Classic Sightings: Aldie Mackay

Date: April 14th 1933
Time: about 3pm
Location: Off Aldourie
Witnesses: Mrs. Aldie Mackay.
Type of sighting: Double Hump
Conditions: Sun shining brightly, loch absolutely calm

As the various events surrounding the 80th anniversary of the first modern sighting of Nessie recede, it is only fitting that this blog finally gets round to investigating this seminal sighting from the Loch Ness Monster saga. The story itself first appeared on the 2nd May 1933 in the local Inverness Courier and the text is reproduced below.

Loch Ness has for generations been credited with being the home of a fearsome looking monster, but, somehow or other, the "water kelpie", as this legendary creature is called, has always been regarded as a myth, if not a joke.
 
Now, however, comes the news that the beast has been seen once more, for on Friday of last week, a well-known businessman who lives in Inverness, and his wife (a University graduate), when motoring along the north shore of the loch, not far from Abriachan pier, were startled to see a tremendous upheaval on the loch, which, previously, had been as calm as the proverbial millpond. The lady was the first to notice the disturbance, which occurred fully three-quarters of a mile from the shore, and it was her sudden cries to stop that drew her husband's attention to the water.
 
There, the creature disported itself, rolling and plunging for fully a minute, its body resembling that of a whale, and the water cascading and churning like a simmering cauldron. Soon, however, it disappeared in a boiling mass of foam. Both onlookers confessed that there was something uncanny about the whole thing, for they realised that here was no ordinary denizen of the depths, because, apart from its enormous size, the beast, in taking the final plunge, sent out waves that were big enough to have been caused by passing steamer. The  watchers waited for almost half an hour in the hope that the monster (if such it was) would come to the surface again; but they had seen the last of it.
 
Questioned as to the length of the beast, the lady stated that, judging by the state of the water in the affected area, it seemed to be many feet long.
 
It will be remembered that a few years ago, a party of Inverness anglers reported that, when crossing the loch in a rowing boat, they encountered an unknown creature, whose bulk, movements, and the amount of water displaced at once suggested that it was either a very large seal, a porpoise, or, indeed, the monster itself!
 
But the story, which duly appeared in the press, received scant attention, and less credence.  In fact most of those people who were aired their views on the matter did so in a manner that bespoke feelings of the utmost scepticism.
 
It should be mentioned that, so far as is known, neither seals nor porpoises have ever been known to enter Loch Ness.  Indeed, in the case of the latter, it would be utterly impossible for them to do so, and, as to the seals, it is the fact that though they have on rare occasions been seen in the River Ness, their presence in Loch Ness has never been definitely established.

Though not the first story to appear about monsters in Loch Ness, it set a mark in the timeline of the modern phenomenon of the Loch Ness Monster. However, being an iconic story in the Loch Ness saga, it has not escaped the attention of Nessie sceptics. The problem is they can't seem to agree on what Mrs. Mackay (pictured below in the 1980s) saw.

SEALS

Dick Raynor, at his sceptical website suggests they saw two seals in the midst of a mating display. To see one seal in Loch Ness is rare. To see two seals in Loch Ness is even rarer. To see two seals in Loch Ness indulging in a mating display ... well, perhaps someone could compute the odds of that happening. The point being that one may propose an alternative explanation that is "more probable" in relative terms, but if that explanation is also of low probability in absolute terms then it should be rejected as well.

As far as I know, there were no media mentions of seals in Loch Ness at that time. On the same website is an article by Gordon Williamson on seals in Loch Ness. He suggests that seals probably enter the loch on average once every two years. Curiously, he mentions a seal sighting in 1933. Thinking this may be relevant to our sighting, the reference given is the same Inverness Courier article above! I was actually expecting a report where a seal was positively identified, not a monster report.

Others reasons for being sceptical of two mating seals:

According to the Scottish Natural Heritage website,  grey seals will mate between October and December whilst common (harbour) seals mate earlier in the Summer. According to an interview Mrs. Mackay gave to the BBC on the 50th anniversary of her sighting she said it had occurred in March and not April. This does not appear to be the right time for the mating season.

Secondly, looking at the picture at the top drawn under Mrs. Mackay's directions, the two humps are each about 6-7 feet long. A seal would typically only show about 2 feet of back. This requires Mrs. Mackay to have over estimated the length of an alleged seal by a factor of three (it is to be noted she was a local salmon angler and so would have had some familiarity with the waters and perhaps had seen seals in the Inverness area herself).

Thirdly, the Courier reports states the witnesses waited a further half hour for something to appear which is inconsistent with the observed dives of 3-8 minutes noted in the Williamson article.

EXAGGERATIONS

Ronald Binns, in his 1983 book, "The Loch Ness Mystery - Solved", is typically dismissive of the sighting and suggests the newspaper reporter "wildly exaggerated" the account. That reporter was Alex Campbell whom Binns accuses of "being deeply committed to the belief that Loch Ness was the home of monsters".

Now I could describe myself as "deeply committed" to the same cause but that does not mean I start fabricating portions of eyewitness testimony. However, Binns' assertion is completely unfounded as we have a second and better source for the story in Rupert Gould's book "The Loch Ness Monster and Others".  Gould visited the loch at the end of 1933 and conducted interviews with various witnesses to the phenomenon which he called "X". With the Mackays handily situated at the Drumnadrochit Hotel, they too were interviewed by him.

So what we have in Gould's book is an expansion of the shorter report from the Inverness Courier. He recounts the sighting thusly:

Mrs. Mackay and her husband were driving from Inverness to Drumnadrochit. At a point of the road almost opposite Aldourie Pier [which is on the other side of the Loch] Mrs. Mackay caught sight of a violent commotion in the water nearby, about 100 yards from shore. She thought at first that it was caused by two ducks fighting; but on reflection it seemed far too extensive to be caused in this way. 

The commotion subsided, and a big wake became visible, apparently caused by something large moving along just below the surface. This wake went away across the Loch towards Aldourie Pier. Then, about the middle of the Loch [some 450 yards from her], the cause of the wake emerged, showing as two black humps moving in line - the rear one somewhat the larger.

The rear hump appeared first, and Mrs. Mackay took it for a whale on account of its blue-black colour [she has often seen whales at sea]. The two humps moved with the forward-rolling motion of a whale or porpoise, but always remained smooth in outline, exhibiting no traces of fins. They rose and sank in an undulating manner [as if sliding along a submerged switchback] but never went entirely out of sight.

Mrs. Mackay estimated the overall length of the two humps at about 20 feet. X, after rising, continued to move towards the pier for some distance. Then it turned sharply to port and, after describing a half-circle, sank suddenly with considerable commotion. [Mr. Mackay, who was driving the car, only stopped in time to see the final commotion, and a noticeable "wash" which came rolling on to the shore after X had sunk.

An account of Mrs. Mackay's experience appeared in the Inverness Courier, 2.v.33. No names were mentioned like Mr. Milne, Mrs. Mackay wished to avoid the suggestion of self-advertisement. Her husband is proprietor of the Drumnadrochit Hotel.]

Based on this account and other information, a rough sketch can be made of the sighting and its progress on a map of the top of Loch Ness. The position of the witnesses are marked with the cross. No claim to 100% accuracy can be made on my attempt at reproduction!

Note when comparing familiar wildlife to the phenomenon, she choose the whale rather than the seal. Now Ronald Binns had obviously read the Gould version as he footnotes the book but strangely only mentions the commotion in the water and Mrs. Mackay's initial assumption it was two ducks fighting. He fails to mentions the two humps later seen and the fact that Aldie Mackay dismissed the idea of two ducks as the commotion was too large. This is poor form in critical analysis.

The Gould version also clearly demonstrates that Campbell did not "wildly exaggerate" the story as Gould produced a similar account but with more detail.

This is not the first time I have taken Ronald Binns' book to task for mishandling stories. Right at the end of the Mackay story, he mentions an Alexander Mackay as a "major source of stories" to Rupert Gould. This Mr. Mackay was the proprietor of the Drumnadrochit Hotel twenty years previously and I would assume was related to the then proprietor John Mackay (Binns says they were brothers).

Why he should mention this "factoid" at this point is a matter of conjecture. As it turns out, Alexander Mackay was not a major source of stories. Gould mentions on page 31 how Mackay related to him a tale from 1913 involving a James Cameron. That's it, no other stories are mentioned as coming from Mr. Mackay. So can anyone explain to me how relating one solitary story to someone else makes you a "major source"?

The insertion of Alexander Mackay at that point is clear to me. The implication is that Alexander Mackay was a teller of tall tales and being Aldie Mackay's presumed brother-in-law, there is guilt by association. No one should accept this line of logic for one second, but we move on.

FIFTY YEARS LATER

Mrs. Mackay did not quite fade from the limelight after those days in the 1930s. As stated above, she was interviewed on the 50th anniversary of the beast in 1983. I have a 1990/2005 DVD documentary called "The Loch Ness Story" narrated by John Sheddon which has a video excerpt of her talking about her sighting, presumably around that time. I dug out that DVD and replayed it again with the information above in mind.

The account is consistent with what was said 50 years previously, though after such a long passage of time, I would expect some details to be garbled and the lady must have been in her eighties by my reckoning.

Alongside this was Tony Harmsworth's account in his book "Loch Ness Understood" which details how he heard in 1986 that Aldie Mackay was still alive and went with Nicholas Witchell to interview here (which makes me wonder if the 1983 date is accurate).

During the interview, Nicholas Witchell asked Mrs. Mackay how big the object was and she said "six to nine feet". Tony expressed some disappointment at this and began to think that the creature in Loch Ness must be something less than monstrous.

Now a creature showing up to nine feet of back out of the water can hardly be described as small but this raises the only point of confusion for me in this story since in the earlier Gould account, the creature is estimated at 20 feet long. How do we reconcile these?

Normally, unless there is an overriding reason, one would choose the account closer to the event as memories do indeed fade over time. So, the account given to Gould some eight months after the event clearly has preference over an account given all of 53 years later. However, the two numbers can be reconciled if Mrs. Mackay was describing the size of each object. I repeat what I said above:

"Looking at the picture at the top drawn under Mrs. Mackay's directions, the two humps are each about 6-7 feet long."

Whether one or two creatures were in view and what Mrs. Mackay's opinion on that may have been is a matter of speculation that is not likely to be resolved.

STANDING WAVES

Another interpretation is that Mrs. Mackay merely saw some standing waves produced by a boat that had previously passed. In this respect, Nessie sceptic, Steuart Campbell, recently commented on the sighting for an article in The Scotsman. Having explained the phenomenon of these waves, he says:

I conclude that the Mackays saw Scot II’s wakes interacting as they collided with the shores of the narrower north-east end of Loch Ness and that the only monster in the lake at the time was Scot II.

Scott II was a ferry boat with an ice-breaker hull which produced bigger waves and therefore (when conditions allowed), bigger standing waves. In fact, Scott II seems to have been a favourite of sceptics having been employed to explain away a number of sightings, including Alastair Boyd's good sighting of 1979.

However, his explanation lacks in two areas. The first is that standing waves do not change direction as stated in the report or cross over from Abriachan to Aldourie. The assertion that standing waves are reinforced by reflection from the shore is also debatable. Referring again to loch watcher, Dick Raynor, he said this about reflection:

I often read about the divergent waves bouncing off the steep shores and being reflected back into the the centre of the loch to produce standing waves, but I have never seen that myself; I just see the waves break on the shore and the energy is dissipated.

While I am on the subject of quoting Mr. Campbell and in the light of Mrs. Mackay and her belief in the Kelpie of Loch Ness, he says this in the same article concerning such beasts:

There was a similar belief about every Scottish lake, but because of the size of Loch Ness, its kelpie was thought to be the biggest. 

This is inaccurate on two points. Firstly, there is no evidence that every Scottish lake had such a belief. This is an assumption, and as my own studies of the contemporary literature revealed, I could only find fifty such lochs out of the hundreds written about. It would be more accurate to say "there was a similar belief about many Scottish lakes".

Secondly, it cannot be assumed that because of its size, Loch Ness had the biggest Kelpie. In fact, I am not sure what is meant by biggest. If he means physically bigger or more powerful, that is unwarranted. If he means it had the biggest reputation, then that is demonstrable but cannot be assumed from loch size. This can be proven from the fact that Loch Lomond has a larger surface area to spot Kelpies on than Loch Ness but has far less tradition attached to it. This also applies to other large lochs in Scotland and hence the size link is tenuous at best.

CONCLUSIONS

Seals, boat wakes, lies or something a bit more mysterious? Mrs. Mackay was adamant that it was no seal and her time as an salmon angler must count for something in separating wave effects from the less ordinary. I don't think she was fooled by anything at all, what she saw was what she said when she uttered that cry "It's the Beastie!".

The record of that day is true and this blog stands with Mrs. Mackay when she saw the first of hundreds if not thousands of sightings, recorded and unrecorded, of the great Monster of Loch Ness.

Where was Nessie during the Ice Age?

Over ten thousand years ago, Loch Ness was covered in ice as the whole of Scotland succumbed to the last glacial advance. Note I did not say "last Ice Age" as apparently because there are polar ice caps today, we are technically still in an ongoing ice age (albeit a quieter phase).

However, since we assume the Loch Ness Monster had some ancestors, where would they have lived? The answer may come from a recent study on salmon genetics explained in this BBC article. The headline tell us:

An area of coastal waters around North-West France has been identified as a site for a previously unknown ice-free refuge for salmon during the Ice Age. 

Now since it is believed that the monster feeds on salmon running in and out of Loch Ness, could it be a case of "follow the money" or "follow the salmon" when it comes to Nessie's previous abode? 

In that light, perhaps the Loch Ness Monster was the "Hurd Deep Sea Serpent" after the name of the location for these ancient salmon? Furthermore, as the ice receded and the salmon progressed northwards, it seems more reasonable to conclude that these monsters would have entered the Great Glen from the south rather than the northern Moray Firth. That is based on the assumption that the north would still be more ice bound than the warmer south.

When the great glacial lake at Glen Roy broke and inundated the area with water, it is conceivable that the relocation of the monsters to Loch Ness was completed when the rushing waters headed north through Loch Ness and into the sea (link) taking many a creature with it but some managed to stay in Loch Ness.

Unfortunately, the abundance of salmon now passing through rivers has declined markedly since the 1980s and one wonders how that has impacted the diet of the Loch Ness Monster.Hopefully, not enough to drive Nessie back to the sea!

Nessie at 80 - The Tail End

Following on from the Nessie 80 symposium last week, various people, including myself, gathered at Loch Ness to celebrate the date of the first modern sighting of the Loch Ness Monster by the Mackays. I normally go up to Loch Ness at around Easter time, so this was all very convenient. I will write up a report on my own little "expedition" at a later date, but for now I concentrate on Nessie's 80th Anniversary.

I wonder if those who were first involved with the mystery such as the Mackays or researchers such as Rupert T. Gould had any inkling that this phenomenon would grow as it has and still be with us eighty years on. They probably did not and perhaps assumed it would blow over or be decisively solved in some way.

The enquiry has become more sceptical, but then again, perhaps the majority were always sceptical of any large creature inhabiting the loch. A poll last year found about a quarter of Scots thought the Loch Ness Monster was definitely or probably real. If the respondents had not just assumed the poll was merely talking about plesiosaurs, the figure may have been higher (well, I am not sure what they meant by "real").

Even against that current public mindset, Nessie is still a subject the press love to write up on. They would arrive on the Sunday, but on Saturday, Adrian Shine and his colleagues from the Loch Ness Centre held a gathering in the very room which was once the dining room of the Mackays' Drumnadrochit Hotel. It is now the foyer of the Loch Ness Centre, which all seemed very appropriate.

Whilst nibbling on some bites and sipping wine, we were treated to a video of Aldie Mackay recounting her tale of an object like a whale rolling in the water. It's an interesting account which has received various interpretations. I hope to devote an article to it soon in this blog's Classic Sightings section.

After this, we resorted to the restaurant of the new Drumnadrochit Hotel where talk of Loch Ness and Nessie was very much to the fore. I must admit I spent a fair amount of time discussing the subject with Adrian Shine and Dick Raynor.

Though Dick is sceptical of traditional monsters in Loch Ness, he had an unusual tale to tell. It was in 1968 and he was with the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau doing some monster hunting. It was about two in the morning and they were carrying out a night drift in a small boat equipped with a powerful flashgun/camera unit and Roy Mackal's crossbow and biopsy sampler. They were a few hundred yards off Achnahannet waiting for something to come into view. He then described how they heard a large splash in the distance akin to someone throwing a "kitchen sink" into the water. Shortly after, waves came up and lapped against their boat.

What was it? Dick in his typical down to earth way wondered if someone had dumped an old fridge or cooker into the loch. Not as exciting as a large beast thrashing in the water, one must admit, but a possibility.

The next day, we gathered for a boat trip to the spot where the Mackays witnessed their beast. It was off Abriachan near the top of the loch. We were on the boat cruiser operated by Gordon Menzies and Dick Raynor whilst the Loch Ness Centre's "Deepscan" cruiser went off with some of the Press to Urquhart Castle for a photo-op. 

It was a trip combining the ancient with the modern. Gordon Menzies would tell me how his father and grandfather would discuss the long necked Kelpies of Loch Ness in the old Gaelic tongue. When a stranger entered, they would cease talking in that manner which suggested it was bad luck to speak too much of the feared beast.

At the modern end, he showed me their latest sonar technology which could pick out objects in greater detail than before. I watched as the contour of the loch drew out into greater depths as the boat headed out into mid-loch. Will such technology eventually capture discernible images of large animals in Loch Ness? Only time will tell.

When the two boats finally met near Abriachan, an 80th birthday cake mysteriously appeared along with liberal doses of whisky and rum. Nessie did not appear to claim her cake so we ate the lot whilst the whisky did not seem to enhance our chances of seeing her.

There was one long necked creature that did appear beside the boat, but its name was Goldie rather than Nessie. Here you can see her beside Gordon Rutter of the Edinburgh Fortean Society. Dick Raynor told us she was a regular passenger as tourists would feed her various morsels. At one point she huffily disembarked when no crumbs were forthcoming and floated off a hundred yards or so. All it took was for Dick to wave his hands and she speedily flew back to the boat. I wish Nessie was so obliging.

So the cake was eaten, the whisky and rum was quaffed and the Press got their pictures. On the way back, I wondered what we be a longer lasting memento of this day. The Loch Ness Centre had kindly given some memorabilia such as RedNess beer.

Surfing the Internet tonight, I had a better idea ... well, maybe.

A Monster Sighting from 2010

A few months back I was doing some research on an old sighting and managed to contact a person who knew of the case for further details. Having helped me add some details to that case, the person told me that they themselves had had a good sighting of the creature back in 2010. I can now bring you the details of this previously unreported sighting.

At around 7:20 in the morning on the 14th June 2010, the witness and their spouse were travelling south about a mile past Urquhart Castle on the A82. At this point a large object described as "clearly visible" was noticed in the water by the driver about 40 feet from the shore. In the witness' own words:

"We almost went off the road with the sheer amazement of the sighting and could not find a layby so we slowed down till we had almost stopped on the main road which I suppose was rather dangerous to say the least." 

Having rolled down the car window, the large object was observed. For about the next two minutes, the couple watched this sight which was described as a

"... very large grey wide back, texture was like an elephant's skin and colour.."

When I asked about size, I was given this reply:

"To give an idea of size it was so wide you could easily park a bus on it."

 

As to its motion, the witness further added:

"It was just kind of idling in the water and then decided to plunge downwards in a rolling motion down in to the water. The wake that followed was absolutely phenomenal, the water took ages to calm down and then all was quite and it was gone."

The witness has requested anonymity for the reason stated:

"This is a true and accurate account witnessed by myself and X  .. we know (it) was the creature but we do not speak of it to avoid ridicule.  Believe me we know what we saw it was awesome and if I could have photographed it the mystery would be over as it would have been the ultimate proof that it does exist."

So concludes a remarkable account given the short distance to the object. I accept the witnesses' trustworthiness but have witheld names due to the obvious fear of being treated like fools. This is a situation which occurs quite frequently with witnesses to strange things in Loch Ness and is quite understandable.

The location can be roughly seen using Google Street View below. I asked if this shot was similar to the witnesses' viewing conditions and I was told it was similar but the foliage was not as dense.

 

Some readers may seek a more "natural" description for what happened. The only one that could be put forward I think is a standing wave from a large boat that had passed previously down the loch. This interpretation has its problems. First, though the term "standing wave" suggests it is stationary, it is in fact moving. An example of one created by the "Jacobite Queen" on Loch Ness can be viewed on the first video clip on the following page from Dick Raynor's website.

In the two minutes the witnesses were watching this "idling" object, a bow wave would have visibly progressed towards the shore and dispersed on breaking up. This object just stayed there until it created its own bow wave when submerging.

So what did our witnesses see that June days nearly three years ago? Something which could accommodate the width of a bus on its back is definitely in "monster" territory and such a photograph would have created a sensation. However, the creature rolled back into the depths and the mystery which is the Loch Ness Monster continues to fascinate and perplex.

 

A Report on the 80th Year of Nessie Symposium

Photo Credit: Alison Rutter

Nessie fans converged on Edinburgh this Saturday past to hear various speakers hold forth on different aspects of the mystery that has held the public attention for years. And it all began when a couple saw something whale like rolling in the loch in April 1933. The headline it generated has since spawned an untold stream of reports, articles, books, photos and films and there is no sign of the Nessie culture abating eighty years on.

The Guardian ran this story on the symposium. But writing this from my own perspective as a speaker and attendee, I hopped on the number 31 bus with my daughter and sister from my home nearby which helpfully dropped us off right beside the symposium venue. The PowerPoint file was duly submitted and the lectures began.

The symposium began with the news that speaker Paul Harrison had to pull out due to health concerns, so we wish him well and a good recovery.

First up was Adrian Shine, curator of the Loch Ness Centre at Drumnadrochit, Loch Ness. Adrian gave an overview of the loch geography, biology and ecology explaining how some of the natural events and objects at Loch Ness can fool people into thinking they are seeing monsters. However, he also postulated the visiting Atlantic Sturgeon as an additional reason why people may be fooled.

Now though I am a more traditional monster "believer", I do agree with Adrian that many sightings can be put down to such phenomena, the unresolved question is how many? I am also glad that he feels these alone are inadequate and that a "special beast" such as the sturgeon is required to complete the whole picture (well, no doubt there is room for more speculation). However, in my case, that "special beast" is something more mysterious than the Sturgeon.

I was up next with a talk on the pre-1933 folklore of the Loch Ness Water Horse. The material was taken mainly from my book though perhaps the "Loch Ness Kelpie" would be more appropriate as the beast of old was so named in nearly two thirds of the literature mentioning strange beasts in Loch Ness. I will be posting material from the talk on this blog in the weeks ahead. In the absence of Paul Harrison, I also added a few slides on 1933 since that was the reason we were here. Mention was made of key sightings (Mackay, Spicers, Gray) as well as the mania that unfolded as monster fever hit the British Isles. One clipping I have talks of the local authorities fretting over the application from 65 bus companies for excursion licenses (and that was just the companies and not the number of buses they hoped to run). This was despite the Loch Ness road being improved and widened. The mania of that time was also shown in a contemporary postcard which showed cars queueing along the loch as far as the eye could see.

Other notable sightings of that time were mentioned such as the curious double hump seen by a Mr. and Mrs. Simpson in late 1933. The painting below was executed by an artist under their direction for the Illustrated London News in May 1934.

After a good lunch, some free rum from the sponsors (Kraken Rum) and Gordon Holmes showing us his interesting video of an object in Loch Ness from 2007, it was onto to the next talk by Tony Harmsworth who was the first curator of the Official Loch Ness Exhibition Centre. He concentrated his talk on the 1970s and 1980s with particular emphasis on the Rines expeditions up to Operation Deepscan in 1987.

Needless to say, he was very critical of the way the Rines expedition had been conducted and the way they handled the material publicly. Of particular interest was the now notorious retouched flipper photograph from 1972 and the so called head and body pictures from 1975. The Operation Deepscan remarks ended on the note of the three mysterious sonar contacts that were obtained at the time which (unlike other contacts) were not there when a follow up boat went back to examine the locations.

What were they? Tony ended with the comment by a marine sonar specialist at the time that they were bigger than sharks but smaller than whales. And there we left that since in Tony's own words, sonar does not conclusively prove anything, a position I hold myself due to the lack of resolution in the sonar data.

However, the unknown contacts still stand and how one interprets them depends much on the beholder. Sonar has been improving over the years and the hope is that as resolution improves, it may yet pick up enough detail of anomalous images to be more decisive in a judgement.

David Martin Jones was next up with a talk on the cultural aspects of Nessie films and how they reflect the times they were made in as well as how they represented the Highlands and Scotland to the world. Emphasis was placed on the 1934 film, "Secret of the Loch" and the 1996 film "Loch Ness" with shorter references to other films including a 20 minute amateur Scottish production which I had no idea existed! I must track it down for a viewing sometime.

Following David was co-organiser Charles Paxton who specialises in statistical analyses of Loch Ness Monster reports. This is an evolving topic as he grows the database of sightings in search of patterns that may be seen in the sightings record. Charles is looking for clues that may help assess the human side of the monster stories and will publish his final conclusions in the months ahead.

The final speaker was co-organiser, Gordon Rutter, who despite being under the weather, manfully strove on with his talk on the photographic evidence for the Loch Ness Monster. Now this can be a contentious area as people have their own "favourites" which they may even hang their beliefs on. Gordon started at the Hugh Gray photograph and was mindful to mention the eel like head that this blog pointed out a couple of years back.

Most of the famous pictures were covered but time did not allow for all to be covered. Most were dismissed as hoax or misinterpretation but the jury was out on the Hugh Gray and Peter MacNab pictures (which I personally accept as genuine).  Some of the others I hope to address before the year is out.

So the symposium came to the final part which was a panel "Question and Answer" session composed of myself, Adrian Shine, Gordon Rutter and Steuart Campbell. In terms of big beast belief, my view held to a resident amphibious-like fish, Adrian a visiting sturgeon, Steuart nothing there and I am not sure about Gordon's views. Below is a picture of us taken from Steve Feltham's facebook page. I am the gormless looking one on the far left.

Questions were varied such as the future of Nessie in terms of research and as a cultural icon of Scotland and beyond. The latter seemed to be safe whilst the former was very much down to the funding of outside bodies. My own take was that we required another "Dinsdale Event" which would once again stir the public interest and move things forward. Such an item would have to be better than what Dinsdale filmed and take evidence to a new level. Whether it will come is a different matter.

The question of physical evidence was raised and there was a consensus that things that die in Loch Ness tend to go straight down never to rise again. In a piece of possible circular reasoning, I suggested dead Nessies may be cannibalised by other Nessies. Well, food is tight down there!

The subject of food supply was inevitably raised and the view of the panel majority was that there was not enough. I took issue with that pointing out the lack of real data on the total food supply and the equally vague subject of how much food the Nessie biomass requires. The normally quoted figure of 10 tonnes of fish for every tonne of Nessie is in my opinion too pessimistic, but I have covered this topic in a previous article.

So the symposium ended and I would put it down as a success. It was also good to meet people involved in the Loch Ness debate such as Dick Raynor, Tony Harmsworth, Adrian Shine, Steve Feltham, Gordon Holmes, etc. A special mention for enthusiasm must also go to Alexander Lovcanski who came all the way from Serbia for the symposium - and he doesn't even believe in the monster!

Going by the number of newspaper articles published prior to the event and the presence of a Japanese film crew at the event, I hope interest in the creature will be renewed, increased or even started for the first time.

A Twelfth Century Nessie?

 

An interesting headline from the British Library website:

Researchers at the British Library have found sensational evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Hidden within the pages of a 12th-century manuscript is not only a description but also a drawing of the beast known to millions as Nessie.

Researchers at the library claimed to have unearthed a manuscript featuring a cleric by the name of Walter of Bingham whose travels to Scotland were recorded in the 12th century manuscript "Itinerarium Scotiae". The faded but now restored picture shows a hapless individual being dragged into the depths of Loch Ness by the monster. The full account can be read at this link. Before Nessie researchers jump up and down, you may want to note the date of the article.

Oddly enough on the same day, another eye opening article appeared on the Gadling travel website claiming that:

Tourism officials at Loch Ness made a shocking revelation today – the Loch Ness Monster is a creation of their marketing department.

"It all started back in the early years of the 20th century," says Nigel Pratt, Public Relations Manager for the Loch Ness Convention and Visitors Bureau. "You have to remember that Scotland was very poor back then. Tourists generally went to vacation hotspots like Blackpool. It was tough to compete. "Highlander" hadn't come out yet so nobody knew the first thing about Scotland. They didn't know their haggis from a hole in the ground."

Note again the date of the publication and the name of the alleged tourist official. One is reminded of the day on April 1st 1972 as told by the Daily Mirror:

On 1 April 1972, newspaper headlines around the world announced the dead body of the Loch Ness Monster had been found. A team of zoologists from Yorkshire's Flamingo Park Zoo, who were at Loch Ness searching for proof of Nessie's existence, had discovered the carcass floating in the water the day before. Initial reports claimed it weighed a ton and a half and was 15½ feet long. Upon inspection, Nessie turned out to be a bull elephant seal.

The zoo's education officer, John Shields, confessed he had been responsible for placing the body in the Loch. The seal had died the week before, and he had shaved off its whiskers, padded its cheeks with stones, and kept it frozen for a week, before dumping it in the Loch. The seal's body was displayed at the Flamingo Park Zoo for a few days before being properly disposed of.

Anyway, back to some serious research ....


POSTSCRIPT

These April Fool Nessie jokes just keep coming: 

Loch Ness Monster Burger suitable for those on vegan diets

Some Worthy Photos of Loch Ness

At the Flickr website, I came across two pools of photos. The first is dedicated to photographs of the loch itself (such as the one above) and is found at this link.

The second pool is Nessie related photos such as things that relate to the story, things that could be mistaken for Nessie and some Photoshop jobs. This pool can be viewed here.

 

An Old Nessie Clipping with a Strange Subplot

Here's an old clipping found by Will, who is a regular reader of this blog as well as a Fortean researcher in his own right. It is taken from the Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Journal of May 7th 1937.

Loch Ness Monster Has a Wife and Children, Abbot Told Pope

EDINBURGH Scotland -The Loch Ness monster is married and has quite a family, Sir David Hunter-Blair, abbot of a monastery on the shores of Scotland's famous lake, says. 

Sir David, who claims to have seen the monster several times and to have made a report to the Pope about it, differed with persons who believe the creature is the last survivor of his line.

The abbot, who is 83 but extremely alert. told of sitting on the monastery's boathouse and watching the monster play around in the lake—for 35 minutes.

"With my own eyes." Sir David said, "I saw two shiny black humps and a thick, pointed tail. I did not see the head because the monster evidently was feeding. Those who have seen the head describe it as snakelike, perched on a long and extraordinarily flexible neck.

Why He Appeared

"Finally the monster started for the centre of the lake where he lives at a depth of 75 feet. He travelled fast, churning foam, not unlike a propeller. His tail obviously is used for propulsion, attaining a speed of 15 to 20 miles an hour. You ask why he first appeared in 1933? That year thousands of pounds of dynamite were exploded during the construction of roads.

You can picture the monster, his wife, children and relations becoming most disturbed when tons of granite began crashing into their home at the depth of the lake. He probably said : 'My dear, I can't stand it any longer: I can't rest; I am going up and see what it's all about.' His wife. womanlike, replied: 'Don't go, dear: you've never been up, you don't know what it's like and you may never come back: think of our children.' 

But when the monster rose to the surface and found the sunshine pleasantly warming on his bald head, he enjoyed eating the grass and weeds and leaves which were a welcome change from his diet of shell-fish. That explains his recurring appearances.

Ventured Near Shore

 "He's even ventured toward the shore. A couple driving along the shore road saw him on a hillside and the woman promptly suffered a heart attack. The husband rushed her to the monastery while the monster plunged into the lake.

"You ask where the monster came from? Loch Ness once was part of the North sea, 150,000,000 years ago. When the earth crust shifted, lifting Scotland, he was trapped and unable to leave. I am not suggesting that he is 150,000,000 years old, but that is the age of his family.

"Unquestionably a whole family of them exists now. It would he most difficult to capture them. Nets are useless because of the depth of the lake. Shooting Is useless because the monster would sink. That's a peculiarity about Loch Ness—when anything sinks, it never rises. Drowned bodies are never recovered.

"When I visited the pope, he was most interested and asked: "You yourself witnessed it?' When I affirmed that I had, his holiness said: I will put your picture and a picture of the lake into my book.' He did not doubt. He is far too wise for that."

Sir David is perhaps a bit tongue in cheek and some of his facts are wrong. Any creature would be trapped in Loch Ness no later than 10,000 years ago but then again, what the proto-Loch Ness contained before the last Ice Age commenced is a question even more shrouded in mystery.

Though his sighting is extremely long at 35 minutes, it is not unique. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that he did not run for his camera during this time. Perhaps monks do not carry cameras as part of their vow of poverty!

Also, I don't know why he thinks the monster inhabits the loch  "at a depth of 75 feet", I would like to know the reasoning behind that statement.

But the most mysterious piece (and which I had not noticed till I was typing this) was the account of the Loch Ness Monster being seen on land:

He's even ventured toward the shore. A couple driving along the shore road saw him on a hillside and the woman promptly suffered a heart attack. The husband rushed her to the monastery while the monster plunged into the lake.  

I have no idea what case he is referring to here.  Do we have a new land sighting report here or is the Abbot becoming more associated with Costello than Fort Augustus? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for we mentioned a land sighting already on this blog which was told by him and the link is here.

But in summary, that story concerned a monk who saw the monster emerge from some woods and enter the waters of the loch. Is this the same story or another one which Blair had picked up from the local raconteurs or monastic experts such as Cyril Dieckhoff? I had placed this monk's story on the flat woodlands beside the Abbey but this mysterious couple saw it on a hillside. Perhaps my suggested spot is wrong but they seem to be two separate stories. Using the clues in the short text, a shore road would most likely be the road on the busier west side approaching Fort Augustus. The road on the other side of Fort Augustus rapidly moves away from the loch and it is soon lost to view.

Secondly, there is plenty of the mentioned "hillside" on the west side of the loch which is now Forestry Commission land. That would imply the couple were heading south from Invermoriston to Fort Augustus when the lady in question saw the horrible sight of the creature moving amongst the trees and perhaps diving back into the loch in front or behind them. Her "heart attack" (or perhaps a panic attack) compelled her husband to drive straight onto the Abbey in the hope of medical facilities.

Well, perhaps, but it is a curious tale which I fear will never be resolved (unless eagle eyed readers have more to add!).

 

To Catch A Monster

 

 

 

Some of you may know that Jeremy Wade's successful TV series "River Monsters" has its season finale coming up and the Loch Ness Monster is the subject of the very last episode. It is fitting that on this 80th anniversary of the modern era of Nessie, Jeremy should select the greatest of all water monsters as his closing theme.

I don't know where the episode production has reached, but if he did succeed in catching the Loch Ness Monster, it will be pretty difficult to keep that under wraps until it airs on May 27th. In fact, eighty years of monster hunting suggests it will be a bit of a stretch to expect Jeremy to land the ultimate River Monster. I believe I know what type of animal he will suggest as an identity for the creature but there is no point in spoiling it for the rest of you and doubtless I will review the episode after it airs.

But the topic here is catching the Loch Ness Monster and that is a real arena for speculation and the final proof that science demands.

Ever since this beast became news in 1933, various attempts have been made to capture it. The first attempts were pretty much of the angling variety as a big hook and a big piece of bait were seen as the obvious way to capture a large water beast. We read this from the Inverness Courier of the 30th May 1933, a mere four weeks after the Mackay sighting which sparked the modern Nessie era:

Loch Ness Monster - an attempt to catch the monster was made at Foyers. A sealed barrel to which was attached 60 yards of strong wire with strong hooks baited with dogfish & skate was put out on the loch. The attempt was unsuccessful ...

After this, there was not much improvement in the technique, though the circus owner, Bertram Mills, was confident enough to erect a cage in anticipation of a capture carrying a £20,000 reward which was never claimed. It seemed people were content to concentrate on the gathering of more indirect evidence via film and photography.

It wasn't until after the Dinsdale film, that forces began to gather and organise in the form of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau and various other expeditions. A few groups would claim to come armed to the teeth and take out the monster with machine guns and explosives, but others would attempt a more thoughtful approach.

However, it has to be said that talk about capturing the creature remained mainly talk rather than action. Roy Mackal had his biopsy dart which it could be argued would "capture" a piece of the monster but this idea did not take off when its host submarine, the Viperfish, never really got going. One or two smaller conical nets were employed which were 6ft high by 5ft across which barely qualified as monster traps and again nothing was captured. It has to be said though that bigger nets were planned but the Bureau was disbanded in 1972 before any such project got off the ground.

But the Big Kahuna of monster traps was finally employed in 1984. It was the brainchild of the Vladivar Vodka company who saw this as a nice bit of publicity with the Loch Ness Project involved in the deployment of a 60ft by 20ft tube made of fibreglass and plastic. It was lowered into 30 metres of water for a month off the Horseshoe Scree with a suitable amount of fish bait inside.

As you may have guessed, nothing was captured again and it is a matter of debate whether it could have held a 30ft-40ft monster thrashing about inside it. Nevertheless, a trashed cage being lifted out of the loch would have generated no small amount of excitement itself. (You can read more about the Vladivar net and the LNIB attempts at this link).

So the short history of Nessie traps comes to an end. In total, it seems a meagre harvest of attempts to acquire the ultimate proof that scientists demand. In fact, it seems that future attempts would be strangled by red tape and conservation concerns. Fears of harming the local wildlife, introducing foreign species and obstructing the loch as part of the Caledonian canal waterway all but guarantee that there is little prospect of employing these techniques. It also seems that dredging the loch bottom for Nessie carcasses is a non-starter as the sediment at the bottom is regarded as a valuable store of natural history via core samples.

So it seems we have a paradox here. Scientists want a live or dead specimen to confirm the creature's existence but scientists don't want to do that in case of environmental damage! Now you know how to reply when they again demand proof.

So where does that leave us? Must we wait for a carcass to drift ashore by natural means? The truth of the matter is that there has never been a serious attempt to capture the Loch Ness Monster. The critics think it is a waste of time and money, the tourist board don't want their prize asset removed from the loch and the environmentalists don't want a blade of grass touched.

Ecological studies of the pelagic area of the loch (in the open water just below the surface) suggest it is not a place for monsters to waste their energy swimming about. In that light, the Vladivar net was probably in the wrong place, though if it was still there 30 years on, one would have an expectation of some Nessie "event" by now. The other consideration is that at 30m down, the total loch volume to that depth is just over 1.5 billion cubic metres. The net occupied about 560 cubic metres and so there was a 1 in 2.7 million chance that the Loch Ness Monster would hit this net first time. The odds go down if a herd of such creatures are constantly swimming around the loch down to 30m for a month.

One creature a metre wide travelling continuously at 5km per hour for 5 hours a day over 30 days will cover a volume trail of about 0.6 million cubic metres. Ten will cover 6 million cubic metres and we assume no overlapping of previous trails. This is 1/240th of the loch volume in question so we give Vladivar a 1 in 250 chance of succeeding which suggests the net had to stay in place for 20 years. In reality, it would be much higher because the creatures do not swim continuously in open water but rather stick to the sides and bottom of the loch.

So how do you catch the Loch Ness Monster without breaking health and safety regulations? I would suggest placing a long net along the bottom of the loch about two metres high. At this depth there is minimal chance of a seal being netted and the net should be big enough to allow fish through. When something is snared in the net which exerts a suitable amount of force equivalent to a one or two tonne creature then a mechanism should automatically raise the net to a predetermined spot (the Vladivar net had a similar principle). Cameras trained along the length of the net can transmit back video pictures, though visibility would be limited due to peat suspension and silt clouds being thrown up as the creature struggled.

 

There would be obvious technical issues. You can't just raise a net to the surface without endangering boats and wildlife further up the water column. The net would need to be of a suitable design for that depth and time spent under the water (years). A group of trained personnel would need to be on standby for an event which may never come yet must act as if it could happen tomorrow. And then there is the final issue of making sure the creature itself is not brought to serious harm.

 

As you can see, there is some serious planning but though one may get this past the authorities (and I would never assume that is a given) the ultimate obstacle is money. The big net of 1984 was funded by a large private company and the search for Nessie has always relied on private individuals and companies donating funds to research. It is unlikely that such funds would ever be forthcoming unless there is a shift in perception about the reality of the Loch Ness Monster. There was that perception in 1984 but not in 2013 thanks to the armies of sceptics that flock around the subject.

 

We can but live in hope.