Sunday 18 December 2022

Loch Ness Mystery

 



Back in 2012 when I first started compiling a list of books about the Loch Ness Monster, there was one book which continued to prove elusive and that was "Loch Ness Mystery" authored by Captain Donald Munro in 1938 and the fifth book published on the monster chronologically. You can find the book list at this link and a profile of Donald Munro at this link.

This is a follow up to the Donald Munro article which mentioned that he had published this booklet on the Loch Ness Monster, explaining his views on the creature and more importantly, proposing plans and costs for up to three camera stations placed at strategic points around the loch in the attempt to obtain conclusive photographs or cine film footage of these mysteries of the loch. The aforementioned book list had a blank image for Munro's booklet with the explanation: 

Why no image? I can't find a copy of this book for love nor money! Not even the mighty National Library of Scotland or British Library have it.

As you can see by the image at the top of the article, I have found that booklet after looking for it on and off for ten years. I would say it did not require any love or money to find it. Anyway, it is a humble affair, consisting of a mere six pages of text, not including the above cover. You can read the pages yourself below where I reproduce them and make some further remarks.

First is the confession that Donald Munro was brought up in the Fort Augustus area of Loch Ness fifty years before. He says that reports of a strange creature in the loch began about that time in the 1880s. I wish he had said more about this statement as he admits that as a kid back then, he didn't know about it. He was born in 1865, so would have been aged between fifteen and twenty five during the 1880s. 

A Times newspaper article from 14th June 1938 says he joined the navy in 1880, so it looks like he missed all the fun, nevertheless he sounds a bit sceptical of Nessie putting in an appearance back then as he insists that John Murray's bathymetric survey of the loch would have surely seen the creature. I don't agree with that assessment myself, having the benefit of hindsight of another eighty four years,  the monster is more elusive than that.

Munro speculates on various aspects of the possible identity and behaviour of the creature and perhaps wisely stands back from nominating a direct candidate having observed various reported features in a diversity of animals that Munro had had close contact with himself on his various naval journeys. For instance, the sensitivity of the creature to noise was something Munro noted in large marine creatures across the oceans.

Another debate concerning whether the creature could lay close to the surface of the loch, largely unobserved unless one is in close proximity to it, was also something Donald notes in his observations of other aquatic creatures. Food supply is then discussed and then the manner in which the best observational conditions could be achieved and what needs to be primarily observed.

At this point, Munro's experience as a maritime man who knew observation was an important skill when all around you was water, brings in his suggestion of observation posts around the loch. The concept itself is pretty simple and had already been done to varying degrees from individual observers up to the twenty men of the Edward Mountain expedition of July 1934. It is noted that the Mountain group was also organised on the ground by another military man, Captain James Fraser.

Munro attempted to define carefully a working setup, down to equipment and men required and how they would be employed plus the final costs. Those costs were to be raised from a shares subscription under a limited liability company of a cost of one shilling per share with an initial total capital of £1500 to be raised - or a total of 30,000 shares (20 shillings to the pound in old pre-decimal money).

It seems that the endeavour only managed to raise a mere £90, despite the prestigious London Times publicising it and other respectable newspapers. In today's money, the target £1,500 would be about £80,000 and if 1938 was 2022, he would have been more likely to seek crowd funding for such a venture. But events were against Donald Munro's project.

The country was still recovering from a major economic depression and so money was short plus the dark clouds of war were already diverting the attention of the public to more serious matters. Three months before, Nazi Germany had occupied Austria and would occupy the Sudetenland four months later. Europe would be plunged into war 15 months after Munro published his proposals and that was the end of any venture that was regarded as not necessary to the war effort.

As it happened, even if the funds were raised, Loch Ness would become an area under military restrictions and you needed a good reason to be there. Back in 2010, this blog began and acquired the web address lochnessmystery,blogspot.com. It wasn't a direct tribute to Donald Munro, the address lochnessmonster.blogspot.com had already been taken (and looks long abandoned by its owner). However, I cannot recall why I choose that name. Perhaps there was a subconscious recall of Captain Donald Munro's long forgotten booklet?

So have a look at the writings of a man whose ideas preceded those of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau by a quarter of a century. I use the google chrome browser and to enlarge each booklet page, I click on an image below, right click and select "Open image in new tab" and then click on that to zoom in.


Comments can also be made at the Loch Ness Mystery Blog Facebook group.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com













16 comments:

  1. Oops, accidentally deleted your comment, Phoenix Man. Small smartphone keypad, big fingers.

    Phoenix man has left a new comment on your post 'Loch Ness Mystery':

    Very good Roland. Interesting article. Like many military men Capt.Munro had a practical,no nonsense approach. Good to hear more confirmation that the creature was known about way before 1933 , something never acknowledged by the sceptics. The ability to float sometimes,as if asleep,while the long neck and tiny head remains submerged, scanning for fish. Giving rise to the oft reported upturned boat hump. It's aversion to noise. I wonder about any relationship to the Margaret Munro land sighting witness.
    He was ahead of his time regarding the necessary observation cameras and funding required.
    Observations regarding other creatures with just the nostrils and eyes barely above the surface(Cockrell photos).
    A pity he didn't have more time to develop his plans but of course WW 2 changed everything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. End of the year, and despite the case being put forth for large eels, the creature description above still seems to remain prevalent. I don't know where we stand on things currently, so would look forward in the new year to a Roland article discussing current thinking as to what this inhabitant of or visitor to the Loch could be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree Ron and I am going out on a limb to suggest that the creature is some type of evolved elasomausaurus. At home in freshwater like his ancestors and also able to come ashore, though movements very awkward and not a bit confident. (Spicer sighting).
    A carnivore , lying in wait,late at night, early in the morning, provided no noise or commotion around. Makes for the water the instance it detects noise or movement. Unable to hold it's head and neck above the surface for more than a few seconds. Many sightings could well be it's long tail as it dives. A commited fish eater of course in the water. There are too many sightings and tantalising encounter s ashore to dismiss. Paddles, flippers,bulky body,small head,long tail all consistently reported. It must look a strange sight indeed as it struggles to re enter the water upon detection of any disturbance to it's location. Probably the full grown adults in the region of thirty feet long.
    Mid Loch encounter s of the upturned boat variety as it scans under the surface for it's unsuspecting prey.
    I enjoy this blog and wish Roland and all contributor's a very happy Xmas and a brilliant 2023.
    I am struggling to get through my mother's passing recently and let's hope good health to all is coming in 2023.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To Roy, not an eel, all the evidence goes counter to that in spite of the overwhelming eel DNA study. Phoenix Man, as unlikely as an evolved Elasmosaurus may be, one can never say never. I'm always thinking in terms of a creature with Plesiosaur/Elasmosaur features evolved though convergent evolution.

    Condolences on your mother's passing. I lost my mom this year also and know what you are going through and my sympathy's to you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you John and belated condolences to you. It's a day by day process.

      Delete
  5. Sorry to hear about your mothers!

    I'll accept a huge eel if that's what it is, but like the comments above I have my doubts. It's a "socially acceptable" theory, one you can drop in polite company without too many eyebrows raised.

    There is one type of animal which can live in water and on land, has been described as wormlike, eel-like, snake-like, can sport a kind of "mane" and in some species even retractable tentacles. These are the snake-like salamanders like olms, mudpuppies, caecilians, sirens, amphiuma etc. The trouble is there are no species larger than max about 2 feet. They also don't resemble plesiosaurs.

    A modern plesiosaur, or something convergently like it, still seems tantalizing. And would be a zoological sensation!

    Merry Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the LNM is a visitor, it opens up a range of possibilities, with a perhaps-connection between the close-range Alvin submarine encounter in the Bahamas of a plesiosaur-type creature, and the similar MacLean sighting in the Loch. (The difference in years is not a factor, I don't think.)

      OTOH, if the thing is a LN inhabitant, I've no idea what it could be. I do know I'd be somewhat disappointed, and wholly repulsed, if it was an eel.

      Delete
    2. Me too Ron, me too...who want's our beloved Nessie to turn out to be a giant, slimey, smelly slug of an eel. Yech!

      Delete
  6. Well we're never going to get away from this “Eel Theory” It's been talked about ad nauseam here. And it isn't a new one as it's been around for as long as all the other notions i.e. Giant Sturgeon, Catfish, Salamander, Turtle, Tullimonstrum, etc, etc, and etc. Nor is it going away anytime soon. It is now with the eDNA sampling of 2019 and the media hype promoting a giant eel that has given it new legs. But compared to the aforementioned candidates, it seems the most fitting and logical conclusion. But, I still don't buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry for your losses John & phoenix man. I recently discovered my estranged father had died. Not an easy thing to go through.

    I agree, if Nessie turns out to be a family of large (and remember, this thing needs to be massive - 1 in a generation, sure, why not....a whole generational line of them???) eels, then it will certainly be a letdown.

    I know we all dismiss the plesiosaur / elasmosaur theory, but, that would be certainly the coolest discovery....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Condolences to John and Phoenix Man.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting to note that the description of the LNM, even way back then, is of a creature with a large body, multiple humps, long neck with small head and possibly flippers. That composite of the usual suspect hasn't changed in all this time. Sure doesn't sound like an eel to me, and that is why the LNM can't be an eel. Case closed for me. Sorry eel fans. I also don't see how a bathymetric survey of the loch could have revealed any creature given the peaty nature of the water, unless it was less peaty all those years ago. With that I close out the year with Merry Christmas to all and for the heathens among us Happy Holidays.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry to hear about your Mum Phoenix Man. That's very tough.

    As much as I wish it to be so, probability massively indicates that the LNM isn't an elasmosaurus. They were air breathers. They'd have been caught within a single day of serious searching - you'd just need to have volunteers stationed around the loch and you'd find it when it surfaced to breath.

    It's possibly a creature unknown to science or a mutant. I don't completely rule out a big salamander, as wild as it sounds. Kinda fits the bill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks indeed.
      It was expected unfortunately after 8 years with Parkinson's disease.
      So horrible.
      I wonder if it's evolved to be able to hold it's breath under water for long periods.
      Given the loch is so vast perhaps it's nostrils just above the surface wouldn't be noticed?

      Delete