Monday 17 May 2021

The Lancashire Policeman who saw the Monster

 



Here is a sighting report that is new to me which recently appeared in the Lancashire Evening Post (link). It dipped into its archives to retrieve this account from 86 years ago and from which the illustration above was taken. I reproduce the text below.


Lancashire police chief spotted the Loch Ness Monster

Officer on holiday when he saw a creature in the Scottish loch

In August 1935, when the holiday season was at its height, one of Preston’s most prominent citizens journeyed to Scotland and returned to town with an astonishing tale. At that time the policing of Preston was carried out by the Preston Borough Police Force, under the guidance of the Chief Constable J P Ker Watson, who had been in charge for 20 years. That summer Watson packed his suitcase and headed for Scotland, in particular the area around Inverness.

During his vacation he drove along the road from Fort Augustus to Inverness and halted at the 13 miles to Inverness sign post, near to a castle on the shore of the famous Loch Ness. What he observed from his vantage point was to make the following headline in the Lancashire Evening Post - ‘The ‘Monster’ Of Loch Ness - Appears before Preston’s Chief Constable’. At that period of time the search for the Loch Ness Monster was a frenzied one with innumerable sightings and the Chief Constable had been told to look out for the creature as he ventured into Loch Ness territory.

He was keen to tell a Post reporter how he had seen a head and humps moving above the water, almost a mile from the shore. He estimated the length of the creature as between 25 and 30 feet with a relatively small head and very large bumps. Keen to record his sighting, he had done a rough sketch which the Post cartoonist Furnival happily reproduced for inclusion in the newspaper. He told the reporter he felt it was not unreasonable that a creature could survive in the deep waters, with vegetation in abundance on the bottom of the lake.

The Chief Constable then relating how many of the locals were convinced the monster did exist and thought it quite conceivable that such a creature could have come up into the loch and stayed there. With hundreds continually flocking to Loch Ness, hoping to catch a sight of the creature, it had boosted tourism in Inverness, but he felt the locals did not have any ulterior motive for publicising their monster’s existence. It seems Preston’s senior policeman was not the only Chief Constable who believed in the existence of ‘Nessie’, because in 1938 the Chief Constable of Inverness penned a letter stating that it was beyond doubt that the monster existed. He was at the time concerned over reports that a hunting party were about to descend on Loch Ness armed with harpoon guns and were determined to catch the creature ‘dead or alive’.

Sporadic sightings continued for some 30 years and in 1963 a film of the creature was taken on the loch – but from some five kilometres distance it was of poor quality. Some of the most infamous photos of the monster were taken by Lancashire man Frank Searle, who moved to Loch Ness in 1969 living in a tent looking for definitive proof of its existence. When his photos were published in 1972 it caused a worldwide sensation, before they were eventually exposed as fakes. Searle moved back to Fleetwood and lived out his years in relative anonymity in the port.

Now I have no idea whether this 13 miles signpost still exists. I would hazard a guess with the use of Google maps that the place he saw the beast was perhaps a mile north of the entrance to Temple Pier, which is on the opposite side of Urquhart Bay from the Castle. The object was a mile away from him and the fact that the improvised map in the illustration suggests it was between the castle and the distant monastery at Fort Augustus means he was more or less looking south down the loch.

Of course, Fort Augustus Abbey is not visible from Urquhart Bay and the map is rather idealized. You would think, looking at the map, that the monastery was on the other side of the loch from the Castle. Now as to the sketch of the monster, there are some issues which point to artistic licence. For example, no one is going to make out those eyes at one mile distance. But then again, for those who may suggest he saw a bird, I don't think birds are very visible at all at that distance.

The statement that there is an abundance of vegetation at the bottom of the loch is a wild guess and false. There is nothing but silt at the dark floor of the loch. Quite why the police officer thought the beast did not rather live off fish is a bit of a puzzle. However, the idea that the beast may have been a visitor who decided to stay in the loch had more merit. The estimate of 25 to 30 feet is a pretty standard monster size, though when such statements are made, one is never quite certain if the eyewitness is trying to include any invisible features such as a tail.

So, another sighting for the record, albeit a bit lacking in detail. The original article can be found on the British Newspaper Archive. If I renew my subscription, I will update this article.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com


62 comments:

  1. Nice article. Always nice to read about older sightings, even if they don't present exciting evidence or add detail to the creature's morphology.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gee, what's wrong with me today? i obviously meant biology, not morphology. feel free to ignore my comments, the cold weather here might be affecting me in more ways than one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If true then another sighting of the monster moving with the head and neck at the front,casting more doubt on the giant salamander tail idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I really liked the giant salamander idea, but alas the evidence doesn't quite convince me anymore (would be glad to be wrong though).

      Delete
    2. What would be your most likely creature now for Nessie then?

      Delete
    3. I never did buy the giant salamander idea from the start. As with the giant eel theory, it just doesn't conform to reported sightings and behavior attributed to the LNM. To think that a tail could be interpreted as a head/neck is a bit of a strech. If in fact it was a giant salamander, don't you think people would be seeing them in shallow tributaries or swamp areas? Besides, as amphibians, salamanders are cold blooded. Would they be able to thrive in the cold waters of the Loch?

      Delete
    4. We already have amphibians in Loch Ness in the form of frogs and toads. No idea about newts.

      Delete
    5. By coincidence, I just found this group hunting for another giant salamander/cryptid:

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/105467488087196/

      Delete
    6. Interesting, but can one seriously consider "giant" salamanders ( no more than 4-5 ft long) cryptids? After all they are known animals. More like a group of people who like salamanders.

      Delete
    7. Thought that there were fossil records of them getting 12-15 feet long though?

      Delete
    8. Perhaps in prehistoric times. Everything was bigger then.

      Delete
    9. Perhaps some of therm survived into present time then?

      Delete
  4. As Roland says, a mile is too far to make out eyes in a (tiny) head, and I don't read anything here to convince me the salamander idea is dead yet. But I've moved away from it since putting my chips on the McLean sighting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I rather liked the Giant Salamander idea...thought it was quite clever and original. Anyone any idea what happened to Steve?...Mia for many years now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that salamanders hadn't been mentioned before as a possibility before Steve Plambeck"s proposal. And his take on the tail as head/neck was indeed novel and unique, but it just was not a viable explanation for me.

      Delete
  6. Giant salamander/newt works best for me. If it was good enough for Gould in '34 that counts for a lot as it's a theory untainted by speculation and hoaxes over 90 years. There must have been a strong enough feeling for him to suggest that, he was diligent in his research and was the foremost expert in the world at the time. It's also not a "God of the gaps" theory where you end up trying to squeeze a "monster" into the available possibilities. It could live underwater, have "humps", occasionally come out onto land etc.

    Of course, it probably isn't (if indeed it exists at all) but based of most of the eyewitness accounts, credible photos and other evidence it fits quite snugly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought that he actually thought nessie might be a large Grey Seal?

      Delete
    2. I'm sure seals enter the Loch from time to time. But I would suggest that the chance of a large seal being solely or primarily responsible for 90 years of eye witness reports, photos and other tangible evidence of a giant "monster", are pretty much zero.

      Delete
    3. I agree, as Nessie could be a combo of various creatures seen over the years, as do not see only One animal as being all Nessie sightings!

      Delete
    4. Can you give an example of these combination of creatures?

      Delete
    5. Various cases of mistaken identity - long necked fishing birds for long necked monsters, large eels for humps/coils on the surface, sturgeon for humps and scales/plates, swimming deer. People going this route will point to Alex Campbell's shifting accounts as evidence; I think some sightings are too close to be mistaken identity...

      Delete
  7. Was listening to Scott Marsdis's most recent podcast with Ken Gerhard talking LN. Your name came up Roland, as Gerhard quoted you as Nessie head & neck only attributed to 15% of sightings. Point being iirc, that the preponderance of just hump(s) would give more weight to a giant eel or whathaveyou.

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  8. My apologies if I've suggested this before...

    If we look back to the Robert Badger account where he was within touching distance (no contact was actually made) he was in shallow water but still deep enough to hide a large creature due to the poor visibility. I know Roland has suggested that future 'hunts' should focus on the more shallow areas of the Loch and I agree, it's a great idea. So my reference to Robert Badger does have a point in regards to the giant salamander theory, if you watch footage of salamanders they can sit on the river/lake bottom for long periods of time and can remain motionless. Both salamanders and Eels prefer the darker waters and avoid the surface (I think) so for me personally I don't think Nessie is a salamander or an Eel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nessie could not though be an such as a large seal of some type, as they would be seen a lot on top of water and on land!So seems to be some type of fish or other under water creature

      Delete
    2. Don't you dare say eel! LOL

      Delete
    3. JesusFan tried to add comment "Just curious why so adament against some nessie sightings being very large eels though?"

      So we just had a big debate on the previous article on this and JesusFan tried to kick it all off again? Just go and read the previous article comments!

      Delete
    4. Sorry about that, just was looking for a one time answer, not intending to rehash the issue again!

      Delete
    5. Watch him GB, he's gonna try to sneak it in there anyway he can. Eelitis on the brain big time! Here's you brain on eels. LOL

      Delete
    6. Well JesusFan thinks there is more than one large species been seen in the loch, so he could discuss one of them.

      Delete
    7. Oh and btw, I think JesusFan brought a friend, "YeshuaFan". Writing styles are similar. Cowinkydink? I don't think so!

      Delete
    8. That's okay. JesusFan emailed me and said it was him. When his posts were being held back, he thought a change of id would fix the apparent problem.

      Delete
    9. Yes, think Nessie, the real sightings , would fit more then one creature, as still not sure if we might be dealing at times with a creatures that can get in the Loch and then back out, and also creatures land locked into Loch Ness!

      Delete
  9. A long-neck sighting rules out a lot of potential creature candidates. If the flipper accounts are also factored in, that rules out a number of other candidates as well. (If you wish to throw in to the mix the flipper photos in their original form, then these can't be salamanders.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which makes the Long neck seal come back into [lay, as they would have both that and flippers

      Delete
  10. One theoretical explanation for the LNM and lake monsters around the world could be gigantism in a local specie's population caused by acromegaly when a body produces an excess of growth hormone because of an abnormal pituitary gland. This could affect a small number of individuals of almost any species (fish, eels, snakes, turtles, seals, otters etc) who because of their advantage in size live longer and may consequently exhibit changes in behaviour and body morphology...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well. there have been rare reports of giant frogs!

      Delete
  11. Witnesses sometimes describe the LNM as having four limbs, in zoology lingo called a tetrapod. Amphibians, reptiles, mammals are some examples of tetrapods, fish are not.

    That being said, some fish like mudskippers move on land using their fins which could be mistaken for limbs. So a weird amphibious fish cannot be ruled out. Eels on land don't however move that way as far as I know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hard to see Nessie as a large reptile, due to them being cold blooded though, and seals and their ilk would be noticed quite a bit coming to the syrface and on land, so back to Amphibian or Fish

      Delete
    2. I'd plump for amphibian. It almost categorically cannot be an exclusive air breather (seal, whale, porpoise etc) as it would be caught, or spotted immediately with a thorough search, of which there have been hundreds.

      Delete
    3. Are there any known amphibians in the Loch not called Frogs though? And required to be very large, so would have to be a surviving prehistoric remnant ?

      Delete
    4. I'm sure there are newts and toads. I have no idea if they grey to great sizes in prehistoric times. My own personal theory is that it was a very large salamander/newt/ amphibian variant that either left/died or doesn't come up much anymore. It's probably not that of course, it's probably something I can't even imagine, but from the evidence available of recorded creatures it my best guess. I'd love it to be a plesiosaur - but it ain't or I could find it on my own in a few days. Ah well...

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure I understand your question correctly? But here's an illustrated list of non-frog/toad amphibians of britain if that's what you mean. The biggest is a mere 20 cm:

      https://www.field-studies-council.org/shop/publications/reptiles-and-amphibians-guide/

      Delete
    6. Thanks, was just asking if there is any evidence of there being amphibians in Loch Ness other then frogs, and what would be the largest one known of?

      Delete
    7. There are a couple of reports of it looking toad-like (an underwater one sticks in my mind - GB will know far better than I) but the majority of reports lean towards something longer and leaner. The only known amphibian fitting that description is a newt/ salamander or a mudskipper. I'd love it to be a gigantic toad. That would be absolutely hysterical. But it isn't.

      Delete
    8. Think there was a report of a 4 ft Frog?

      Delete
    9. Yup, spot on! A diver had a scary encounter with an odd looking "beastie" and compared it to a giant frog.

      That's a head scratcher for sure!

      Delete
  12. Haha, a giant toad would be fun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would mean that the seen neck was its tongue!

      Delete
    2. Yes! Of course silly. The better to snatch 2 ft long flies.

      Delete
  13. IF an amphibian, to fit the reports maybe this sort of body type WITH some inflatable air sacs that it can expand to humps? Total speculation, I know...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysorophia#/media/File:Brachydectes.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speculation back then and at this moment and time is always relevant Ken so don't worry mate.

      When first hearing the theory that Nessie could be capable of inflating I genuinely thought what a load of nonsense but after thinking on it for some time it's actually very plausible seeing as other animals from around the world have that exact ability.

      Delete
    2. That is why Nessie just might be a much bigger version of a known animal!

      Delete
    3. The Walrus, Pufferfish, Prairie Chicken, Inflatable Toads, Bustards, Elephant Seals, Sage Grouse, Puff Adders, and Frigatebirds. So, out of those mentioned the only animals that are water based are Seals, Toads, Pufferfish and a Walrus. None of which fit the bill in regards to size and lack of long necks. Which other water based animals are capable of inflating?

      Delete
    4. A unusually long neck large seal would have the neck and flippers covered!

      Delete
    5. There are zero reports of Long neck seals in the Loch. Seals do frequently visit the Loch so that much is true but it still doesn't explain the vast majority of other accounts.

      Delete
    6. True, but think the solution might be that there is not one creature that people are seeing as nessie, but maybe different ones? eels, seal, amphibians, fish etc?

      Delete
    7. Well yeah, thats the whole point to the mystery and the debate.

      It's easy to identify a seal, we all know what they look like. Eels will only be seen by angler's or even video footage from the depths. Amphibian wise, we have newts and frogs. The only reptiles that I'm aware of within Scotland are Adders, Slow worms and the Viviparous Lizard. All of which are land based and far too small to even be considered as the culprit.

      I'm a firm believer that whatever lives in the Loch is an unknown species.

      Delete
    8. I would agree. There's enough conflicting testimony to suggest something different is afoot.

      Delete
    9. I still think that we are dealing with more then one creature being seen as nessie though!

      Delete
  14. What is this film from 1963 the article mentions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might be in relation to the LNIB videos or perhaps the couple who were lucky enough to film a neck coming out the water as they stood on the shore. There are several documentaries that show a brief clip but the quality isn't the best unfortunately.

      I'm god awful with dates so there's a high possibility that I'm completely wrong on both suggestions.

      Delete