Monday 2 November 2020

Another Book and its relation to the latest Sonar Contact

 



A month or so ago, I was looking for four small books to complete my collection of Loch Ness Monster books. I wrote on how I got Constance Whyte's 1951 booklet on the monster and now I have obtained a copy of Ben Sensical's 1982 booklet, "Loch Ness: An Explanation". As it happened, I was contacted by another Nessie fan who was lucky enough to have bought a copy last May and he sent me a photo of the cover for my occasionally updated article on Loch Ness Monster books. Fortunately, he was kind enough to let me buy it from him for the price it cost him, so thanks again! That now leaves me with two remaining books to find. I wonder how easy those ones will be to find?

But this booklet turned out to be a well timed purchase given the publicity concerning the latest sonar picture of the Loch Ness Monster taken by Cruise Loch Ness. I say that not in the sense that the author has anything to say about sonar, but because the theory he expounds is being expressed in some form by those trying hard to debunk and dismiss this important sonar contact. To cut to the chase, there is a sceptic by the name of Dick Raynor who was once a believer in monsters in Loch Ness but departed from such a mindset, probably in the 1980s, when scepticism began to rise in influence. This is what he recently said on Steve Feltham's Facebook group:


... there is every reason to recognise this as a sonar target, but there are lots of things that get washed down to the bottom of lakes. The wrapping from silage and straw bales could be carried down by the inflowing river currents and be buoyed up from the bottom by natural gases from the sediment. Genuine sonar target, yes. ID as a 'creature' - I'm not so sure.

How does this connect with Ben Sensical's book? Well, Ben was an advocate of the Vegetable Mat theory to explain monster sightings. This was not a new theory as it had been expounded over twenty years before by Maurice Burton in his 1961 book, "The Elusive Monster". Ben Sensical had spent some time working for the Forestry Commission which took him up to Loch Ness in the 1960s. Using his experience of forestry, he proposed a plausible theory about how various aggregations of organic materials from forests such as leaves and branches can sink to the bottom of the loch, decompose and then rise on their own methane gases to the surface of Loch Ness to form a hump like display. Add a protruding branch to the mass and you have your legendary head and neck. We even get the bonus explanation of gases ejecting horizontally to move the object forward!

Raynor's theory looks to be a variant on this original idea in that it is organic material from agriculture rather than forestry that sinks to the abyssal region of the loch. Furthermore, the material is propelled upwards, but not to the surface. It is not clear whether he is implying that the gases that subsequently buoy up the original material was as a result of the decomposition of this material or from the general sediment.

Burton and Sensical's theory sounded logical enough but out in the field, no one seemed to have ever seen any of these mats of organic matter. One or two would eventually be spotted, though I have yet to see a picture of one. At the time of Sensical's book, the Loch Ness and Morar Project began to conduct ecological studies of the loch under the leadership of Adrian Shine. One paper by them reveals the true state of affairs as regards this phenomenon:

Burton suggested that gas such as methane could bring decaying vegetation, perhaps including branches resembling necks, to the surface. In the main, the Project's work has shown little gas production in deep Loch Ness sediments. There are two exceptional areas, however; one is a small area in Urquhart Bay, and there is a larger one off Fort Augustus, where great quantities of organic material accumulate and emit gas continuously during the summer. On one occasion gas was detected from a source as deep as 97 m, which remained active for two weeks. It seems that vegetable debris, including branches, could break the surface in this particular 'Monster spot'.

So there you have it, the bottom of the loch was not productive enough to generate enough methane gas to energise the effects suggested in Burton's theory. Going back to the current sonar images, it was suggested that the object in the image could be gas bubbles on their own, minus organic debris. This image taken from Adrian's paper shows a trace which bears little resemblance to the recent image. Note this 1988 image was taken at Fort Augustus near this highly productive area. The recent image was taken miles away opposite Invermoriston in an unproductive area.



Further information on gas production was expanded upon in another paper after some work had been done with ROVs at the bottom of the loch:

It can be stated immediately that hours of television observation of the loch floor in deepwater have revealed no more than occasional twigs projecting from the fine silt. If logs are present here, they are a rarity. Intact leaves find their way into the sediment, but at a temperature of 5‑6 oC decomposition is slow. No sign of gas bubbles can be provoked by probing the sediment in front of the camera and no gas has been observed in cores or other mud samples brought rapidly to the surface. Loch Ness should not be visualized as a stagnant pond.

Note here two things. Again, gas production is next to non-existent. Secondly, there was no or little trace of anything which could register on sonar, be it tree trunks, silage or hay bales. It seems that if they even make it to the loch bottom at all, they just sink without trace, never to be seen again. We can now say the same about Dick Raynor's theory. Nevertheless, I am surprised he even suggested this theory. After all, he is put forward as an expert, so why was he not aware of this work by his long time associate, Adrian Shine? Then again, perhaps he was. While we are here, here is another paragraph from the work of the Loch Ness Project sonar work:

In shallow water, Trout have been observed to shoal on the approach of a diver or television camera. Fish concentrate inshore, within the scattering layer and in autumn loose shoals are to be found at the near surface. None has been observed in deep water. Shoals often exhibit 'tails' on echo‑sounder records, due to inter‑reflections between the fish returning over an extended period. Only one of our contacts showed any vertical extent on the record.
...
Nevertheless, contacts of interest, in terms of strength (sometimes considerable), depth and possible movement, do occur. By establishing a background against which anomalies may be judged, it is recognized that overlaps sometimes exist in all three criteria, with the presence and behaviour of the known fish population. On the other hand, superficially pedestrian explanations, such as a record‑class salmon in the main water column, deep swimming fish shoals and midwater logs, can all be seen to represent anomalies in themselves.

There you have it, anyone trying to fob off this new sonar contact as a big salmon, fish shoal or a floating log is deemed to be peddling "superficially pedestrian explanations" by the Loch Ness Project. We can now add silage and hay bales to the list of superficially pedestrian explanations. 



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com






41 comments:

  1. Hi Roland,
    Very well scripted.As I have previously stated the non believers will always be non believers even if you take Nessie out of Loch Ness and serve her up on the dinner plate as the main course.You cant convince people who do not want to be convinced, they will always have some stupid explanation, to convince themselves they are right, hey listen to us we are the experts.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whenever I read comments like this one aginst skeptics, I'm ultimately reminded of some religious fundamentalist spouting the same ad hominem nonsense for lack of credible proof or argument. If we had bonafide evidence - e.g. a carcass, there would not be much argument left whatsoever and no, skeptics wouldn't simply dismiss it. ".You cant convince people who do not want to be convinced..." Same goes for many believers invested in their belief of the cryptid.

      Delete
    2. There are fundamentalists on both sides ...

      Delete
  2. Vegetable mats, logs? Last night I reread Margaret Munro's 1934 sighting of the LNM and her description of it rang a bell... Then I had it! What she describes resembles closely the Mary F photos of Morgawr from the 70s (on google). For years it's been claimed those photos were fakes, but I'm not so sure...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At best you could say Shiels was inspired by the Munro sketch?

      Delete
  3. I don't understand why cynics flat out refuse to recognise actual solid evidence. Given how this world is these days, animal extinctions, global pandemic, government corruption etc, wouldn't the discovery of a new large animal unknown to the world and to science, be a welcome relief?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good, clear video of a large unknown animal would be a welcome relief, but we're not getting that. I think the sceptics have two reasonable points. #1 With the proliferation of digital cameras and phones, why don't we have such a video? #2 The sightings don't seem to show a single species. Some must be mistakes, so why not all?

      Delete
    2. Cynics want to see a carcass or a Nessie in a cage. Yes a good clear video or photo would be welcome. Even then hard core skeptics would be hard pressed to accept it as definitive proof because as GB would say, they are suffering from a terminal case of Toogoodtobetrueitis. I would refer you to the Johnston and Grey pics, which GB and some would consider genuine. I'm not so sure, yet.

      Delete
    3. I too have wondered about the different species question....one example being the Finlay sighting which is highly suggestive of an (very large)eel like creature and the sightings of Mrs.Cary and family (and many others)which are more in keeping with a very large, whale like animal.
      Then we have the Johnson and Gray photos to intrigue us even more.
      Then we have the land sightings of a creature confirming the eel and whale like appearance in different encounters.
      Despite the proliferation of mobile phone cameras I think the sheer size of the loch mitigates against good shots or video. There are numerous examples of the creatures disappearing at the slightest sound or commotion. Coupled with the fleeting appearance above the surface, when it does appear,its pure luck which will produce the definitive proof.
      A curious exception was the Taylor film from 1938 when the creature remained visible for three minutes.
      Based on the lack of a head/neck it was dismissed by Maurice Burton as a floating vegetable mat....though several of his selected audience who viewed the colour film were adamant it was an animate object.
      Another interesting feature was the colour ....described as straw like...while rare it has been reported before. So are we looking at juveniles? Or elder lemons as they say...
      If so is it the more common whale like ,large hummed animal?
      My visit to the loch last year involved meeting a great granddaughter of a local lady who was close to the tourist Mr Taylor who filmed the object. Unfortunately I can't advance this due to privacy issues but can say that the story as handed down through the family was that her great grandmother was pretty sure they were looking at a creature. She wrote down her experiences, told a few friends and family, story was repeated over the years. The notes were in existence up until at least 1977 but can't be located since. Not much I know but always felt it a pity that Burton would not release the footage.
      I've reason to believe it does exist still but highly unlikely for us to ever see it.

      Delete
    4. I think the general consensus is growing that what we are dealing with is very large eels. The problem I have with the giant eel as the solution to the mystery, is the long neck and size issue. Roy Johnston took a series of pictures showing a long slender arching neck with head rearing out of the water and gracefully splashing back under. The James Gray series of pics also show what could be construed as a neck with less of an indication of a head, and lacks the apparent likeness and suppleness to a neck/head that the Johnston pics do and also looks rather stiff. In any case, show me an eel that can do that! I know that some have said that eels can raise their heads slightly out of the water, but not to the degree that we see in the Johnston and Gray pics. The best that can be said in my opinion, is that the LNM displays characteristics of being eel-like.

      Delete
    5. Raising the head out of the water so high is what I feel hinders the giant eel theory. That and the 'upturned boat' sightings. If the upturned boat sightings were giant eels, they would have to be absolutely enormous.

      Whatever these animals are, I dont think they're giant eels. That being said, what's to stop the loch being home to giant eels as well as some unknown large animal. Giant eels would be a good food source for it after all. Could explain why some of the sightings are different.

      Delete
    6. I think they are variation s of the plesiosaur,and giant salamander.
      And giant horse eels.

      Delete
    7. What the hell john! A hybrid? Three in one. C'mon man. Pick one and stick to it.

      Delete
    8. The morphology of classic witness reports like the Spicers, Munro, Macleod is consistent with the Mary F photos and other possibly genuine ones in my opinion. The mystery is the anatomy doesn't fit any known species, not even the plesiosaur (but I'm open to being wrong on this).

      Delete
    9. 3 different species living in the loch..it's possible for a huge body of water to have more than 1 type of animal living in it.

      Delete
    10. The lack of video has been discussed elsewhere here, but more could be added to that line of inquiry. As for multiple species, I prefer to think people are seeing the same species but different gender or age. Also, though eyewitnesses are clever enough to see a large beast when they see it, that does not mean they get every exact detail correct.

      Delete
  4. Another sonar contact, different cruise company, five years ago. As I stated before, there should be a cache of these items from times past. That's what underwater monsters leave.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8913679/Sonar-image-adds-compelling-case-mighty-beast-lurks-depths-Loch-Ness.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sonar looks to be on the loch floor.Could it be debris?

      Delete
    2. I refer you to the words of Adrian Shine in this article where he never saw large mounds of debris. Just flat slit with the odd branch poking out.

      Delete
    3. Wasn't there a sighting of a large 'frog-like' animal spotted on lurking a shelf in the depths?

      Delete
    4. Yes, but it was in shallow depths at the south end of the canal.

      Delete
  5. No thanks Roland. Ive never took much notice of Adrian Shine and i stick to it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So the cruise loch ness get another large sonar contact a few weeks after the first one? Its strange how they get nothing in 2 years then 2 within a couple of weeks.I think its looking more likely that something big has come in from the sea and is swimming around the loch for a few weeks until it finds its way back again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've always found the idea of an itinerant, marine Nessie appealing as it would explain the rise and fall in sightings. But I don't exactly know how difficult/easy it is for a large animal to get in and out of the loch, so I'm not certain either way...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Food for thought gezza.. Seals do get in on rare occasions and they quite sizeable so why not a big fish! It is strange how they get two big hits in a month but none for years..but again they cud of just got lucky and got a creature that the loch is its home! As I said before if these contacts wer normal things like shoals of fish the boat wud be getting more contacts.. ... I welcome a new sonar search at the Loch because if we get more contacts it looks like these things are residents of the Loch and not visitors.. Which wud be great... Plus it wud be summit to look forward to and great interest for the beautiful area after these testing times.. . Cheers

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A new sonar search indeed, but a new approach needed else the same old results will follow.

      Delete
  9. I actually agree with Steve Felham 4 a change. These sonar contacts now look like they have come in from the sea so yes it really could be a game changer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me what the difference is between an ocean visitor plesiosaur sonar contact in lochness and a resident plesiosaur sonar contact in lochness..what would be the difference.?

      Delete
  10. So something of size could get through from the North Sea to Loch Ness unnoticed? I'm still a bit fuzzy on all the lake, canal, river connections, and thought this theory had been discarded. Sorry.

    Also, happy birthday to Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ron.

      There are reports of creatures making their way up and down the river ness.

      Delete
  11. Yes seals have in the past and thats a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There was a report from years ago of a witness claiming he saw a creature on a sandbar or spit of land on the river (or canal?). Roland posted it here, but I don't recall the details. Something that size should be noticeable, but how large or small would an animal have to be to escape detection? How deep a passage are we talking about, and does peat from the surrounding terrain affect clarity of the water there as it does at the Loch?

    ReplyDelete
  13. There was a couple of really good sightings of a huge eel like animal in the loch just a couple of weeks before these sonar contacts. It looks more and more like something has come up from the sea and is swimming about in the loch until it finds its way back again.If this animal has hit the sonar twice in its short stay then 4 me it does not look good for something living in the loch and never getting found on the sonar system used every day in the same area.Its looking more like our monster is a visitor from the sea.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Has the theory of underwater cave networks ultimately leading back to the sea been ruled out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they could be traversed by a really large animal they would drain the loch down to sea level. If not, they are not needed, because small to medium size animals can come in and out via the river.

      Delete
    2. Not if they are Siphon tunnels and siphon caves which do occur frequently in underground systems.

      Delete
  15. Yeah the contacts cud be a visitor.. But I think a huge fish visiting the loch wud be quite a rare thing like the seals every couple of years! Sonar has picked up large contacts in Loch Ness for many years..AAS had some..other boats before that.. Operation deepscan.. Marcus Atkinson.. The royal scot had a few..jacobite..now cruise loch ness's new boat! Looks to me that there is summit big living in the loch all the time! I look forward to Mr Wallace coming with his sonar and if he gets any contacts then surely we hav to say there is summit more to this than a sea visitor... Cheerrs

    ReplyDelete