Thursday 27 January 2022

The Richard Jenkyns Sighting



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. 

Now for a description and I am sorry that I cannot draw, colour black or a browny grey, texture neither rough nor smooth or slimy, matt is the best word I can think of at the moment, diameter say 9", no fins or gills, there appeared to be scales very large on the head only but this was only an impression, a great gash of a mouth at least 9" long and tight shut and above the centre of the mouth what may have been an eye, but possibly a blow hole, very small it appeared to me to be about the size of a pea and pitch black. I was under the impression that the animal was well aware of my presence.

When it first appeared it was about 15' out of the vertical leaning forward but when it sank, it increased this angle to about 30'. There was no further indication of how much remained under water but about a week later I found a 10lb salmon still just alive with a large wound in its side against the jetty. I wonder if it had attacked this fish. The general appearance of the animal was that of a tube, slightly rounded at the top with the head profile rather like that of a lizard, snake or frog. I saw no sign of the often mentioned horses head. 

So it is time to analyze the ins and outs of this interesting report and see what we can conclude from it. As I progressed in this study, I noted the words beginning to increase at a rapid rate. The result of this was a decision to publish this as a monograph at a small price. You can see the title on the cover page below as I have used this as a template for how to look into other such sightings. It will be published as a kindle e-book and I would like readers to consider it as a donation as well. After all, the previous few hundred articles have been free of charge!

Some famous sightings just do not make it to this blog. You won't read about the Torquil MacLeod or Arthur Grant land sightings here, they stay in the book "When Monsters come Ashore" and so on. Enjoy the read and remember to leave an Amazon review, thanks.

The book can be found at amazon.com and at amazon.co.uk.





The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

41 comments:

  1. The drawing looks like a big eel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So your saying the drawing does not resemble an eel ? Ok

      Delete
    2. No dorsal or side fins visible.

      Delete
    3. Not everything is visible from a distance, he also stated at first that it was a fish like object.

      Delete
    4. The blowhole seen by him would seem to indicate some type of a mammal creature?

      Delete
    5. Ermm, 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
    6. "The blowhole seen by him would seem to indicate some type of a mammal creature?"

      No.

      Delete
    7. Fish, lizard, snake and frog? That tells me we cant really rely on his discription of this object.

      Delete
    8. First 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?

      Delete
    9. Tell you what, Gezza, you buy the book, that's where I do my talking. Tell me when you have purchased it.

      Delete
  2. Hi GB,
    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, as I explain in the book, a bulky body is not always necessary ...

      Delete
    2. You are correct GB, a bulky body is not always necessary, if the creature in question is a sea snake as shown in this link:

      https://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

      Delete
  3. Just bought it...will leave a review when I've read it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The booklet is a great read. Now I want to rent that house.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Purchased Roland, look forward to starting this first thing in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Announcement:

    As 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.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh man, I left the evil FB, does that mean there will be no discussion here any longer?

      Delete
    2. I am not on facebook, I do appreciate the comments section of this blog.

      Delete
    3. LOL 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!

      Delete
    4. Thought I was the only one still here! Tried to opt-in but didn't work...probably doing something wrong, I expect.

      Delete
    5. I'm with you Mr Alvarado, I will not go back onto Facebook.

      Delete
    6. The new FB page is working. If I have to bounce between there and here, I'll do it.

      Delete
    7. Hi GB,
      Facebook is a No No with me also, good luck with that. Eoin O Faodhagain.

      Delete
    8. The FB comments page and this one will continue in parallel.

      Delete
    9. Well 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. :)

      Delete
  7. Another 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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It threatens the "dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago" curriculum.

      Delete
    2. Not 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

      Delete
    3. Dinosaur means " terrible lizard"

      Delete
  8. The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Correction: An otter swimming on its tail in front of a seiche-propelled log. There, that's more 'scientific.'

    ReplyDelete
  10. A 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I 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

      Delete
    2. Yup, 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.

      The 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.

      Delete
    3. As far as I know, convergent evolution is also more common than finding "living fossils".
      Cheers

      Delete