Sunday, 14 February 2021

The Long Necks of 22nd September 1933

 

Illustrated London News 13th January 1934


Was Friday the 22nd of September 1933 an auspicious day for Monster Lore when something happened for the first time? According to Loch Ness expert, Adrian Shine, this was when the classic long neck made its first appearance in the loch waters (see link). Sure, some couple from London had previously reported a grotesque sight with a writhing neck on land, but in the monster's prime domain, it had finally raised its imposing long neck and small head.

And not only that, witnesses were treated to not one but three reports of long necks that day. Or was it one long neck? The story begins at about 9:30 in the morning. Water Bailiff, Alex Campbell looked out on the loch from near his cottage to behold a sight he later described as prehistoric. 

Suddenly my attention was drawn to a strange object that seemed to shoot out of the calm waters almost opposite the Abbey boathouse ... the swan like neck reached six feet or so above the water at its highest point, and the body, a darkish grey glistening with moisture was at least 30 ft. long. I gauged this carefully in my mind's eye by placing two ordinary rowing boats of 15 ft. overall length end to end, and I don't think I was far wrong, because I have had lots of experience of that sort of thing, because I have lived on the shores of the loch all my life - apart from the last war years.

Still watching and wondering if I would have time to run for my camera, I heard the noise of the engines of two herring drifters (they call them trawlers in England) which were proceeding down the lower basin of the Caledonian Canal, which enters the loch almost alongside the Abbey boathouse. The animal certainly must have heard, or sensed, the approach of these vessels too, for I saw it turn its head in an apprehensive way, this way and that, and, apparently being timid, it then sank rapidly out of sight, lowering the neck in doing so, and leaving a considerable disturbance on the mirror-like surface of the loch. The animal would have been some 400 yards from where I stood, possibly less, and I had a very clear view of it which lasted several minutes.






The sketch above of what Campbell saw was drawn for reporters who came up some weeks later. But the monster was not finished for the day as it submerged and swam up the loch in close tandem with the two trawlers, apparently not so frightened by them as it kept to its natural element deep below. By 11 o'clock in the morning, one and a half hours later, it stopped and surfaced for whatever reason these dark denizens feel the compulsion to stop. This was just north of the village of Invermoriston almost in a line with the Halfway House, a tea room built by the Altsigh river to take advantage of the increased traffic on the now widened and improved Inverness road. That's about seven and a half miles from Fort Augustus as the monster put in a leisurely four and a half knots (about 5 mph).

Time for another display as more than half a dozen witnesses stopped their activities to gaze from the balcony upon this awesome sight as the sun continued to shine brightly upon a calm loch. The Inverness Courier reported the events four days later as follows:

Miss Fraser, the proprietrix of the tea room, the "Halfway House," which occupies an excellent position overlooking the loch. near Altsigh. told a Courier representative that on Friday, about noon, she and upwards of half-a-dozen people, including two ladies from the Parsonage, Glen Urquhart, who were having tea at the time, watched the creature disport itself for almost fifteen minutes. The loch being dead calm and the sun shining strongly, they watched the "monster" raise its head, then its back (which seemed to consist of two very pronounced "humps") above the surface of the water, and calmly proceeded to amuse itself by swimming about the loch.

Two steam drifters, which were passing, did not appear to cause the creature any concern, and from this it seems possible that the "monster" is now becoming quite reconciled to their presence, for up to within the past few weeks its always seemed to take fright and disappear on the slightest provocation. 

Other eyewitnesses were Mr and Mrs Simpson, who live at Altsigh, and their daughters and Mr George Macqueen, an A.A. scout, who patrols the Fort Augustus-Invermoriston road, and who saw the creature opposite Port Clair. Mr Macqueen said that when he saw the "monster" it was just like an upturned rowing-boat but it was travelling at a great speed.

It is interesting to note that on almost every occasion on which the "monster" been seen the weather conditions were the same as on Friday - calm and bright. It would be interesting to learn whether the crews of the drifters which were proceeding to Inverness noticed the "monster" on Friday, as the Altsigh witnesses think that they could not possibly failed to have seen it.


Miss Fraser's Sketch

Miss Howden's Sketch

Mrs Fraser's Sketch


To these we can add the following sketch done for The Scotsman newspaper dated 15th November 1933 where one of the Halfway House ladies describes a frill or mane attached to the neck.




Lt. Cmdr. Rupert T. Gould tells us in his 1934 work on the monster that the creature was about 1000 yards from the witnesses, or about halfway across the loch and somewhat to their right with the sun behind the creature. Eyewitness sketches are shown above and his interview with some of them adds more detail and he refers, as usual, to the monster as "X":

[X] remained in view - without much change of position, but rising and sinking slightly from time to time - for some ten minutes. The head and neck rose almost vertically out of the water. Miss Fraser concentrated her attention upon these; and their general appearance, by her account, was that of "a mythical creature." The head was slightly "dished" - "like a terrier's," she put it - in front; and at the junction of the head and neck, when facing her, she noticed a kind of frill, which she described as like "a pair of kippered herrings."

She also noticed what appeared to be a large glittering circular eye in the head, in the position in which one would expect an eye to be situated. X moved its head from side to side, and the "eye " appeared to move with the head. [I am of opinion that this "eye" was produced by irradiation, or reflection - see above, as to the sun's position.] The head and neck rose and sank periodically; moving more or less vertically in doing so.

Miss Fraser only remarked the head and neck; but Miss Howden also noticed two humps, and " something indefinite" which might be a "tail." The colour of head, neck and humps was dark; but in the bright sunlight it might have been anything from dark-brown to dark-grey. Mrs. G. Fraser also saw the head and neck, two humps and an indefinite tail. She first noticed a splashing in the water, at one end of what appeared to be a "long stretch of glittering silver," showing up against the (comparatively) dark surface of the water.

Then the head and neck rose slowly out of the water at the opposite end, remained in view for a minute or so, and then sank. They reappeared, and slowly rose higher, than before, while two humps appeared close behind them. The splashing from the tail end had ceased by this time, but the " silver streak " was still visible. The head turned slowly from side to side. X did not appear to be discomposed by a vessel passing on the far side of the Loch, but ultimately headed towards Invermoriston, moving quite slowly. 

It finally sank and did not reappear, having been almost continuously in view for over a quarter of an hour. Mrs. Hobbes (and a friend, Miss Mullock) saw what she described as "two shining eyes, separated by a dark perpendicular line." She took it, at first, for a steamboat with its lights showing. They left the balcony, and drove in their car to a point from which they hoped to get a closer view; but by that time X had finally submerged.

Mrs. Fraser told Gould that she noticed one of our trawlers near the monster but Gould failed to track down the vessel. The Monster pressed on northwards, leaving a clutch of bemused people in its wake. Three hours later, at about 2 pm, it was the turn  of Mr. D. W. Morrison and others to be dazzled. These people were at the Balnafoich residence perched high on a hill near Dores. The house was about 600 yards from the shore and 250 feet above the loch. The animal was a similar distance from their shore as the sun continued to shine and it was at the end of its hike, turning back the way it came. Gould continues again, quoting Morrison's letter to him:

It was heading towards Fort Augustus, and passed in front of the observers, from right to left, at a speed of some 15 miles per hour (13 knots). At its nearest approach, it was roughly 950 yards away; and it submerged when approximately 2,200 yards 241° from Balnafoich, having been in sight for some four minutes.

When it sank, a trawler was in sight about a mile away, steaming towards Inverness along the far side of the Loch. X looked like " a huge caterpillar," and appeared to move "with an up-and-down motion, and not the lateral motion you would expect in a giant eel. ... The portion of the body above water was in a series of humps, with water spaces in between. I should say that there were about seven humps, some possibly two feet above the water-line, and with Nos. 3, 4 and 5 more prominent than the others as if indicating the larger girth of the body amidships

I regret that I am unable to say how these portions of body compare in proportion with the water spaces, and there is no point in my guessing. My drawing, however, seems to represent it fairly, as I saw it. The head I should describe as 'snake-like,' similar to an adder and tapering. It would, however, be approximately the same bore as the neck, which appeared to be at right angles with the water when raised. . . . The head was not apparent unless raised. ... My camera had been left in my car at the top of the drive - about 300 yards away. ... I debated fetching it, but was unwilling to give up my view of the creature, which might in the meantime have disappeared, and again I knew that at that distance it would have appeared only as a speck, if that." 




Altsigh to a point parallel to Balnafoich is 12.5 miles, so our creature was again averaging about four knots (4.5 mph). It is at least consistent in this one thing, though it put in a final spurt of 16 mph according to Mr. Morrison. In some ways, this day was the real debut of the Loch Ness Monster - in terms of its iconic pose, thrice seen for emphasis. Within a short time, the national press was picking up the story and sending their journalists north. The legend was beginning to solidify into a certain form.


COMMENTS

The location of each sighting is denoted on the map below from Alex Campbell's at the bottom to D. W. Morrison's at the top with their times in parentheses. The question you may be asking is whether this was indeed the adventures of one large thirty foot creature? 





The main objection leveled against this view would be that the sketches of the eyewitnesses look different enough to suggest different creatures. However, when one considers that the four different sketches to the Halfway House incident refer to the same creature, then this argument is not compelling. If eyewitnesses to one event cannot produce the exact same sketch, then why should others to potentially the same creature at other locations and times?

I would further suggest that if the witnesses were asked to sketch the boats which were in the vicinity of their sightings, these would be recognisable as boats, but they too would have degrees of variation to them. Such is the imperfection of eyewitness testimony; but let us not allow the sceptics to own this subject. Yes, eyewitnesses are imperfect recording machines, but not to the extent scepticism wishes to impose upon them. At 400, 1000 and 1250 yards respectively, there is certainly increasing scope for some error. But we must also remember that the presence of the trawlers in all three events provided useful frames of references for our eyewitnesses to make a determination of the large size of the creature.

But what about the sketch by Mr. Morrison which shows six humps? It is perfectly acceptable for us to go from Campbell's single hump to Howden's two humps, but reconfiguring from two to seven seems a stretch. I thought about this and noted that Morrison's sighting was the furthest at over 1200 yards. Was it possible he had misinterpreted some of the water turbulence behind the monster as low lying humps? I think that is a possibility, though what was behind the long neck could also have been a combination of one or two humps with waves.

Then we come to the matter of Alex Campbell. Poor old Alex Campbell, he does get some flak from the critics. When Adrian Shine stated that this was the first long neck in water event, he was referring to the women at the Halfway House as the first witnesses to the long neck of Nessie in her natural habitat, he would have discounted Campbell's account as cormorant misidentification, because that is what Campbell himself admitted to at one point before recanting. Mind you, Adrian would be classing every other sighting that day as misidentification.

Constance Whyte's 1957 recounting of Campbell's sighting places it on our date of 22nd September. The fact that he mentions two trawlers and the Inverness Courier account from the Halfway House also mentions two trawlers tends to corroborate this date. So Alex Campbell appears to be the first person to see a long neck in water, perhaps. I have written a previous article on Alex Campbell's sighting and why it should not be dismissed at this link


AND FINALLY

Having noted Adrian's statement that the women at the Halfway House were the first witnesses to a long neck in the loch and my counter that Alex Campbell claims the prize, it turns out we are both wrong. As I came to the end of this article, I double checked some old paper printouts I had made from the microfilm rolls of the Inverness Courier held by the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh. A clipping was discovered from the 2nd September, which relates how Mrs Barbara Macdonell and Mrs. A. Sutherland at Port Clair watched a 30 foot creature from less than one hundred yards away with a huge flat head and "wriggly" neck plus a single humped back.





So the prize goes to to these two ladies, but it only takes a little gloss off that special day about three weeks later when the Loch Ness Monster went on a tour of the loch before a dozen or more gaping humans. The earlier sighting was just a dress rehearsal, the big show came on the 22nd September.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com



65 comments:

  1. Sounds from the description could have been one of those large long neck seals!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this one post alone you suggest mammals, eels and amphibians. You missed out reptiles and invertebrates...

      Delete
  2. If anything, it just goes to show that all these witness recollections are not singular and their power of discernment is not perfect. Studies have been made of multiple witnesses to a staged crime and they all come up with slight differences when identifying the culprit. What I find curious is the big head and silvery streak mentioned. The multiple humps, the neck frill or mane not so much, as those details have been mentioned before by other witnesses. An alternate title for this article could be "Nessie's Excellent Adventure"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The light underside has been reported by other witnesses. In known species it is used as a defense mechanism when predators looked up at them from below.

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't Nessie though be the Apex predator of loch ness?

      Delete
    3. That would depend whether she evolved there. In the ocean even great white sharks have a lighter underside.

      Delete
    4. Sure, but there would probably still be some pretty large eels that would want a Nessie burger. But seriously, if we are to assume a thriving colony of these creatures, then we can also assume that juvenile Nessies would be at risk of predation by large eels. After all, eels are voracious carnivores. It would be inconsevable that one or two creatures have trived throuout the whole history of this mystery.

      Delete
    5. What if Nessie is a giant sized eel?

      Delete
    6. Probably a throwback to when Nessie's ancestors had white bellies to fool those pesky megalodons. :)

      Delete
  3. Plenty of head and neck sightings over the years which surely rules out the normal salamander, catfish and sturgeon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, as I have always said, no head on a long neck, no LNM.

      Delete
    2. Think big Amphibians can mimic that though!

      Delete
    3. Sure, nothing says it can't be an amphibian. Probably more likely than a reptile or eel. And probably more like to be some type of reptile than an eel!

      Delete
    4. Giant Eels have been spotted though in the past an present, so at least have seen them as a nessie!

      Delete
    5. Tell me when giant eels were spotted at Loch Ness.

      Delete
    6. John it's highly unlikely to be a reptile. The water is so cold and that would make it an air breather too. My money's still on an amphibian.

      Delete
    7. Steve Plambeck's take on a giant salamander's tail being mistaken for head and neck, again comes to mind.

      A quote from Plambeck, circa 2015: ". . . the locals actually did identify and name the animal in question as 'the great salamander', or more simply just 'the salamander' for at least two centuries before outsiders came in telling them it must be this or that. There is historical documentation this is how the locals identified the beast long before the press came along trying to sell people on plesiosaurs and long necks. (Long neck sightings are distinctly in the minority in witness reports from Loch Ness, and then usually at distances that would preclude telling a tail from a neck)."

      It's an interesting theory, and I only favor it over the giant eel idea because I can't stand the slimy things.

      Delete
    8. jesusFan just throwing everything at the wall, eh? Ok it's a large dog. Those have been spotted in Loch Ness my money is now on a massive canine left over from the Mesozoic period. Or WAIT... a large crab. Or a sentient alien plant a la Audrey II from Little Shop Of Horrors - except the 60s version with a young Jack Nicholson not the 80s version with Rick Moranis.

      Delete
    9. The Giant eel theory at least has the support of eels being know to be in the Loch, and tales of large ones in the area persist! Amphibian also checks many boxes, as would a long neck seal if such a creature really exists!

      Delete
    10. JesusFan - can you please provide evidence that giant Eels have been spotted in the past and present. To my understanding there are no giant Eels in Loch Ness, to assume that Nessie might be a giant Eel is acceptable only if we know for a fact that Loch Ness hides giant Eels and so far there’s no such proof.

      Delete
    11. well, have that video by Gordon Holmes that appears to be a large eel!

      Delete
    12. On yeah Kyle, I agree. An amphibian is still not beyond possibility. And, it will be a plesiosaur before it's a giant eel. But if it came in originally from the sea maybe a marine reptile? I guess I'm just throwing stuff at the wall also to see if it will stick. LOL

      Delete
  4. This is a fascinating article, even by this blog's standards. 3 sightings, one day, different times. All at least in the ballpark in the way it looked. I personally think Alex Campbell is... hmmm... how to choose my words carefully... possibly exaggerating. If he saw it he did not see it 17 times. If it was a court of law his retraction/reinstatement would be dubious. But the other 2 have to be taken seriously. Multiple witnesses etc... I would say that if the whole thing was a plant to boost tourism this day is probably the most likely conspiracy hoax moment. Alternatively, it's the best day for eye witness evidence ever. One could write a book about this day alone... *cough* GB *cough*

    I think the most intriguing/suspicious aspect is that trawlers seem to pass without disturbing it when Alex C in his own witness statement contradicts this action. Or maybe I'm just jealous they got an uninterrupted 15 minute view of the creature? I dunno. It's all very intriguing. Apologies if I'm more cynical than usual. This day is essentially the entire mystery in a microcosm to me. It's either undeniable proof of a large monster or the basis for fraud. What I believe is entirely dependant on which side of the bed I got out from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That part of them not being bothered would seem to be supporting a mote mammal creature....

      Delete
  5. Campbell retracted after his employers, the Ness Fishery Board, called him on the carpet and made it clear they weren't too keen on his promoting of the LNM. It's not too much of a stretch to speculate that the Board made it clear to Campbell that if he didn't cool it his job would be on the line. So in my view Campbell modified his sighting to appease his employers so that he wouldn't be unemployed in depression era Britain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I ken the theory but do you buy that? If you'd seen a real life monster (as often as Alex claimed to have) would you recant? I'm not saying he never saw it either - just not sure about 17 times (though I could be wrong about that number... I believe GB may have challenged this previously).

      Ultimately my issue is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and objectively I find Mr Campbell slightly unreliable as a witness - particularly when there are stronger ones (I put forward the group witnesses in this particular article as one for example).

      Delete
    2. Wonder what would be seen as being THE best evidence for Nessie existing?

      Delete
    3. A clear, closeup, no doubt about it video. No photo please. In this day and age photos can be hoaxed too easily, whereas a video of a live creature can intuitively be recognized as such. To be sure CGI has come a long way, but I think a decerning mind could tell the difference between real and simulation. Plus, analysis by video experts would expose a fake. Barring that, a live one in a cage or a carcass on a slab.

      Delete
  6. I think it would be more accurate to say that Campbell claimed 17 experiences that he attributed to the LNM. In some of those experiences he didn't actually see anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's still a heck of a lot of attributed "encounters". Tim D literally lived on the loch at times and claims 3 in 20 odd years and he was a dedicated searcher. I know Campbell practically lived on the loch too but it's still too high (extrapolating Tim's number over Campbell's lifetime 17 is still too high). I realise my numbers are kinda arbitrary but I'm just not buying it. If he'd seen it that often take a camera with you all the time. I'll go back and read GB's article in detail - I promise - to see what Alex was saying to it and I'm not calling him a liar... buuuuut I think he was extremely prone to exaggeration and very much a loch half full kinda guy when it comes to the question of the monster's existence.

      Delete
  7. What would be the BEST evidence as of right now though? And would a giant Eel or a really big fish be "exotic" enough?Would there still be some saying not was interesting, but still not Nessie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would say that as of right now, the Tim D film on Nessie would still be the best evidence available!

      Delete
    2. Yes okay. Now you're making sense. LOL

      Delete
    3. was just seeing what others see as current best evidence that Nessie actually exists!

      Delete
  8. What would be the BEST evidence as of right now though?



    *In my humble opinion the best photographic evidence is the spectacular head/neck image that GB currently uses as his profile pic - though it's fraught with substantial issues.
    *Best film footage is Dinsdale's haunting black and white imagery though it could defo be a boat.
    *Best eye witness evidence is probably the day outlined by GB's article right here - though I LOVE the footage of that ex copper talking about when he saw it whilst fishing. That dude saw SOMETHING. As did many.

    And would a giant Eel or a really big fish be "exotic" enough?Would there still be some saying not was interesting, but still not Nessie?

    *Nope. And neither a giant eel theory nor massive fish could begin to cover a fraction of the eye witness accounts or other evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So do you see more then one creature seen as being nessie then?

      Delete
  9. Even if they pulled an eel the length of TWO buses out of the loch, I'd spit on it and say 'that's not Nessie! Give me the real thing!!"
    Just kidding, sorry couldn't resist. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best ( most intriguing) film I've seen of something unidentified in Loch Ness is the LNIB 1963 film of a creature of some sort in the shallows and on the shoreline. Although this film is now apparently missing, it was definitely shown on television during the 1960s ( It might even have been on Blue Peter as they did a feature on the " monster") The fact that this was over 50 years ago and I was a schoolboy when I saw it and am now an OAP and still remember it speaks for itself. The film was taken from a great distance but I am sure modern technology would be able to enhance it. Even after all these years I'm sure it was not a dog as claimed by some sceptics ( who do not appear to have seen the film). It might turn out to nothing of significance, who knows? I have no axe to grind in this because after 30 or more years as a fervent believer in Nessie ( after seeing Dinsdake's film on the initial BBC broadcast) I am now an agnostic. I just hope the film turns up in the old LNIB material in the possession of Adrian Shine or Dick Raynor as it is the most puzzling/ fascinating piece of potential evidence I've seen.
      Chris Morris

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Deleted last two posts...bit catty I thought...nevertheless, still think Adrian should release old footage onto the net!

      Delete
    5. Would not want to be swimming and have type of eel decide to make me lunch!

      Delete
  10. These series of photos by Roy Johnston, if genuine, could be the best photographic evidence. Ah, too good to be true you say. The James Gray photos are intriguing also, if genuine.

    https://lakemonstersoftheworld.blogspot.com/2012/11/roy-johnston-nessie-photographs.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think if a large creature of any description was discoverd in Loch Ness a lot of people would feel vindicated. It may prompt people to come forward to report sightings which they had kept quiet for rear of ridicule.

    regarding the film shown on television in the 1960's I also remember a film shown on (I think) Blue Peter. If I am remembering correctly this film was taken at Loch Morar, shot from above from a helicopter and seemed to show a creature lying in the shallows. It looked to be about 30ft long and resembled a large crocodile. The person showing the flim said if he got the opportunity he intended drop down from the helicopter and take a tissue sample. that was in the 60's and I have never heard anything more about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack, The film you remember is different from the one I was referring to. ( Too many distantly remembered films from the 1960s!) The film I wrote about was taken at Loch Ness and the LNIB was also featured in the programme. Now someone just needs to locate the film!
      Chris Morris

      Delete
    2. Hi Chris,
      remembering things from 50+ years ago is not ideal. It was shown on a childrens program in the early evening thats probably why I think it was Blue Peter but I could be mistaken.

      The image of the creature has stuck in my mind all these years.It looked to be about 30 foot long including the tail, had four appendages and a shorter head and neck. When he said he wanted to enter the water to take a tissue sample I remember thinking "better you than me".

      If these old films ever turn up they would make for very interesting viewing.

      Delete
    3. Are you referring to the Sidney Wignall films?

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-follow-up-to-aircraft-monster-film.html

      Delete
    4. Jack, There definitely was a Blue Peter item on the LNM because I remember seeing it. I'm just not sure if that's where I saw the LNIB film of the monster by the shore.There were several features on Loch Ness on television in the 1960s so I can't be certain. As has been suggested, I think the film you remember may well be the Sidney Wignall film (which I haven't seen but have read about). These films are just as elusive the creature itself!
      Chris Morris

      Delete
    5. Thanks Chris and The Latman for the information about the Sidney Wignall films.

      They do seem to be what I was refering to although I thought they were taken much earlier. The vagaries of memory after so long is my excuse.

      It would be good to see these old films again.

      Delete
    6. Wonder if that would similar to the large creatures that keep being seen in Alaska lake?

      Delete
  12. I searched online and found an audio interview with Sidney Wignall on the 'British Universities and Colleges Film and Video Council'. I was unable to open it since one has to log in as a member. Perhaps one of you can manage?

    http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0002700071008

    Here's a description of the clip from the webpage:
    "Telephone interview with marine archaeologist Sydney Wignall on an expedition to try and find and photograph the Loch Ness monster. Male interviewer not identified."

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  13. It would be interesting to see the photos & videos he took from that wee flight over Morar. One could assume whatever is in Morar is related to Nessie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like could have been one of those lake monsters seals of Peter Costello!

      Delete
  14. Ok... Getty images claim to have a (the?) Wignall monster film. One can request view, haven't checked if that costs money but it's likely:

    https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/wignall-and-another-by-wing-of-plane-ditto-looking-at-news-footage/721155491

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I talked to them last year. They have a few seconds from ITN news but there are two obstacles - lots of money and copyright issues. I am talking to someone who says they have copyright permissions. We shall see.

      Delete
    2. Fingers crossed, im very curious as to what's in this video, though had it been as sensational as rumour has it, then wouldn't there have been large scale expeditions to Loch Morar?

      Delete
  15. Would love to think there is an unidentified large animal in either of these films but honestly believe that if they did contain something of significant scientific interest then there would have been a frenzy of media interest and both films would now be widely available and analysed and have prompted further investigation at both lochs.
    Sadly this didn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point, for if those 2 films were really legit . should have had some activity done trying to locate especially the Morar creature sighting!

      Delete
    2. I don't think there has ever been any suggestion that the LNIB film was not legitimate ( ie it was not genuine but fraudulent). The LNIB was a serious organisation. The only question was whether the film captured an unknown creature or something mundane such as a dog or seal. There was ongoing activity for a number of years trying to find more evidence by the LNIB itself and by several other high profile investigations.
      Chris Morris

      Delete
  16. There's this from the National Library of Wales, but you need authorized permission...

    "Transparencies connected with the professional and personal life of Sydney Wignall. Included are images of the 1981 Loch Ness Expedition, Domestic scenes, Royal Navy vessels, visit to Texas & New Mexico, North Molton Parish church."

    https://archifau.llyfrgell.cymru/index.php/sydney-wignall-collection-miscellaneous-slides

    ReplyDelete
  17. My favourite aspect to the Nessie mystery are 'lost films' that definitely show a monster. GB has covered them extensively on here and I love every story...

    In reality there will be no existing conclusive film we don't know about. Such film would be worth a considerable amount of money. There is absolutely no reason to sit on it. I'm not buying the ridicule aspect as why they wouldn't come forward with such footage either. If it's 'conclusive' then ridicule would not be an issue. I'm guessing that, at best, it'll be inconclusive - maybe as good as Dinsdale's film? But as they haven't fallen into our laps as yet we cannot be sure can we? And therein lies the beauty of the mystery.

    And all this said, I'll be the first one to admit I'm wrong if footage of an Elasmasaurus turns up, swimming past Urquhart castle, roaring into the camera from a few feet.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can remember the ITN news item in the early 80's. One brief clip of a creature floating in shallow waters and another wee clip where the creature (or another) appeared to be swimming at speed down the middle of the loch.

    In the shallows it had the classic features of hundreds of sightings. Long neck, bulky body, flippers or fins, and a longish thick tail.

    I was a little nonplussed at the complete of any reaction to it at the time. Possibly clear evidence of an as yet unidentified creature and next to no follow-up after the news snippet. Always wondered why.

    ReplyDelete