Wednesday, 13 October 2021

An Interesting Video from 1992

 


It was back in August 1992, that the British ITN news network channel ran an item on their late news program. It was the latest piece of video taken of a strange looking object in Loch Ness. To be more precise, in Urquhart Bay. The item caused a bit of a flurry at the time, but as with most pieces of monster evidence, it soon faded from view. 

Unfortunately, back in those days, if you didn't see it at the time, you were not likely to see it at all. At the time, I was working for a software company just outside London. My preferred channel for getting the news was the BBC, so I missed it. There was no Internet of any substance to publicize the event, no YouTube to rerun the video, and were there any discussion groups to tell others about it? There was email, but how many had email addresses in 1992?

Furthermore, my own interest in the Loch Ness Monster was at a low ebb as I concentrated on my career and had not been at the loch for about eight years, Also, the 1990s was generally not a great decade for positive discussions about large creatures in the loch (the top book of that decade was the expose of the Surgeon's Photograph). If I had been still subscribing to Rip Hepple's Nessletter, I would have eventually learnt of it in his January 1993 edition (No.111).

Finding sources 29 years on will always prove difficult without specific details. Internet archives tend to have a blind spot around the 1990s in my experience. It is just before media began to go online and the paper to digital archiving services seem to be busier with earlier decades. Thankfully, we have another contemporary source and that is Malcolm Robinson's Enigmas newsletter which was published under the banner of his Strange Phenomena Investigations organisation or SPI. The Nov-Dec 1992 issue ran an article on the video which we shall refer to later. Malcolm is known in Nessie circles for his 2016 book, The Monsters of Loch Ness.

As to the actual footage, it has been preserved for us via Nessie documentaries of the time with one preserved in YouTube at this link about 14:40 minutes in. It was fellow Nessie enthusiast, Alan McKenna, who contacted me about this old camcorder footage, and I thank him for also creating the clip of the video below. As you can see, the footage begins with part of the ruins of Castle Urquhart, but the eyewitness' attention is soon drawn to something out in the waters of the bay. 



Alan also improved the video clip to introduce a degree of stabilization to help us analyse the sequence more readily. This is shown below.



But, having initially thought any newspaper story on this was beyond reach, Steve Feltham came to the rescue with a clipping from the Sun newspaper dated August 17th, which he had kept since that day and which he sent to me. The story is reproduced below.



Amateur snapper may have filmed monster

By ALAN MUIR 

AN amateur cameraman may have filmed the Loch Ness Monster by mistake - while telly newsman Nicholas Witchell splashed out a fortune trying to find it.

Nessie experts - who admit the film shows a large water-living animal — have used hi-tech gear to enhance the pictures. You can see the result for yourself when the clip is shown on all of today's ITN's news programmes and STV and Grampian bulletins. The cameraman - who doesn't want to be named - thought he was filming a diver splashing about in the water. He trained his £400 camera on it for a few seconds before getting on with the rest of his summer holiday. But when he played the tape back at home in Balornock, Glasgow, he realised it was something much more exciting. He said: "At first I thought it was a man pushing something in front of him but then realised it was too big to be a diver. I don't believe in monsters myself and want to remain nameless so I don't become the butt of jokes in the pub."

But two mates who were on holiday with him have backed up the Nessie claims. Ian Hay and Arthur Alcorn are convinced their pictures prove the monster does exist. The startling piece of film shows a dark-coloured object thrashing about in the loch around 300 yards from shore. It has now been passed on to a team of university boffins in Glasgow. They used the latest electronic gear to try and solve the riddle and say it's definitely a living creature.

Team chief Peter Meadows - Glasgow University's senior zoology lecturer - said; "I was extremely sceptical when I first looked at the film. But I have now studied it and I'm amazed. There is definitely some form of water-living creature there." Two weeks ago we revealed a huge object tracked by newsreader Witchell may have been a 20 year-old model. The fake Nessie was made as an April Fool Joke by prankster students. It sank as soon as it with launched. 


Ian Hay and Arthur Alcorn

As to the question of how the video ends, it looks like the video simply ended when the owner concluded it was a diver and stopped or panned away. That was not an explanation proffered by anyone, but the owner discounted it himself later. I would agree it does not look like a person swimming. The phrase "a few seconds" also suggests there is little in the way of unseen footage. 

However, there are a couple of unknowns. There is a statement that "Nessie experts" used technology to enhance the pictures. Of this, we know next to nothing. Was the video seen on ITN enhanced or was it the original? I suspect they are just referring to video player equipment which can host a camcorder tape and has slow motion play, etc. The second unknown are pictures taken by his friends, Ian Hay and Arthur Alcorn. These may prove valuable in analyzing the object as a camera image will be more stable and of better resolution.

Getting to see such pictures is usually a difficult endeavor after such a long time. A look at the statutory records shows an Arthur Alcorn died at the age of 61 in Glasgow in 2009. This would appear to be one of our photographers and so the task becomes finding his next of kin. Ian Hay is a more common name and so more difficult to find him on the Internet. A resolution of this problem will have to be left to another day.

The quoted expert is Professor Peter Meadows who seems convinced of the film, but no other expert is quoted despite them being mentioned in the plural, it seems he was the "team chief" of the experts. So having perhaps viewed the video yourself, we will go onto those opinions as Malcolm Robinson hit the phones for his article.

First was the previously mentioned Professor Peter Meadows of Glasgow University stated as the senior lecturer in marine biology there.Again, he said he was initially sceptical of the film, but the more he watched it, the more it did not match anything he had ever seen before. He suggested the monster could be a warm blooded fresh water animal in the range of four and twelve feet in length. He ruled out seals, logs or waves and was very impressed by the video. I note that Professor Meadows was involved in the 1960s sonar work at Loch Ness.

Next up in the telephone directory was Professor Archie Roy of the Astronomy Department of the same university. He had seen the video on the news and was also of the opinion it was no wave but was not prepared to speculate further. This led to phone calls to two people who took a different view of affairs and are well known to Nessie researchers.

First was Steuart Campbell, who had published his sceptical book on the monster a few years before. Steuart was convinced that what we had here was "a rare interference effect between wakes". Since the video shows the wakes of previously passing boats, a scenario arises where these waves meet and constructively interfere results in a bulge of travelling water where the white portion is breaking waters. Steuart also stated a steep sided loch helps in these matters and he believes this is the first time such an effect has been filmed at the loch.

To complete the roster came Adrian Shine. He agreed with Steuart that a wave effect had been seen. However, unlike Steuart's observation that such effects were rare, Adrian said he saw such a thing a few weeks before. He also thought the poor contrast of the film added to the illusion of a solid object. Interestingly, Adrian said he was told by ITN that the original video had been mistakenly destroyed when being analysed! At this point in time, perhaps Adrian could be described as sceptically undecided on what the monster may be. 

So, we had two for and two against. Malcolm cast the deciding vote and went with Campbell and Shine. The other source mentioned before was Rip Hepple's Nessletter. Rip confessed he had not seen the ITN piece but subscribers wrote to him with the unanimous opinion it was yet again a wave effect and nothing more was said about it.

So now let us take a look at this video nearly three decades on. I will confess first that I have seen the video before Alan contacted me. I don't know where and when, but at the time I also put it down as a wave effect and moved swiftly on. Now I am not so dismissive of this clip. However, we do lack some context here. There may be some missing video, so some vital piece of information may be missing, but the quality of the video is likely inferior to the original.

So all we really have are the clips above which I played over a number of times with certain things in my mind. The idea of constructively interfering boat wakes to produce unexpectedly large waves is a perfectly valid theory. However, my thinking is that something is missing. In the video we can see two wakes above and below the water disturbance. Steuart's explanation of wakes interacting and interfering obviously begs the question of where are these interacting waves?

If you look closer, you can see typical boat wakes around but well beyond this object. This water disturbance has a very solitary look to it with nothing around it to suggest waves coming together. In fact, I cannot see anything indicating this is the product of constructively interfering wakes. Therefore, in my opinion, this interpretation of what is in the video should be dropped.

Where does this leave us? Actually, still stuck in the domain of general wave effects, as Adrian Shine more cautiously put it. One could add windrows, cats paws and wind devils, but I do not think anyone is suggesting these. That leaves one more proposed theory and that is soliton waves. These are an unusual phenomenon where the bow of a vessel can under certain circumstances generate a standing wave which can travel for long distances without deformation or diminution. 

They are generated when a boat reaches what is called the Froude Height, which can be calculated for certain bodies of water. This basically equates to the speed of the bow waves in that water. That speed is given by the equation below where V is the speed of the wave, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the depth of the water below.


If this water disturbance in the loch is a soliton wave and since it is very deep at that point out in the loch, I estimate about 100m deep, then the speed comes out at about 31 metres per second or about 70mph or 60 knots. It is fair to say that the object in this video is not going at anywhere like that speed. Though I suppose one may argue that it is a soliton in its death throes.


The next equation is the Froude Depth and when this number reaches 1, a soliton wave is produced. Or to put is more simply, when the boat catches up with its own bow wave, the soliton takes shape. That will happen when the boat speed equals the wave speed. As we saw, this was about 70mph on that part of the loch. Needless to say, no regular boats do that kind of speed on the loch. The usual cruisers don't go much above 11 knots and even the fast RIB boats only go up to the 40 knots. Even if they did reach such speeds, it is doubtful that the loch is narrow enough to allow solitons.

That does not mean soliton waves are impossible at the loch but they are more likely to occur at shallower depths around the narrower rivers and canals. Assuming a depth of about 3-4 metres in those parts, soliton waves could theoretically be produced. In fact, the first soliton wave was observed in the Union Canal in Edinburgh by John Scott Russell in 1834.

If a boat was at its Froude Depth as it entered the loch from the north or south waterways, it is conceivable that in some circumstances, a soliton wave could enter the loch. But how it would look and behave as it entered deeper waters is a matter of speculation. One would also expect it to be quite close to the originating boat unless the boat stopped or dropped speed when docking. I am no expert in wave dynamics, but that is the way I see it.

Of course, some other wave theory could be brought to the fore, I invite comments to that effect. Meantime, what is to be made of what we see minus the water effects? If I could describe some abstract object to explain what I was looking at, it was like one of those dumbbells you see in old strongmen pictures - except they are buoyant and bobbing along but also rotating about each other, one sphere submerging while other bobs up. A bit strange, but the best I could sum it up.



Alan thinks he can see a long dark neck at about 40 seconds in the second enhanced video but I am not sure if it is shadow or solid. Could these two "dumbbells" be construed as humps? Perhaps, though I am trying to think of another eyewitness report which describes two humps moving in this mutually "orbital" fashion. I do recall some reports from the 1930s where one hump would go round in circles, but not two. If it was alive, one would think two creatures were involved. It is a hard image to interpret in biological terms, though just defaulting to our wonderful shape shifting water seems too simplistic and lazy to me.

Double hump sightings form a good proportion of the total reports, indeed, the Aldie Mackay report which began the modern trend was such a sighting (below). It is not always clear whether one or two creatures are involved, it partly depends on how far apart they are. The video "humps" seem too far apart to be connected, but this is something one cannot be sure about.




As to size, there is a lack of frame of reference to make an estimate, though if it is as far out in the bay as it looks, it is likely as big as one of the boats that regularly traverse the loch. The white water breakers can be as much at home breaking against a solid object as they are part of a bigger water formation. Perhaps there is more to this footage than meets the eye, but whether we can take this further forward may be down to an erudite comment from a reader or two.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com


93 comments:

  1. I remember very well when this video was shown on News at Ten nearly 30 years ago (talk about having a memory like an elephant). It was presented by Trevor McDonald and from what I can recall the Loch Ness footage was actually the very last of the news items shown, because after it finished McDonald, with a semi-amused expression, said something to the effect "and that really was the News at Ten!". The implication here seemed to be that the story was really of entertainment value and something that perhaps the British media didn't take too seriously.

    Having said that, I have been searching for the video for a few years now and couldn't find it anywhere online so it was good to see it re-appear after all this time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi there. I've seen identical formations from a beach just South of Dores, in 1998.
    I got excited looking at what seemed to be a relatively stationary hump, which seemed to glisten at times, just West of mid-loch, not too far South East of the Clansman Hotel.

    I started videoing the form, but was concerned it seemed to be rolling/surging, but not 'moving forwards'. Through binoculars it was seen to be a 'standing wave' - just water having an effect of appearing a couple of feet above the water's surface.
    There was a rolling effect where a mass seemed to appear to the North, lunge forwards, glisten and end abruptly, collapsing on water's surface. This was seen to repeat again, and again, etc. A rolling surge of water.

    I remember seeing this video in 1992. I believe it shows a similar 'standing wave'. To the left a dark shape appears, moves slightly forwards, glistened by sun, before ending abruptly. Another dark shape appears again in exactly the same area.... and again...and again. (if this was a living creature, it would have to be doing loop the loops or be incredibly long to repeatedly be breaking the surface in the exact same area?).

    Rare wave formations for sure, but I've seen them a couple of times now on the Loch, at various times. Supposedly they are weird interference patterns of wakes, having spread laterally, hitting the shores and rebounding, to move to the original source of wake, forming a 'hump' of water - or at least that's what I was informed. The time taken to spread sideways, hit shores and return, in a Loch at least a mile wide, allows plenty of time for the cause of the wake (invariably a boat) to disappear from view down the Loch.

    That's my take of the video anyway,
    Cheers, Aron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, I don't suppose your video of this is available to contrast and compare?

      Delete
    2. I would also add I expect to see evidence of the overall interference pattern in the 1992 video. Also, this idea that the waves rebound from the loch sides is stated but not explained. I think nothing reflects that has any noticeable effect.

      Delete
    3. I understand that waves can reflect, but this is far from the sides and there is no other visible waves in immediate proximity to it, how can it be reflected waves when there's no other wave like behaviour around it, it looks like animate object(s) in the water.

      Delete
    4. i think that wakes rolling to both shores then rebounding back out to meet itself in the middle is pure folk law. watch a wake hit the shore, precious little if any of it ever even rebounds a few feet.

      Delete
    5. Steve -I'd say not so much folklore as laws of physics and fluid dynamics in a pure experimental situation. I have a swimming pool. I play with/observe wakes all the time as part of my interest in the lake monster
      phenomenon. With no interference a wave created at one end of the (ovalish) pool will travel in both directions around the pool and create a quite impressive hump (of water) and splash at the opposite end; a good foot high splash. But the more interference you add (other people in the pool, boats on the loch) the weaker this action is. And my pool is nowhere near as long or as wide as Loch Ness. So I agree with your point; but what do you think this video shows? You may answer this in other comments; I'll read them if so...

      Delete
    6. I agree, if the cynics were right, then these waves can roll on ad infinitum!

      Delete
  3. I get the arguments for a wave phenomenon, but, why is it so isolated and nothing else around it. To me, it could be interpreted as 2 (juvenile?) animals frolicking in the water.

    The low quality of the video make it very difficult to determine either way I think.

    ReplyDelete
  4. .....Oh, and I was half expecting to see an update on Wignall and Morar?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This would be completely fascinating if you've made progress here Roland.
      My one and only attempt to further this failed . I was in correspondence with a guy on Facebook(I know!)who said he had seen it. Unfortunately the contact stopped. He said it very clearly shows a crocodile type creature ,with the 4 legs/ paddles obvious as well as the long tail.
      We know it's Morar and not Loch Ness. The water here is crystal clear.
      Not adding much to it but also spoke to a couple who were shown it as part of a small group, including tourists,in Invermoriston, in the mid 80s. Again a "very still creature" near the shore is described. I understand 2 creatures form another part of the sequence but they didn't recall that.

      Delete
    2. I don't recall all the details of the Morar sightings. When you say "crocodile-type," does that mean short neck? There was also a second sighting, not as clear, suggesting a similar creature?

      Delete
    3. Ron, there was nothing unusual about the neck, as I recall from speaking to John on FB and the couple I mentioned. In other words not the classic plesioaur description so much associated with Loch Ness. What was mentioned was the inverted v shape head we associate with the alligator family. Pure estimates of 15 to 20 feet long were mentioned.
      Obviously we'd love to know from what height the footage was taken.
      Hopefully Roland can provide further information as time goes by.
      In relation to the second sequence,yes,apparently not as clear, mentioned by John as looking like 2 creatures moving below the surface.
      The couple I mentioned didn't recall seeing this.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the memory jog about the non-plesiosaur description. It's hard enough to pin down one unknown species let alone a possible other; it does heighten the suspicion Ness and Morar's proximity to the ocean has something to do with all this. In any event, you have to appreciate Scottish lakes for keeping things interesting.

      I'll look forward to Roland's upcoming post.

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

      Delete
  5. Interesting indeed.
    As an amateur with no expertise and just looking at it as is ,suggests something doing an about turn . Can a wave do this? I don't know. I've never seen it. It looks like a solid object to me. It's quite the distance out and on an otherwise very calm loch.
    I find the distinctive white area ,moving and retaining its shape, as intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's my take too, poor quality video doesn't help, but it looks like animate object(s) to me.

      Delete
    2. @The Latman, I tried my best to upscale and stabilise the 1992 footage but I'm no expert on the matter. I'm glad that you feel there's an object(s) in both clips, that's promising.

      Delete
    3. I'll second Pm's take. Watching the stabilized clip, my impression is also of something quite distinctly turning in the water at the 40-second mark. I can't make out what it is, or whether it's a single object, but it appears to be animate rather than wave-like. Thanks for presenting this.

      Delete
    4. @Ron You are very welcome mate. At first glance I'll even admit that I thought it was just waves but after isolating the clip and weeks/months of trying to get the best possible quality (hard to do since it was back in 1992 and a shaking camera) my mind very quickly changed and I started to think that this footage is special and deserves some investigating.

      Delete
    5. Of course I'm stating my amateur, armchair impressions. Aron's earlier conviction of it being a wave, as well as Steve Feltham's postings down below, both based on on-site experiences, temper those impressions somewhat but don't negate them, nor your appreciated efforts to identify what we're seeing.

      Delete
    6. @A.R. Apologies if any offence was taken re: the quality of the video, the stabilisation is fine, I just meant it's hard to really see what is there, if anything. I do believe there is something there, but not being an expert on waves, Im not going to argue with those who are. Great job with the Vid though A.R.

      Delete
    7. @TheLatman - No worries, you never caused any offence mate so it's all good.

      Delete
  6. Just curious to how many "good sightings: from either photos or videos now would have to be regarded as merely waves? Is the Holmes video still regarded as being a real animal then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Holmes footage certainly doesn't show a windrow like certain individuals claim. I believe G.Holmes captured an animal with his footage but what? That's the million dollar question.

      Delete
    2. I see a 12-15 ft long eel in that video, but others see an otter!

      Delete
  7. Impressive. So this is the video AR promised a few months ago? If so, worth the wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Lulu You're spot on! I'm sorry that it took so long but better late than never as they say. Very glad that you feel it was worth the wait. Appreciate it!

      Delete
  8. Firstly, I want to thank Roland for taking the time to speak with me and the opportunity to contribute something towards the ongoing and never-ending mystery of Loch Ness. I can't take any credit as the original footage does not belong to me but I'm delighted that it's now getting some well deserved attention.

    I'm being honest here and even biased I guess but I personally don't agree that this is a wave, a standing wave or two wakes/wave colliding with one another because there is far too much movement if that makes sense. It's easy enough to scream wave/wake but how can we explain the very clear movements of something turning?

    Roland is correct in what he said about my opinion on the second video around the 40s mark. I urge everyone to really look hard and if able, slow down the video even more because like Roland said I personally can see a neck turning from our right to the left. It reminds me of previous accounts where eyewitness testimony describe watching an animal dipping its head/neck in and out the water as if it were feeding or simply just having fun.

    I treat and approach any potential evidence with an open mind and apply logic to eliminate all possibilities and in this case I can honestly say that this footage in my opinion is the best evidence of a large creature in the Loch. Bold statement I know!! Again, I am being biased. We have all gained a vast amount of knowledge over the years on natural phenomena and behaviours that occur both on the surface of the Loch and down below, we are well aware of this and that's something most skeptics seem to forget.

    I really do hope that others feel the same so I urge you again to keep revisiting both clips which Roland and myself have provided, it's truly fascinating!

    Hope everyone is doing well.

    A.R (Alan McKenna)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think that this was?

      Delete
    2. Have you heard of the Loch Ness Monster? 😉

      Delete
    3. Yes, do you think that the creature in Loch ness would be same as morar then?

      Delete
    4. @jesusFan - I honestly couldn't say considering we still don't know for sure what lurks in both Lochs.

      Delete
    5. Alan, thank you for bringing this video up with Roland and for your efforts with enhancing the footage! I'm very familiar with it via "The Secrets of Loch Ness" which Roland linked - my favourite Nessie documentary! I've always been 50/50 with this particular clip myself (sitting on the fence, I know) but it's great that it's being discussed and debated so comprehensively here!

      Do drop us a line when you can if you're up for more discussion! :-)

      Delete
    6. Lawrence, good to hear from you mate. I've sent you a wee text message so I'm hoping you get that. Speak soon mate!

      Delete
  9. hi Roland,ive only just started reading this article, and glancing on ahead of myself i see that ive got some good old high brough mathematics ahead of me, im unaway whether the location is going to play an important part in your analysis but i thought it best to correct your first assumption before i go any further...
    the object is not in Urquhart bay, it is straight out from the castle across the width of the loch looking towards the south shore in the main deeper part of the loch, and id estimate that its about 500 yards away from the shore.
    ...anyway, i will read on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. so, ive watched all three relevant clips over and over again. ultimately the most important clip to me is the first youtube one lifted from the documentary. the first half of that clip is the original footage just replayed at normal speed, the second half of the footage in the documentary is the same bit of film zoomed in, slowed down and then highlighted with a circle.
    to understand what you are looking at you have to look only at the first half during which time you could roughly say that there are three rises and falls of the object.
    the speed of that cycling motion is important and when i look at the two clips that Alan has provided i believe that they are both substantially slowed down. slowing the clips is great for peering into them in the hope of getting a glimpse of what might be there, and to maybe even begin to see a neck, but once you slow the film down you can forget trying to decide whether its a colliding boat wake or not.
    so to me the important bit to watch is the first half of the original youtube clip, the only bit played at the original real speed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Steve Very good point Steve. To save others the bother I do have the clip with normal speed, it's nothing special apart from me editing the main documentary itself.

      I can make that available to others if Roland would be happy to upload it here, that way everyone can see all three clip from a 'different perspective' so to speak. I understand what you are saying about the speed but even at the original playback speed I believe it still shows us something pretty special...

      Delete
  11. a couple of possibly relevant observations..
    obviously its a blue sky sunny day. it must have been bright and sunny for at least the previous 3-4 days or else the five visitors to the castle in shirt sleeves in the foreground at the start of the video would not be sat straight onto the grass, in fact 3 of them are lying on the grass so the ground must be thoroughly dry.
    as the camera pans up from them towards the disturbance there is a mystery wake seen just above the castle wall rolling into the shore, this wake does not look at all like it belongs to whatever caused the wake that is clearly visible further out, because the far one is travelling east to west and the one at the shore is more like west to east, and it looks likely to be caused by something faster.
    so there are several boats moving about in the vicinity at this time.
    sitting on Dores beach for 30 years now iam incredibly familiar with the wakes that speedboats cause.
    i havent got a mathematical equation for this, so heres a simple excercise...
    draw a 'U' shape on a piece of white paper, (if you dont have white paper then any colour will do), imagine that the line of that 'U'is the route taken by a speedboat. now draw onto the line the boat wake along the line of that 'U' radiating out from your line. as the boat turns at the base of the 'U' note what happens to the lines of the wake. on a calm day when a speedboat turns sharply, (and often cavitates a little bit too) its wake meets itself at the centre of that 'U' shape and a standing wave will occur, and as all the peeks of the wake meet that point, some originating from before the turn and some from after the turn ( so, converging from opposite directions to each other)it will create a standing wave that will appear to cycle, and because water is converging on this point that cycling hump will appear to get bigger and bigger then subside. the rest of the wake often seems to disappear in comparison to this large cycling hump. ive seen it happen hundreds (and hundreds) of times here - i point them out to people, because they are great to watch. mostly the ones i see here are much closer to me, if they are far out in dores bay then you have no chance of seeing the rest of the boat wake thats not involved in the cycling standing wave.
    the reason i mention the long dry spell indicated by the people in shirt sleeves sat directly on the dry grass is because thats exactly when the speedboats come out, and in front of the castle is exactly where they go, and that unclaimed wake rolling into the shore tells me that a speedboat may well not be far away.
    you say that dismissing this video as a standing colliding cycling boat wake is the lazy way out... i dont follow your logic.
    thats what it looks like to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can understand why you would stick with the wave theory, but I would like to push on it as much as possible - hence the lazy bit I mentioned as regards the use of this by others throughout the decades.

      At your eye level at Dores, Would it be difficult to get a good view of the overall wave patterns? This footage gives us a higher up view of what is going on. I see no evidence of U turns or interacting wakes. I see other wakes far off which show no evidence in the footage of being connected with the disturbance.

      You may say the required waves have conveniently faded away, but since this supposed wave was dependent on their combined energy, it should not be far behind them in fading. So, it may be a wave, but can that be deduced from this footage? Indeed, if Nessie was just below the surface disturbing the water, how would one avoid calling that a wake effect 100% of the time?

      Delete
  12. i will make every effort to film one next summer and post it on my facebook group then tag you into it Roland. ive filmed them before, but im not going through boxes of video tapes in search of a clip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I would be interested in seeing that, preferably higher up to see the whole nexus of wave patterns. I have looked around and found nothing so far. Dick Raynor and the Loch Ness Project post wave effects pictures, but nothing looks like this video.

      Delete
  13. Hi Roland,
    Very interesting read, I remember seeing this footage at the time. The object is very unusual looking, it reminds me when a duck is shot and wounded and falls on water it keeps on moving round and round in this circular fashion.I wonder are we viewing something that is wounded by boat traffic etc. Also on the improved video clip, at 29 seconds, there seems to be an exposed small fin, on the castle side of the object, well that is only my opinion.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've sent several emails over these past few months to individuals who demonstrate the effects of a standing wave, there's a fair amount of experiments which have been uploaded to YouTube. So far I can't see any examples that match the video clips within this post.

    I fully understand that a standing wave may present as bumps, especially if seen from ground level and those who are unfamiliar with the Loch may jump to the monster conclusion. As Roland pointed out earlier we have a decent advantage from a more elevated location and let's assume that we are all smart enough to know a wave when we see one regardless if the behaviour is puzzling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not presume we all know a wave when we see one, regardless if its behaviour is puzzling!
      that is absolutely incorrect.
      People bring many photos and videos to me to have a look at every year. Back in 1991 when I arrived full time at the loch Adrian Shine gave me a great bit of advice - if there is a photo or video to have a look at get the eyewitness to discribe what they saw before you look at their film.
      I have always done so from that day on.
      As a result I have listened to some incredibly passionate discriptions of sightings that would rival some of the best reports ever given, and that without the accompanying film evidence would go straight into any register of sightings, Only to then view their photo or video and without a shadow of a doubt identify a boat wake, windrow or any other wave related action.
      Obviously far from all the video and photo images that I see can be dismissed so easily.
      But please don't assume that everyone will be able to identify natural phenomenon correctly.

      Delete
  15. ... And if you want even more obvious evidence that not all people are 'smart enough to know a wave...' (your words) you only have to take a look at the catalogue of 'sightings' from the webcam!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK. Again, fair play and fair point Steve perhaps I should have approached it with different words and been more clear of my meaning. When I say 'smart enough' I don't mean it to be an insulting gesture at all. What I should have said is that the individuals within this blog and readers who are 'regulars' should be able by now to call a wave and when not to call a wave. Perhaps that's my own downfall, I set an explanation so on reflection I'll be sure not to do that in future.

      I know you are keen on this standing wave approach and wakes colliding or rebounding so to speak but you aren't alone in witnessing this phenomena, you of course have the best seat in the theatre so I respect your opinion and I acknowledge your experience but I still do not agree with you, I'm very confident and hand on heart believe this is NOT a wave.

      Life would be so dull and boring without debate and asking questions. This is the part I love when discussing Loch Ness, it's great hearing everyone's opinions, facts, theories and that's why the Nessie community remains fun and insightful.

      Delete
    2. Hi A.R,
      Your last paragragh was very well composed, and I share this view, but not all of us do!!! Someone in this blog is stuck on the same four words, which keep repeating over and over again, that it actually get's boring listening to it.
      Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    3. I'm not too sure what those four words are Eion but thank you for your comment on my last paragraph. We may not all agree at times but that's the beauty of it I guess mate.

      Delete
    4. feelings mutual Alan, i respect your passion for the subject, and your level headed consideration of the evidence, also your extensive time spent sat quietly on the lochside watching and waiting, contemplating and speculating. thats the fun of it, its the chase, and the possibilities.
      keep up the good work, and keep that open mind.

      (as for you Eoin, are the four words you get bored of hearing... "THAT ...WEBCAM...IS ...USELESS....?")

      Delete
    5. That genuinely means a lot to me Steve so thank you very much for saying so, it's put a big smile on my face.

      I might actually be at Loch Ness tomorrow. My wife drops Kylo (our dog) and myself at the Loch for four hours while she works from Inverness for the day. If all goes to plan then I'll be back on that Lochside with a keen eye for a few hours. Hopefully get to meet you one day Steve. All the best!

      Delete
  16. The Jacobite tour boat passes out of my view behind Tor point every day at 4.15pm. On a calm day it takes 22 minutes for its wake to wash up on the slipway in front of my home. I watch it majestically roll across Dores Bay, sometimes I time it.
    Many times people have rushed over to my van to ask me why iam not filming Nessie, or they photograph it then bring the photo over to me saying "you missed it mate, it was right there in the bay".
    This happens regularly. Boat wakes can be very deceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My initial thoughts on this video is that it shows a wave because of the rhythmic movements which seem to be repeating. But I agree with Eoin O Faodhagain,that at 29 seconds on the improved video clip I can also see a small fin or appendage, it is only there for a fraction of a second but is it an effect of the waves or part of a creature, something to give pause for thought.

    I look forward to an update on the Sidney Wignall film. I remember seeing this many years ago and recall the Crocodile shape, this seems at odds with the description given by Donald Simpson who saw Morag crossing a gravel bar and sinking into the water. More food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have been sightings of crocodile like creatures up in the thames riven, so something coming in from the seas then?

      Delete
    2. Coming up the Thames, then getting the night train from King's Cross up to Inverness, then the bus to Dores and from there into the loch... Possible I suppose. (insert your own laughing face emoji here).

      Delete
  18. Interesting video.If this is a wave then im suprised we have not got more footage like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely Gezza but I'm sure others will say something along the lines of you need to be in the right place and the right time but isn't that the case and backbone of the entire mystery? Pictures are great but video footage is better when trying to debunk a specific account. Until someone comes forward with footage showing the exact same behaviour as the clips provided then I'm standing firm on the belief that this is no wave.

      Delete
  19. I'll be back with some... But obviously I won't be able to post comparison videos here so I will let you know when I put them on my Facebook group page.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be great Steve. For what it's worth I want to believe that we are all on the same team here, we seek answers ALL the time and it is important to breakdown each piece of potential evidence and if by the end we still form a difference in conclusion then so be it.

      Delete
  20. I'm leaning 60/40 to this being some kind of animal. The main reason for me is the color of the thing which seems different from the surrounding water. Or is it just a trick of the light? I've combed the internet for pictures of seiches, solitons etc and nothing looks quite like this. But show me footage of a strange wave like it and I will stand corrected!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Ken,
    Steve will trawl through his archives to prove in his eyes he is right, and everyone else is wrong, and will come up with some waffle wave footage. I think it will be difficult even for him, to come up with the same footage.I suspect all you will get is Waffle, Undercooked at that.
    In my opinion, this footage is not a wave. The general opinion on this blog is not leaning towards a wave either, it is just not that simple to cry wave at every turn.
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Eoin. You summed up my feelings exactly. Sick and tired of nonsensical rubbish from Mr Feltham who has contributed precisely nothing to the debate. Very good at looking at this blog and pouncing immediately to denigrate anything which goes against his ridiculous narrative. Yet you have the contributors who seem to think Mr.Felthams opinion is important and should be sought.
      His mentor Mr.Shine is of a similar mindset. How I wish Roland would stop entertaining his nasty soundbites and give us all a break from him.
      Keep up the good work re the cam footage. Doubtful you'll get much support here but carry on regardless.

      Delete
    2. Agh, flame wars! No more. If anyone has an issue with Steve's methodology or diplomacy skills, he has his own forum on Facebook to raise issues.

      https://www.facebook.com/groups/141086595460/

      Just click "join" and let the debate resume!

      Delete
  22. Completely anecdotal I know but I saw this clip when I was about 19 at a time when I fully believed the creature was a plesiosaur (it was on a really excellent video about the subject). I immediately thought - "what a beautiful anomaly". But even as a young man I realised it was a wave effect. I have no supporting evidence for this other than a few boat trips and living by the sea (GB your understanding of wave science is extremely impressive, ditto Steve) but I ultimately reached the same hard line conclusion I reached 20 years ago that I do now. Which is: even if it is a "monster" it's inconclusive. And if I'm wrong here then please tell me what you see with clarity? There simply is not enough information to make any kind of scientific declaration. In my opinion at best it falls into the 'intriguing' category, but I can understand completely why others may see something more.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Kyle I don't think anyone here has ever claimed to have made a scientific declaration, unless you are speaking about the entire subject as a whole?

    It's pretty obvious by now where I stand on these clips but I still very much welcome all opinions and suggestions. When speaking with Roland I did make a suggestion about me applying some sort of 'Director Commentary' over the playing video so others could see and understand my meaning. It could still do that I guess but I'd rather not as I want individuals to draw their own conclusions and me pointing out specifics moments may influence others but that could also be a positive at the same time.

    Let's wait to hear more from others mate, cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey A.R. I'd love to hear a director's commentary. I think I was more commenting on the clip as the "magic bullet" required to prove the mystery to scientific satisfaction. I think it's fascinating but even if it is the "monster" it can't really show what it is. I personally think it's a wave but will certainly listen to theories on what it could be.

      Delete
    2. Cheers Kyle. I can't promise anything but I will at least try and set something up with dialogue. I am honestly god awful at trying to explain things and the fact that this is Loch Ness related means it'll be even more tricky for me haha I won't put a time on this as of yet but I will definitely explore the options of doing some sort of commentary. Cheers

      Delete
  24. It's useful to note that in the documentary Loch Ness Monster: Fact or Fiction, which is when this clip first was aired, there is audio as well as video. It's telling that the video begins with shots of at least 10 people in view, on the grounds of Urquhart Castle and no doubt many more out of camera view. And yet when the camera is trained on the anomaly/object, there is no audible commentary by any of the bystanders. No one cries out, no one shouts "Hand me my Camera!". Were none of the tourists looking at the Loch so they came so many miles to see? Or was the object demonstrably a wave and not worthy of commentary? The resolution simply won't answer this definitively. It could be two animals chasing each other or in pursuit of a fish at the surface. It could be one animal rolling over and over, with one or two of it's flippers hurling water to the right, causing foam to break. To my eyes, it's more of a whirlpool. But it does seem isolated, as the arms of two wakes are quite a distance from the object. It would benefit from digitization. May I also make a request that the unpleasant comments about others' opinions please be given a rest? The object can only have one explanation. We don't know what it is. Please let's keep the juvenile name calling out of this. This site is too valuable a resource to go the way of other chatrooms covering the LNM, where they finally just had to turn off comments. Roland has done Yeoman work with all his research and postings. I for one want him to continue without all the schoolyard taunting in these posts. Maybe I'm in the minority. . . .

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gentlemen c'mon! Let's keep the focus on this post and the content within.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi MD,
    You mention schoolyard taunting etc, but really the matter rests solely on Roland. He can stop any unpleasant comments been published, so the question is, Why has he let them in?
    Eoin O Faodhagain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freedom of speech versus censorship. Some I let in, some I don't. I certainly will not let every single comment through nor stop every comment that may offend someone somewhere. It's an art rather than a science. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

      Delete
    2. You do a bang up job. If I ever got censored for an opinion I'd take it on the chin. It can get heated pretty quickly sometimes.

      Delete
    3. I always find it odd that whenever we see an object like this in a river, it’s an otter, occasionally a seal, a large fish, etc…but whenever it’s in Loch Ness, it’s a wave. I’ve been to the Loch plenty of times & sat & watched for hours in varying conditions, all around the Loch. I’ve never seen anything resembling this, and certainly not a combining of waves/boat wakes. The sceptics answer to everything. Scoundrels.

      Delete
    4. If able then I recommend mirroring your phone to the TV for a bigger picture. I've done this a few times now and again personally I see an animal rather than a wave. Give it a go!

      Delete
  27. Another thing that I find mildly curious is the ending of the film. He either stopped filming what he thought was nessie whilst whatever it was was still on the surface,which if you think you are filming nessie I struggle to believe he would do, or the ITN documentary director looked at the full version and decided that the rest of the video did not enforce the narrative of it being nessie so cut it off mid cavort, he would have surely made the clip longer if the rest of the footage was as impressive as the bit that made the final edit.
    Or is there another plausible scenario that I am missing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did say in the article that the rest of the video may well inform the debate better. Knowing TV editors, this must constitute the "best bit" or at least as good as the rest. TV clips normally just last seconds, so they always appear to be cut off in mid stride. Bottom line, nobody knows, we probably no longer have the full video going by what Adrian Shine said back then.

      Delete
    2. Correct me if I'm wrong...

      The Peter Bodette footage from Lake Champlain is a good example to use here. The media/station had complete consent from Bodette to show the entire footage but they only played a few seconds and as far as I'm aware the full footage has never been shown to the public.

      Delete
  28. So there's a good chance that the entire video has never been seen in public then.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My head turns to those who don't want to be named. That's their choice of course and we each have free will to decide that so it's not a negative, it's just frustrating. It's me. Others may feel different. Even though I believe this not to be a wave, if the entire video was shown and the conclusion was a wave then surely you'd be OK with being named? Or is it the other way around? If this did show a large animal then perhaps you'd want to be named as your name would forever be tied to the great mystery? It's a bizarre question to think about but I guess it all boils down to that individual who filmed this clip another Others over the years.

    Does any of that make sense? I'm awful at trying to explain myself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get your point. Whilst I think it looks very much like an animal of some variety, it is a bit funny that nobody else is pointing at this disturbance, though, nobody seems to be looking in that direction & perhaps the filmer has the advantage of the high ground.

      This begs the question of, why wasn't there more fanfare out of this 'sighting' if it does indeed show an animal in the loch.

      Delete
    2. Yup. Strange how these pieces of potential evidence do nothing but raise more questions rather than answers. Aww well, that's Loch Ness in a nutshell!

      Delete
    3. @TheLatman - It would appear that Steve has found the answer to why no one else became excited. The individual who was filming believed he was only looking at a diver rather than an animal.

      Delete
  30. Yes, but it seems highly unlikely that that's the whole film, you don't go whale waiting and only bother to film the whale leaping up out of the water and then stop filming before it crashes back down onto the water, and we are talking about a moment filming the world's most elusive animal, he should didn't stop filming mid sighting? A name would be the breakthrough, surely the inverness courier will have covered the story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feel free to join the hunt Steve (pardon the pun) I know Roland has done some digging and I have too but sadly nothing yet has surfaced. I encourage others to do the same. You're right though Steve, a name would be great but a monster would be better ;)

      Delete
  31. OK, I've found some names for you. I've got an article from the Sun from Monday 17th August 1992.
    The guy who filmed it wanted to remain anonymous, it only says he's from Balornock, near Glasgow.
    But crucially his two mates that were with him on holiday were happy to be named...
    Ian Hay and Arthur Alcorn.
    Presumably also from Balornock but it doesn't say.
    I will send Alan a photo of the article, and also Roland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steve. I will try and add them tonight.

      Delete
    2. Article now updated with press clipping and further thoughts.

      Delete
    3. Well, at least we know now why the individual stopped filming and why he never alerted others. It makes perfect sense now because why would you create a fuss over seeing a diver in the Loch?

      Delete
  32. Apparently monster hunters need to be part-time detectives as well! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, thank you for sending over the article from 1992. It's brilliant that you've kept it for all these years. I won't post any spoilers until Roland has uploaded them, hopefully others will find it interesting.

      This past week has been fantastic in regards to everyone working together. It's a braw feeling!

      Delete