged, approximate lengths could not be guessed at, but in my considered opinion, fifty feet average would be a safe estimate, perhaps erring on the side of moderation. They were not active, and their poses did not lend themselves well to photography; but Mr. MacMahon took several exposures, including that of a contracted or dinosaur-like pose of an animal seen on the brae, several yards from the bank, at the foot of the southern ben. Here I may interpolate that they seem to be landing in swampy places fairly often. On our return journey we noticed a slender form, a few feet long, motionless on a gravelly spit at a bend in the river. There is an extensive region of dry land at the watershed. For a mile or so we followed the course of a small burn that flows west to Loch Ewe, but it seemed too shallow to be the abode of reptiles. At any rate, no sign of life was observed in it. We saw two small reptiles, however, in the burn that feeds Loch Crann from the west. 


EXPLORATION OF THE EASTERN WATERWAY

On Friday, August 30, 1935, we scanned the lower reaches of the waterway as far as the Upper Blackwater - i.e., for some distance along the course of the river, after it leaves Loch Garve. This time the car came from our obliging friend, Mr. D. Mackenzie of the Garve Hotel. The party consisted of Mr. and Mrs. A. W. MacMahon and their young son Michael, Miss Jean Macrae, the Auld Hoose, Achanalt; Mr. Roderick Macrae, chauffeur, Garve Hotel; and myself. We left the Auld Hoose a little before 5p.m.

Loch Achanalt is now very populous, and we had a passing view of some of the creatures in it. From prolonged observations I consider that the northern section of the loch now contains reptiles up to fifty feet in length, while there are many measuring between ten and thirty feet. Their characteristics have been described in previous chapters. The southern or Badluchie side of the loch is nearly shut off by a long tongue of grassy land, leaving only a narrow strait of communication. For several weeks past, dating from a heavy rainstorm and inundation, there have been indubitable signs that the southern loch contains one or more creatures of incredible dimensions.

From the Auld Hoose, a mile or more away, I daily see a long and high "plough furr" crossing the loch from north to south. Any curve of extra length cannot be determined. But it is alive and moving. The humps and elevated ridges along its back cannot be mistaken, and - perhaps from its very length - it behaves very differently from the smaller reptiles, and is far less elusive. It bears a marked general resemblance to pictures of the sea-serpent appearing in the current literature on the subject.

I ought to have inspected this stupendous animal at close range,but I suffer from various disabilities. The walk over rough ground taxes my powers. The river is spanned by a long, swinging bridge with ricketty planks, causing an uncomfortable feeling of tension. Lastly, one has to cross a marsh tenanted by a black bull of uncertain temper. Providence, however, has enabled me to get a very near view of this animal, or his double. On Thursday, August 29, 1935, between 11.30 and 12 noon (the time was not exactly noted) I left home in the company of a witness of unimpeachable credence in every respect. At a distance of about thirty yards we saw the high back of a reptile gliding up the river. Our field of view was somewhat restricted by out-buildings. This creature took quite a number of minutes, moving at a slow rate, to pass our point of observation.

Proceeding to the road giving a complete view of the river between two bends, we saw the animal still slowly coming up. At the bend next us it seemed to dispose of its head and foreparts deeply in the water, under the east bank. I marvelled for some minutes at the manner in which it could be stowing itself away. Suddenly a whirl of numerous flat-topped humps, black or dark in colour, appeared in the nook at the east bank. The creature was turning! The process was a long one, and an elongated shape had lengthened well down the straight section of the river, between the bends, before the reversal was completed. So far as the witness and I could see, the length of the creature was about the distance between the two bends. I estimate this distance at three hundred yards or nine hundred feet. A local friend of great experience confirms my view. 

So what are we to make of these fantastical reports? The answer is simple, they are all fabricated nonsense. No one else ever corroborated such reports and, despite being told of various photographs of these creatures being snapped, none of them make it into Cassie's two books. The almost monotonous appearance of these creatures makes them easier to spot than deer and perhaps even sheep. The description at the end of a nine hundred foot serpent struggling to contain itself in a comparable river is surely designed to elicit sceptical reactions in even the most gullible believer.

One of the witnesses was an A. W. MacMahon of Aberdeen who took various photographs. A search of the online newspaper archives does reveal an A. W. MacMahon who ran a photography business in Aberdeen at that time but no mention of monsters. So the co-eyewitnesses likely did exist, but they were just in on the joke. But it has to be asked what made Cassie write such garbage? One clue is in a newspaper clipping from the previous year in which he claims a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster. The headline below is taken from the Aberdeen Press and Journal dated 25th June 1934.



The Aberdeen Press and Journal had published some of Cassie's previous books, so it is no surprise they take up his story. In this story, Cassie is again with a Mrs. MacRae and Mr. Healy, a chauffeur of the Garve Hotel. This report was not in the eyewitness database I use, so it was new to me. An examination of it gave me some doubts about it. The "disporting itself vigorously" involved Cassie's creature taking a sequence of leaps out of the loch in Urquhart Bay near the castle at 45 degree angles to the water revealing a roundish body and ending in a big splash and spray of water. I presume he had the idea of a humped back whale or a dolphin breaching the water as it leaps out.

The reason I have my doubts about this story is because I can find no other account in the stories of 2000+ witnesses that mentions such a breaching action. I therefore conclude the creature does no such thing and Cassie has made the whole story up by overdramatising it. However, his Achanalt stories would already have cast doubt upon anything he would say. Another account of Cassie's stories can be found in an article by Mike Dash in Fortean Times No.177 from 2003. He states that Cassie claims the Achanalt monsters began to appear in June 1934 which is the same time he claimed to have seen Nessie. I suggest this coincidence is no coincidence and rather denotes the time Cassie decided to embark upon his tales of deception.

Why June 1934? Well, stories of the Loch Ness Monster had been steadily rising since the summer of 1933, but Nessie fever was about to peak in July 1934 and news of the monster was just about everywhere all the time. That month of July would prove to be the busiest month right up to the present day for monster reports. As an undoubted sceptic of anything monstrous in any loch, Mr. Cassie must have been quite fed up with the coverage by June and was no doubt convinced anyone could submit a report and be published. With his reputation as a local and respected author, he put that to the test and was proven right.

The resulting mix of satisfaction and disdain he must have gained from that initial toe dip into the media would have emboldened him to expand the story into his basically satirical work on loch monsters in the region of Achanalt. His book was an attack on believers and not sceptics. However, he could not continue his story at Loch Ness as it was too busily watched and so he moved the story to the relative solitude of the hill country of Achanalt where Cassie (pictured below) lived.



So the booklets were published, nobody believed them, but that was not the point, it was Cassie's own personal commentary on the Nessie mania of 1933 to 1934 and his contempt for anyone who genuinely or ungenuinely claimed to have seen them. It's a pity he did not make a better attempt to properly evaluate eyewitness reports. That task was left to his contemporary, Lt. Cmd. Rupert T. Gould. I wonder what he made of Cassie's pack of lies?


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com







29 comments:

  1. You'd think he stumbled into a Jurassic lost world. Too much of that good old Scottish whiskey me thinks. Bollocks I say, bollocks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, it was eyes wide open with Mr. Cassie, but I am sure he liked his whisky anyway.

      Delete
    2. Drunk or sober, quite a whopper of a tale. Even without photos, his fabrcations puts recent hoaxers to shame. LOL

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. The only minor defense is that one of these small lochs had a water horse legend. Loch Rosque I think.

      Delete
  3. These articles remind me of large creatures being reported in Irish Loughs which are not big enough to support them. I think I first read about them in Peter Costello's book "IN SEARCH OF LAKE MONSTERS". I might be missing something but unlike these articles I did not think there was any sarcasm intended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I first read about lake monsters in small Irish lakes in Ted Holiday's The Dragon and the Disk. The creatures reported were much more plausible due to their small size - nothing approaching the huge sizes reported by the man in Roland's article!

      Delete
    2. Yes, though none of the Connemara monsters ever came in at 900ft :)

      Delete
  4. ...also, he seems very certain that he is observing "reptiles", which seems to assume that loch monsters are reptiles or even dinosaurs. Perhaps otters seen at a distance could seem reptilian, but still no otters get as colossal as his "reptiles", and neither to most creatures associated with Nessie sightings. And how could lochs much smaller than Ness sustain multiple huge creatures? I agree that this radiates "hoax" in no uncertain terms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Large eels have been reported in bogs and even ditches, and supposedly can travel on land short distances...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, good point. Holiday reported "horse eels" and the like that would get stuck in culverts after big rainstorms... Interesting stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I remember reading something about horse eels in Loch Morar. There must be something more to these creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think giant eels could resemble monsters therefore must be a serious contender for the loch ness monster.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a good review of giant eel stories...
    https://aforteantinthearchives.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/of-giant-eels/

    ReplyDelete
  10. That was a great read Olrik.I do love the old stories.Ronald Binns gets a mention but again he gets it wrong about stories not been about before 1900.I dont think we can take much notice of his findings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Have to admit the giant eel theory is growing on me.. especially after watching YouTube videos of the national aquarium and seeing how they can give off a hump and change their body positions so quickly and arch their front body parts to maybe look like a head and neck! The big question is can an eel actually grow to the sizes of nessie descriptions?? The eunuch eel is a plauisable theory but no evidence as yet this happens!possible??? Maybe Rip Hepple was on to something all those years ago after all!! !!.. Cheers x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eels fit the bill in many ways,but so does a pleasiosaur-like animal.Remember that ww2 veteran disfigured diver who saw Nessie right above him? He describe a classic plesiosaur with flippers moving.
      So this obviously is another sighting that needs further investigation.
      Remember a loch may have more than 1 type of large animal in it.

      Delete
    2. I don't have a problem with the head and neck..if u go on YouTube or Google eels u find some that hold their front parts up that for me cud be mistaken for a head and neck especially in bad light or over distance..there are even some photos of eels in the silt with their bodies going straight up and with a curve to give off a long neck image! Im not saying nessie is a huge eel I just said I'm warming to the idea.. Its just weather they cud grow into these eunuch eels or not...they wud have to grow big... Cheers

      Delete
  12. Well, I've been going with the giant eel-like creature or something like that for a long time myself. Maybe some type of mutated eel or entirely different, unknown species with physiology and morphology of an eel. This would also account for it's ability to survive the frigid temperatures of the loch, it's ability to go deep, occasional but rare land sightings (because eels can tread land for short distances) and the rarity of overall sightings. Of course this would have to be a humongous animal. If you're strictly going with the giant eel theory however, the neck out of water sightings pose a problem in that thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have googled lots of images of eels with their bodies up and found a few where I believe if seen in a loch could give off a head and neck appearance! And not many ordinary people have actually seen an eel in the flesh never mind a giant one so woudnt know what they wer looking at!.. Cheers

      Delete
  13. The eel theory is my favoured one , as in 'most probable '

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mine is Nessie witness, Biologist PhD Professor Tucker's Elasmosaurus animal.

      Delete
  14. There are some good points made here. Snakes look like eels and they can swim on the surface and raise their heads up in the air so indeed could give off a neck image.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But eels don't have flippers, and significant proportion of the sightings describe flippers. How can one rectify that? But I agree, the Loch may have more than one type of denizen unknown to science...

    Here's a germane question: Roland, can you talk to the concept of tunnels below the water line at Loch Ness? Are there any? I think Dr. Shine has been quoted as saying there aren't any at all....but I have never read anywhere how he came up with that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tunnels are entirely possible, I have some material on them which I need to collate into one article.

      Delete
    2. I look forward to this article Roland.The tunnels debate is an interesting one.

      Delete
  16. Im not sure how anyone can clearly see flippers under the water or at a distance which most sightings are.They probably see something propelling along which they assume is a flipper because of all the previous plesiosaur talk.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here's an article that somewhat addresses the flipper problem, although I am not entirely convinced the LNM is an eel...
    http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/of-prehistoric-eels-and-lake-monsters/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well I suppose a huge eel wud have huge fins so cud be mistaken for flippers!as gegs rightly says they are underwater so can't be seen fully.. If the eunuch eel is real then it cud defo be behind some of sightings.. Its a big 'If', though as their is no hard evidence for these creatures but for me can't be ruled out.. Cheers x

    ReplyDelete