What Richard Jenkyns saw on a windy morning just under fifty years has become one of the classic Loch Ness Monster sightings, appearing in various of the top books of the time. Let us start with the account of Richard Jenkyns' sighting taken from Rip's Nessletter number 3 dated May 1974 (No.3):
I can now include the very good sighting had by Mr. Richard Jenkyns from the shoreline of his property at 'Point Clair'.
The date was Saturday November 10th and the time 1145 approx. The weather was stormy with a strong wind blowing from the N.W. but in spite of this quite large rollers were coming in to the shore, say 18 inches to 2ft in height but they were not in the form of white horses or breakers. My site was a small clearing in the woodland about 20 yards from the shore and about 20 ft above the level of the loch, I was starting a reluctant tractor and in order to do this, it had been found necessary to remove the silencer, the tractor started with a roar, much black smoke etc. and almost immediately afterwards I heard a very large splash as if someone had gone in from the high board very flat and all this over the noise of the gale rushing through the bushes and the tractor.
I got off the tractor and went to look at the loch but could see nothing so after a few moments returned to the tractor, I then took a further glance and saw a ring of concentric expanding ripples in the waves just out from the end of the new jetty which we are constructing, nothing further so back to the tractor. A few moments later I glanced again towards the loch and there nicely framed by a curved overhanging bough, a fish like object (at first) started to appear quite slowly and steadily until it was about 18 inches above the water surface, it then seemed to pause but on reflection I think that this may have been a wave rising up the neck, and then came up about another two feet or so.
It then seemed to stay quite motionless for a short time, very hard to say how long as I was flabbergasted, it was leaning slightly forward and my view was that of a profile. It then moved slowly forward towards the easterly end of the loch and parallel to the shore and slowly sinking from the base upwards but not splashing forward or porpoising etc. It moved about forty yards or so out of the frame work of the bough and I walked forward to see it finally sink out of sight. Now for the first time I realised that I had probably seen the beastie and I became rather bewildered and it has taken me some time to rationalise my sighting.
The drawing looks like a big eel.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly is not an eel.
DeleteWhy?
DeleteRead the book.
DeleteSo your saying the drawing does not resemble an eel ? Ok
DeleteNo dorsal or side fins visible.
DeleteNot everything is visible from a distance, he also stated at first that it was a fish like object.
DeleteThe blowhole seen by him would seem to indicate some type of a mammal creature?
DeleteErmm, he also said above lizard, snake and frog. If a smaller "eye" or "blowhole" is visible then so should dorsal and side fins. Not an eel.
Delete"The blowhole seen by him would seem to indicate some type of a mammal creature?"
DeleteNo.
Fish, lizard, snake and frog? That tells me we cant really rely on his discription of this object.
DeleteFirst you are using this account to push your giant eel theory, the next minute you doubt its authenticity. Which one are you genuine on? Why so volatile?
DeleteTell you what, Gezza, you buy the book, that's where I do my talking. Tell me when you have purchased it.
DeleteI will do.
DeleteHi GB,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, I don't think it looks like an eel.A creature with a neck 9 inches thick, and up to 3 and a half feet long, would have to be supported by an equally large body underneath the water. The description he gives of the neck rising further up to compensate for the height of the waves, but without showing any other body parts, gives me the impression of the way a turtle would stretch it's neck further, without any movement of it's main body.
Eoin O Faodhagain.
Well, as I explain in the book, a bulky body is not always necessary ...
DeleteYou are correct GB, a bulky body is not always necessary, if the creature in question is a sea snake as shown in this link:
Deletehttps://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2021/04/whatever-this-might-look-like-its-a-breaching-sea-snake.html
And I think the majority of readers will agree that the LNM is not a giant sea snake. The LNM is also not an eel. Eels do not and cannot do what the snake is shown doing. Case closed.
And for Eoin. Perhaps there was a large body underneath the water, in which case a longer neck could be supported by the water, with only a portion visible. The creature could have just been having a look-see without completely surfacing, showing back or humps as in the John Maclean sighting
Just bought it...will leave a review when I've read it.
ReplyDeleteThe booklet is a great read. Now I want to rent that house.
ReplyDeleteThanks, send a review in please.
DeletePurchased Roland, look forward to starting this first thing in the morning.
ReplyDeleteAnnouncement:
ReplyDeleteAs an experiment there is now a group on Facebook for per article comments for those who prefer that approach.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/593164994893955
I have put up a post for this article. Let me know of any access issues. I will concentrate my replies to that group.
Ahh man, I left the evil FB, does that mean there will be no discussion here any longer?
DeleteI am not on facebook, I do appreciate the comments section of this blog.
DeleteLOL Everybody's jumped ship for Facebook then? Well, that's OK, I'll stay here. Got to admit though, probably more traffic on FB. At least there's another version of this blog as a forum for people who prefer that. Can never have enough Nessie!
DeleteThought I was the only one still here! Tried to opt-in but didn't work...probably doing something wrong, I expect.
DeleteI'm with you Mr Alvarado, I will not go back onto Facebook.
DeleteThe new FB page is working. If I have to bounce between there and here, I'll do it.
DeleteHi GB,
DeleteFacebook is a No No with me also, good luck with that. Eoin O Faodhagain.
The FB comments page and this one will continue in parallel.
DeleteWell it might just workout Roland. I just visited your LNM FB page and saw first signs of life with starting comments. And looks like you've already got a growing group. I see a lot of unfamiliar people whom I haven't seen here before and they may just prefer the FB venue and experience. One person I noticed that's new to your group is Dick Raynor. Dick Raynor! He hasn't been here in ages since he gave up arguing with you and trying to convince everybody that there is no LNM. He's a big Facebooker. Maybe he'll do all his commenting there now. I'll drop in from time to time and watch the fireworks. :)
DeleteAnother good account...love reading about old stories like this!! Another head and neck seen.. Personally I've never understood why the necked nessie has bin discluded by so many . Cheers
ReplyDeleteIt threatens the "dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago" curriculum.
DeleteNot all lol... and having a neck doesn't mean u have to be a dinosaur! Good point though cus I feel as soon as plesiosaurs wer ruled out of bin nessie then the long neck went with it!! But I'm sure there cud be more suprises out there as Mr Tully prooved!! Cheers
DeleteDinosaur means " terrible lizard"
DeleteThe neck sightings are chucked out because they don't fit the big fish theory. Single hump: good, could be a sturgeon, catfish, Greenland shark. Single hump with neck bad, witness saw a log, a cormorant distorted by temperature inversion, an otter swimming on its tail while towing a log.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: An otter swimming on its tail in front of a seiche-propelled log. There, that's more 'scientific.'
ReplyDeleteA previously uncategorized species could look like anything. An old one that's evolved might have made some interesting adaptations. Science allows for those possibilities even if skeptics don't.
ReplyDeleteI agree Ron.. Loads out there we don't know about! We were made aware of nessie cus of the sightings over the years and hundreds of them included a long neck! If we rule the neck out we are really saying that them reports were all mistakes or lies... So if that's the case we may as well say all sightings are mistakes or lies!!... Cheers
DeleteYup, I agree Ron. I give you the platypus. A semi-aquatic mammal that lays eggs, with a duck bill, beaver tail and webbed feet . Evolutionary natural selection, or was Mother Nature having fun in creating this Frankenstein creature.
DeleteThe LNM could be an adaptation of various aquatic life forms past and present, to suit it's environment. My favorite take for what's been seen at Loch Ness is the convergent evolution explanation. This would account for the mention of long neck, fins or flippers, backs or humps and tails reported by witnesses throughout the long history of sightings and over hyped reference to the monster being a plesiosaur. In the final analysis, I doubt that the LNM would share the exact morphology of the extinct plesiosuar just as a shark is an entirely different animal than a dolphin, or a bird is to a bat. Similar traits to accommodate to it's working environment, but different species.
As far as I know, convergent evolution is also more common than finding "living fossils".
DeleteCheers