Some Tales of Mhorag of Loch Morar

Following on from our tales of the Loch Oich Monster. The witness who told me that story also mentioned an experience a friend had in the late 80s or early 90s at Loch Morar:

"Another pair of friends were seakayaking in Loch Morar, heading to Tarbert to portage through and paddle back down Loch Nevis and camped the night on an island in Loch Morar. During the night one got up for a pee and as he was standing in the dark a huge commotion in the water nearby went on for several minutes, then stopped.

Suddenly a large wave of displaced water rushed up the shingle beach evidence of a large object having moved about vigorously. Nothing to see and no signs of anything in the morning, and no boat engines or evidence of other craft."

Staying on that subject and moving further back in time, I mentioned the Carmichael Watson Project website nine months ago at this link. Although there was a rich vein of folklore tales by Carmichael Watson to tap as regards Loch Monsters, the "mining" was too difficult due to the sources being in Gaelic. I contacted them at the time about translation work and got this reply:

"I'm afraid that the translation of Alexander Carmichael's notebooks was not one of the tasks in our project's remit, however the combination of the catalogue entry, which gives a synopsis in English, and the full-text transcription should go some way to revealing the contents of Gaelic notes. It is unlikely that translation work will take place on the notebooks unless by independent researchers."

I left it at that but some translations are beginning to come through as is evident with these items on the legendary creature of Loch Morar called "Mhorag". Cryptozoologists are familiar with modern sightings of this creature but the folklore aspects add some interesting details. The original articles can be found here, but I shall summarise the cryptozoological aspects below.

Carmichael had visited the district including Loch Morar perhaps around 1902 and as was his wont would takes notes on local stories. Three stories about Mhorag appear in his own texts from over 100 years ago.

Text 1:

" Morag is always seen before a death and before a drowning especially before the death of the proprietor.

When Iain Ruadh was drowned she was seen by Coll MacColl a native of Tiree.
She was seen about six years ago before a man was drowned. Eoghan Dughallach saw the Morag several times in his long life.

The Morag came to a man in Gleann Loch an aineach and spoke to him. "

Text 2:

"There is a creature in Lochmorar and she is called Morag. She is never seen save when one of the daoine duchasach – of the hereditary people of the place dies. The last time she was seen was when Aonas na Traigh, Aeneas Macdonnell, died in 1898.

The Morag is peculiar to Loch Morar. She is seen in broad daylight and by many persons – including church persons – parsons.

She appears in a cnap dubh – a black heap or ball slowing and deliberately rising in the water and moving along like a boat water logged.

The Morag is much disliked and is called by many uncomplimentary terms – Morag dhubh – black Morag – morally not physically – Morag Odhar – dun Morag. Morag dhuibhre – dusky Morag. Morag Ghranda – ugly Morag.

As sure as Morag is seen as surely a heredient dies immediately thereafter. She is not seen when one of the common people dies but is always seen when one of the heredients dies - One of the native chiefs or relatives of one of the native chiefs. The last time Morag was seen was immediately before the death of Aonas of Traigh in 1898.

Eoghan Dughallach Beoraid bheag – Beoraid Mhic Shimi – firmly believed in the Morag and gave many vivid descriptions of its appearance and occurrence."

Text 3:

“The Morag dwells in Loch Morar. She gives her name to the lake and still appears when any of the old Macdonalds of Morar die. Like the other water deities she is half human half fish. The lower portions of her body is in the form of a grilse and the upper in the form of a small woman of highly developed breasts with long flowing yellow hair falling down her snow white back and breast. She is represented as being fair, beautiful and very timid and never seen save when one of the Morar family dies or when the clan falls in battle.

Then she is seen rushing about with great speed and is heard wailing in great distress bemoaning and weeping the loss of the House of Morar laid desolate. The Morag has often brought out of their houses at night the people living along the shores of the lake and in the neighbourhood of her haunts causing much anxiety to the men and much sore weeping to the women. When the Morag was heard weeping and wailing the most thoughtless became serious and the most obdurate became subdued.

Old Macdougall, crofter, Mallaig Bheag said that the horn of the steamer, the shriek of the train and the crank of the rifle were inimical to the Morag giving no peace no rest no repose to bird or beast or fish day or night driving them all from their habitats to their secret hiding places in the recesses of sea and lake and mountain.

Macdougall described the Morag her form and face her hair and breasts her weeping and waling her rushing to and fro on the water with force and reality that carried conviction! The writer caught himself several times giving furtive glances away from his book to the calm bosom of Loch Morar in the late autumn eve.”

The blogger at the Carmichael website notes the distinction between the third account of a mermaid like creature and the less inspiring "cnap dubh" or "black heap" of the other two accounts. Here is where reality and folklore depart. The black heap is far more in keeping with modern sightings of dark humps moving across the water whereas mermaids are more the stuff of fantasy.

Although a mermaid in a loch rather than out at sea may seem more strange, this is not the first time we have come across mermaids in lochs as a previous post on Loch Duntelchaig demonstrated. What I did find interesting from the mermaid account was its aversion to modern noise which makes it flee to the deepest recesses of the loch. Researchers familiar with the Loch Ness Monster's sensitivity to shouts and car doors slamming may find a grain of truth there.

Nevertheless, our blogger theorises that Carmichael took the third account from a James MacDonald whom he may have met at a Gaelic song and story convention called the "Mod". You can read his line of thought in his third post here.

That the Mhorag appeared before the death of a person is already a documented feature of this creature and indeed the "monstrum" (Latin for "omen") or portentous aspect of water horses was already a feared attribute across the Highlands. Indeed, people even refrained from talking about seeing them for fear of a supernatural backlash.

But for those who seek the true creature behind these stories, the most telling line below speaks of the slow moving dark hump seen in the loch at the end of the nineteenth century.

"She appears in a cnap dubh – a black heap or ball slowing and deliberately rising in the water and moving along like a boat water logged."

Those further interested in the Loch Morar Monster could consult the standard book on this subject titled "The Search for Morag" by Elizabeth Campbell and David Solomon.

The Loch Oich Monster

I received an email from a witness a while back recounting his previously unpublicised story of a sighting in Loch Oich. Since such reports are few and far between, this seemed a good point to first recount the story of the Loch Oich Monster. Or should I say the Loch Ness Monster in Loch Oich for there is little doubt in my mind that any such reports are in fact our own Nessie travelling incognito. My reasoning for this position are four fold:

1. Loch Oich at a mere four miles long and no more than a quarter of a mile across could fit into Loch Ness nearly 300 times over. In that light, it seems unlikely to be a sole habitat for its own monsters.

2. Loch Oich is connected to Loch Ness by the River Oich which flows about four miles as the crow flies between the two lochs. So it is possible for a Loch Ness Monster to navigate between the two lochs, though it would require some effort and motivation (e.g. chasing salmon runs). In fact, the difficulty of the trek makes it no surprise that sightings in Loch Oich are even rarer than in Loch Ness.

3. It is unlikely that two adjoining lochs have two separate and distinct species of unknown creature.

4. Sightings are so rare as to suggest a transient presence in the loch.

FOLKLORE

Now looking at the history of the Loch Oich Monster, we first look back into the mists of time and the folklore tradition. When I was researching my book on Scottish Water Horses, I did not find any contemporary traditions of such a creature in Loch Oich (i.e. pre-Nessie era). However, author Alasdair Alpin MacGregor made reference to a water horse tradition in Loch Oich in his 1937 book "The peat-fire flame: folk-tales and traditions of the Highlands and Islands".

Sadly, he supplies no further details or sources but given that he also mentions sightings of the creature in the previous year (see below), he was most likely inspired by these to verify older traditions.

However, the first claimed mention of a creature in Loch Oich is by the famous Dutch cryptozoologist A. C. Oudemans in 1934 when he relates the tale of "The Children's Pool". This was a tale of children who saw a creature like a deformed pony appear beside a deep pool of the River Garry which feeds into Loch Oich. The children mounted the docile beast which then flew and plunged into the pool with the children to their doom. The story is believed to be from at least 1894 and though strictly this is perhaps more of a river Kelpie than a loch inhabiting Each Uisge, it is still worth a mention.

Peter Costello, who related the Oudemans reference in his book "In Search of Lake Monsters" felt that Oudemans took the story a bit too seriously and I would agree with him as children riding to their doom was a common motif in the Water Horse genre across various lochs in the old Highlands (as related in the book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness"). Nevertheless, it does suggest an oral tradition of an Each Uisge in and around Loch Oich before modern times.

MODERN SIGHTINGS

So when is the first reported sighting of a strange creature in this loch? The answer as far as I can ascertain is 1936 when the Scotsman (and other papers) ran some articles on reports on a strange animal in Loch Oich. This would have been three years after Nessie hit the world headlines and by then things were relatively quiet at Loch Ness in terms of media coverage.

The first report I have is from the 14th August 1936 (click on original report of the time below for more details). The date of the sighting would be Tuesday 11th August and involved a Mr. Alderman Richards, his son and a Mr. G M. Wilkinson who were boating at the southern end of the loch. A black two humped creature with a total visible length of 12 feet appeared a mere 36 feet from them and moved around at a decent speed.

The head was described as dog-like and "shaggy" (though this description was applied to the head and not the humps). The head would be shaken vigorously as it resurfaced and the humps appear to have been uniformly semi-circular as they are described as three foot high by three foot across. Interestingly, the humps were described as "snake like coils" in appearance with three feet separating each visible part of the creature (i.e. a head and two humps). The creature continually submerged and reappeared in the sequence of rear hump first, other hump and then head.




And so began a sequence of reports that received national coverage. Naturally, some will suggest the witnesses saw a line of otters playing together in the water and an appropriately configured line of otters can be produced to convince one and all (such as the image below). However, it is strange that none of the other otters decided to surface their heads at the same time plus three feet is far too high for an otter to be protruding out of the water.



So we have a little mystery here. But things did not finish there and further reports appeared in the Scotsman twelve days later on the 26th August. This time, two sets of witnesses claimed to have seen the creature on the weekend of the 22nd August, namely a Mr. Alastair Grant and two other foresters and elsewhere some tourists including the former Canadian Minster of Agriculture, Duncan Marshall.

No details of the sightings were given in that newspaper account, but in a subsequent Scotsman article from the 1st September, it was five foresters who saw the object which it turned out was a dark two part shape near the surface of the water about 8 to 12 feet in length and moving against the wind. The object submerged out of sight after about 100 yards. The two parts may have been humps but the high elevation of the sighting could not confirm the height of the object above water.

Evidently, the Scotsman correspondent had done a bit more investigation as we are introduced to two further witnesses. The first was a 70 year old lady called Mary MacDonald who recounted the story of her father declaring the presence of a strange beast in Loch Oich in the 1870s.

The second was a Simon Cameron who was the bridge keeper at the southern end of the loch. As it turns out, Mr. Cameron had lent his boat to the Aldermans when they had their sighting and had his own strange experience the very next morning (12th August) at about 7am from his house. The description sounds quite similar in that he describes seeing a shaggy dog-like head with a body at least six feet long with possibly more hidden beneath the surface. Curiously, the dog-like attributes are further enhanced when he describes the motion as "a dog-like action of its front feet or fins".

Mr. Cameron was of the opinion that it was indeed an otter but "an enormous, great otter". In fact, an otter that does not even exist in Europe and which even the Giant Otter of the Amazon below would be challenged to match (picture source). Note it is uncertain from this picture how long the otter can sustain this "periscope" effect or whether it requires itself to be touching the bottom of the river in shallow water.



Finally, it seems that Mr. Cameron had sight again of this creature for the Scotsman ran one final report on the 22nd September saying that he had seen the animal again on Saturday the 19th (clipping below). However, the report sounds so similar to the first that we wonder if the newspaper has not erroneously ran the same report again!




This prompted one person to suggest this was a giant otter, perhaps even the extinct giant Megalenhydris Barbaricina which would certainly have exceeded six feet in length. However, the two humped aspect of these sightings would be a feat of contortionism beyond any otter.

As it turns out, not even the Loch Oich Monster has escaped the deprecating gaze of the sceptic. The Cameron report was dismissed as a seal by one such person who with a prescience that suggested he must have been present when Cameron was questioned said:

"Cameron was doubtless taunting the credulous reporter who failed to recognise the excellent visual description of a seal ..."

Doubtless he was .. if you require such anomalous reports to be seals. So Mr. Cameron is dismissed as a practical joker in the eyes of this sceptic without the slightest shred of evidence. This sadly is an accusation I have seen levelled at locals before - that they are a bunch of liars who cannot resist the temptation to deceive others. Evidently they lie to each other as well as the story of Mary MacDonald above suggests. Though it is crystal clear that some people have lied in the past, we should avoid needless extrapolation and dismiss such defamation at the more general level.

The other point this sceptical person fails to highlight is the scarcity of seals in Loch Oich. They rarely turn up in Loch Ness and progressing further inland to Loch Oich is even more of a trial for such a sea-farer. As an aside, in an example of towering irony he then takes his opponent to task for:

"... dismissing the observations that do not suit your purpose ..."

As if sceptics never do such a thing (regular readers of this blog will get what I am saying)! But come rain or shine, this blog will continue to treat witnesses in a less dismissive manner.

So 1936 came and went and, as far as I can tell, no more was heard of the monster of Loch Oich. Well, apart from a hoax by Jonathan Routh and some students in the summer of 1961 who set off a motorised "monster" down the loch. The thing was dutifully photographed and made its way into the Scottish Daily Express of the 8th July 1961. You can see a photo of their model in situ at this link.

THE RECENT SIGHTING

And so 62 long years later on the 22nd August 1998, we come to the latest story of the Loch Oich Monster. The witness is a local Lochaber person and has requested anonymity, but I have his details and can vouch for who he is. I had noticed his comments on the Internet about strange goings on in the waters of that area and contacted him for further details. I will quote his own story as to what happened that day:

"A friend and I saw a large hump surface a few hundred metres east of the Well of The Heads and about 20 metres from the shore as we were driving along the road. It broke the surface and as it rose up we could see underneath it, so it obviously had some additional bulk on either side of the hump that was below the surface. It was dark coloured and rough and quite symmetrical. We ran down onto the shore with cameras but it had gone down again and the water was all disturbed. There was a small sailing boat from the Water Park nearby, tacking to and fro, and very close to the object but the sailor had their back to the object so did not see it.

I'm very experienced in the outdoors, photograph and film nature professionally, and have decades of outdoors experience. My friend is a mountain guide and qualified naturalist with decades of field experience. Neither of us had seen anything like this. If I'd to hazard a guess as to what it was - it'd be a giant eel, But one that was 18 inches in diameter which is pretty extreme. Whatever it was it wasn't an emerging gassy tree trunk, nor a duck, nor a swimming deer, or a swimming sheep, nor anything else like that ALL of which I've seen. This was animate, and odd. And two of us saw the same thing. "

With the help of Google Earth we can show the rough location of the sighting from above (white circle) and on the road (where the Well of the Seven Heads monument is in the foreground). As the witness report suggests, there is good visibility of the loch and quick access to the shoreline.





When I enquired about seals in Loch Oich, our witness further stated:

"And, fact is, if it was a seal I saw then that's even more remarkable because it would have to be huge. Two of us witnessed something really unusual - I've seen and filmed otters in a line doing a porpoise thing - mother and three cubs in/out/in/out of the water - THAT really looked like a monster. Swimming deer - seen those. Swimming sheep, seen them. Gassy logs - seen them too. Floating garden sheds - seen them. Divers working - seen them, done it too."

I made further enquiries as to the creature's appearance. The hump was about 1.5m (4ft) across and was 60cm (2ft) high. But the important thing I did not initially twig from the report was that:

"as it rose up we could see underneath it"

So offering me clarification:

"Picture a large grey/green/brown inner tube 'stretched' so it wasn't entirely round and popped up out of the water. Initially it appeared to be a solid 'hump' but as it broke the surface you could see the underside of it as the water flowed off it, revealing the girth. Then it slid back under again vertically. It lasted only 20 seconds or so. We saw it as we drove, squealed with excitement, headed for the layby just before Well of the Heads and legged it onto the shore but it was gone leaving a frothy surface and the wind whipped it away."

In other words, this was a coiled animal giving the appearance of a huge inner tube rising out of the water. The witness estimated its body to be one foot thick and it is no surprise he therefore speculated that it could have been a giant eel.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying a normal length to diameter ratio for an eel to this creature would give a length of at least 13-20 feet. However, eels do not raise their body above the water in the manner of this creature (and neither do otters). This beast requires some other explanation.

The other point to note is that the 1936 witness, Alderman Richards, described the humps in a similar manner as "snake like coils". In other words, it seems that he too described the creature as being "inner tube" in appearance 62 years before. Now I have to admit that the Loch Ness Monster is not generally described this way. If there is one argument for this beast being separate from Nessie then this is it.

I would make one final observation which is Nessie-like and that is the words:

"but it was gone leaving a frothy surface and the wind whipped it away"

Now when animals submerge, they will disturb the water but they won't leave a frothy surface. This feature has been reported more than once when the Loch Ness Monster surfaces and submerges - a foaming kind of effect appears amongst the waves. That this appears to be more than just water is indicated by the witness' statement that the wind whipped it away. My conjecture is that this is something to do with gas/fluid ejecta which aids bouyancy but, of course, it is merely speculation.

The fellow that comes to mind in this respect is the late Maurice Burton who favoured gas generated vegetable mats as an explanation for some monster sightings. This would indeed produce a frothing at the surface as the gas of decomposition raises the mass of vegetation to the surface and then dissipates leaving the clump to fall back down again.

Whether Loch Oich at this apparently deep point could achieve this is another matter. However, what this experienced witness saw does not sound in any way like a frothing mass of vegetation.

So the Loch Oich Monster reared itself up to human gaze in 1998, but will we have to wait another 62 years before anyone sees it again? Let's hope not. But then again, did not the previous story of old Mary MacDonald occur about 62 years before the accounts of 1936 ... ?

PREVIOUS BLOGS:
A Loch Ness Monster Quiz
Some Monster Hunter Photographs

A Loch Ness Monster Quiz

Or perhaps more of a poll? I reproduce a version of the Hugh Gray picture at the top. The question is simple - which of the next four photographs after it (from seperate sources) does it most resemble? Ignore contrast and brightness and concentrate rather on features.

Answer Below ...

PICTURE 1

PICTURE 2

PICTURE 3

PICTURE 4

The answer is picture three.

Picture one is taken from Nicholas Witchell's book "The Loch Ness Story".
Picture two is taken from Rupert Gould's book "The Loch Ness Monster and Others". Picture four is taken from Constance Whyte's book "More Than a Legend".

Picture three is not a true Hugh Gray picture but this is admitted by the author Tony Harmsworth at his website (see link) as he merely doctored it to try and enhance the "labrador" he postulated was visible.

So why the quiz?

The picture at the top with the bluish circle also discusses the Hugh Gray photo and expounds the labrador theory. However, in my opinion the author of that web page took Tony's picture but did not explain to readers of the web page that is was a doctored photo thus giving a false impression. I challenged the person on this point but they denied the picture was taken from Tony's website.

Hence this little quiz. All comments which made a choice agreed with my assessment and I now move on.

Some Monster Hunter Photographs

I recently received some photographs from Tony Healy who has given me permission to show them on this blog but remaining under his copyright. Tony is co-author with Paul Cropper of the book "The Yowie - In Search of Australia's Bigfoot" (see link).

They were taken by him during his trips to Loch Ness and Loch Morar during the 1970s. There are three photographs which can be clicked to enlarge. The first is of Alex Campbell, so long associated with the Loch Ness Mystery as correspondent to the Inverness Courier. The second is of famous Nessie Hunter, Tim Dinsdale and on his left is Joe Zarzynski, erstwhile hunter of the Lake Champlain Monster, "Champ". Finally, we have Tim in his "natural habitat" aboard his boat "Water Horse".

Analysis of the Peter MacNab Photograph

Today I look at the next photograph in the series on classic Nessie pictures. Previously I had examined the Hugh Gray picture and hopefully shed some new light on it. The research on that classic continues but today it is the Peter MacNab photograph that has my attention and we are not ashamed to say this is another genuine picture of the Loch Ness Monster. It could be argued that after the Surgeon's Photograph, this is the second most iconic picture of the Loch Ness Monster. With its classic humps creating a wake as they move towards Urquhart Castle, it sums up the mystery of Loch Ness more than any other picture.

THE SIGHTING

Mr. MacNab's account of that day is taken from Nicholas Witchell's "Loch Ness Story" published in 1974.

"I was returning from a holiday in the north with my son and pulled the car up on the road just above Urquhart Castle. It was a calm, warm hazy afternoon. I was all ready to take a shot of Urquhart Castle when my attention was held by a movement in the calm water over to the left. Naturally I thought of the 'Monster' and hurriedly changed over the standard lens of my Exacta (127) camera to a six-inch telephoto.
As I was doing so a quick glance showed that some black or dark enormous water creature was cruising on the surface. Without a tripod and in a great hurry I took the shot. I also took a very quick shot with another camera, a fixed-focus Kodak, before the creature submerged.

My son was busy under the bonnet of the car at the time and when he looked in response to my shouts there were just ripples on the water. Several cars and a bus stopped but they could see nothing and listened to my description with patent disbelief."

Having taken the pictures, Mr. MacNab sat on them for over three years because of the ridicule he says he received when showing them privately to friends. This changed when the Hugh Cockerell photograph was published by the Weekly Scotsman on 16th October 1958. Putting aside fears of ridicule, he was emboldened by the publication of that picture to come forward with his own which was published in the next issue on the 23rd of October. The rest as they say is history.

You may ask where this second photograph is, for as far as I know, it has never been published. Like the second less well known picture of the Surgeon's Photograph duet, it seems to have been lost to the media and consigned to oblivion. Unlike the second Surgeon's Photograph, it seems this picture did not have the fortune to be privately retained for future discovery as Peter MacNab was so frustrated by the ridicule that came his way that he threw it away. We may assume Mr. MacNab also had no print made from it else he would have shown it to subsequent Nessie researchers such as Constance Whyte and Nicholas Witchell.

I made enquiries to the Scotsman newspaper archives about any uncropped version of the first picture and the mysterious second picture but they no longer have any records relating to the story. They suggested that any prints they received would have been returned to Mr. MacNab. If anyone has any information that may lead me to a copy of this second picture or an uncropped version of the first, send me an email to shimei123@yahoo.co.uk.

THE REACTION

The reaction to the picture has been understandably mixed. Whyte, Dinsdale and Witchell regard it as important evidence. Others give it a fleeting mention while sceptics such as Burton and Binns suggest a combination of boat wakes. Roy Mackal rejects it as inadmissable as evidence and as a result Binns and Campbell deferred to his analysis. The most detailed investigation of the photograph was carried out by Roy Mackal in his 1976 book, "The Monsters of Loch Ness". He had asked Mr. MacNab for a copy to include in his book and Mr. MacNab duly obliged. However, instead of the picture ending up in Dr. Mackal's category of "Positive Evidence", it was demoted to "Unacceptable as Evidence" with further details shunted to an appendix.

To summarise Roy Mackal's argument, he compared his copy against what had been published in Constance Whyte's book "More Than A Legend". The two are shown below.

Whyte Version

Mackal Version

The first discrepancy was the presence of a foreground tree in the Whyte version which was absent in his version. The second concerned the reflection of the castle upon the loch in his version. Using the picture below, he demonstrated how the shadow in his copy was skewed from the normal vertical position in the Whyte version. He went back to Peter MacNab with some pertinent questions but says that MacNab was unsure what to say and suggested the difference in the two might be because one was the first photograph he took and the other was the second picture he took with the Kodak camera.



Unsatisfied with all this, Roy Mackal labelled the photograph as not suitable as evidence and moved on. And so it was that Peter MacNab's photograph became marked as dubious. A look around the web will reveal plenty of sites restating Roy Mackal's analysis. Indeed, leading Loch Ness researcher, Tony Harmsworth, cites this analysis as finally removing any doubts he had about this photograph. Let us however take a closer look.

THE PROBLEM

I also read and accepted Roy Mackal's analysis but it is good to go over our old assumptions from time to time. So I had a recent closer look at it and noticed something odd about the version of the picture sent to Roy Mackal. Basically, the castle in the Mackal version is slightly bigger than the one in the Whyte version. Intrigued by this small discrepancy, I started up my standard image editing software package on Windows (this is the same software used for the Hugh Gray analysis). I read in the Whyte version of the picture and then the Mackal version. I then increased the transparency of the Mackal image so as to allow me to drag it over and shrink it to fit the size of the Whyte castle.

The first picture below shows the image overlay process and I ended up with the second picture. What I saw gave me something of a shock. It became immediately apparent that the missing tree problem was not a problem at all. The Mackal version was a zoom-in which was sufficient to exclude the foreground tree. The tree had not been edited out by nefarious means, but rather was just out of view in the new version.





My thoughts then turned as to how this situation could have come about. I had a look around and noted on Dick Raynor's website (see link) that he had also requested a copy from Peter MacNab and the picture he shows is the same as the "Mackal version". So it appears that what Roy Mackal shows is what Roy Mackal got from Mr. MacNab. So any comments would be appreciated on this obscure matter. But in case anyone thinks this is a post aimed at vilifying Roy Mackal then know this - the aim is rather to vindicate Peter MacNab who died some ten years ago and can no longer speak for himself. So in the absence of clarification, this argument against the picture must be dismissed.

But what about the second part of the analysis which concerns the difference in the castle shadows? That there is a difference in shadow angles is not in dispute as this further overlay of Roy Mackal's drawing shows. The difference in shadow angles is about 4 degrees.



However, having discharged Mr. MacNab of suspicion on the first count, it may be this will help us resolve the second count in a manner that does not require conspiracy and deception. If the "Mackal version" was the current complete print that Mr. MacNab had, then the absence of the "tree" bottom strip plus a distortion of the shadow in the same region implies a simpler solution than elaborate hoaxing. We know that Peter MacNab stated to Nicholas Witchell that he threw away the negative of the second photograph and nearly destroyed the negative of the main photograph. Therefore, it is reasonable to theorise that the negative could have sustained some damage to its bottom portion and Peter MacNab later attempted to restore it.

How he did this is not known but nothing suspicious is required to form a conclusion. He may have cut off the bottom strip or he may have created a new zoomed in negative from the original. Meanwhile, a print made from the previously undamaged negative was used in subsequent newspapers and books. However, it is also entirely possible that an even simpler explanation exists which is that the bottom of the negative merely warped due to poor storage conditions. These are all entirely plausible explanations which need no conspiracy to explain them.

This may not convince the hardened sceptic who requires this photograph to be a hoax but nevertheless in this regard the hoax explanation is no longer compelling. Peter MacNab's confusing explanation to Roy Mackal can also now be explained - especially since Roy communicated with him about 20 years after the event and Mr. MacNab was by then over 70 years old and not exactly at the prime of his powers of recollection. Roy Mackal had essentially posed a problem to Peter MacNab that did not exist. It is not surprising then that a confusing question elicited a confusing answer from this confused septuagenarian.

As an aside, I actually found Peter MacNab's suggestion of the second photograph quite encouraging as it suggests the possibility that a copy may yet still be out there somewhere. Note that he said he destroyed the negative but not necessarily any prints made from it. Time may yet prove fruitful in this matter.

But it has to be noted (and Roy Mackal also points this out) that these so called discrepancies are not of the first order because the monster is already on both Whyte and Mackal versions. A warped shadow is no proof of hoaxing as the alleged hoax would have already been perpetrated between a hypothetical photograph of a boat with wake and the now famous Whyte version.

BOATS AND MONSTERS

Which brings us nicely to the next objection that Peter MacNab doctored a photograph of a boat near Urquhart Castle to produce his alleged fraud. The allegations made above were used as a foundation on which to further build this accusation, but now it has to stand on less firm ground. Nevertheless, the accusation stands and so we examine its claims. One technique cited is that a picture with a boat producing a decent sized wake is overlaid with a "Nessie". Thus, the boat image is obscured and the "Monster" appears. The main problem for a hoaxer is to avoid retouching the surrounding waters as this is no trivial task and an expert eye could detect such artifacts. However, using our trusty ruler and Mackal's estimate of the castle height, it is established that the main hump is 2.6 feet high at its maximum and the smaller hump comes in at a top 1.8 feet. This height is too low to overlay an image of the type of big ships that ply their way across the loch.

One may suggest a smaller craft like a dinghy or outboard motor fishing boat but even here the occupant would still be three to four feet above the surface and the large wake in the picture is not produced by such crafts (see picture). There is also the problem that such a 15 foot boat is uniformly higher than the object across its entire bulk (about two feet). The problem of fakery is further compounded in that there is clearly two wakes visible in the photograph - one from the small hump and the other from the main hump - they have different structures. Indeed, I would concur with Peter MacNab's suggestion that there are two creatures in this picture for the two humps are not in perfect alignment.



Finally, suggestions about other matching boat wakes being faintly visible on the loch are irrelevant since it is clear that there is no wake ahead of what may be presumed to be the head of the object.

But I would reiterate a statement made in an earlier post that claiming a Nessie photograph is a fake is a somewhat futile exercise. All Nessie photos are reproducible given enough time and money. However, in the case of the MacNab photograph, it would take a bit more effort. Indeed, it should be pointed out again that Peter MacNab's photograph was published one week after he was prompted to act by the Cockerell picture. Could he have faked the picture in seven days given the additional time required to inform the newspaper and send it off to them in time to prepare for the next edition?

And just to show you what a good job he must have done in "faking" it, Walt Disney produced a documentary in the early 1970s called "Man, Monsters and Mysteries" which actually shows a reproduction of the MacNab photograph (below). It is evident from this picture that even the multiple and professional talents of the Walt Disney special effects team could not reproduce MacNab's photograph to the same degree!



As an aside, when I saw this Disney picture, I thought it was the second MacNab picture because the object is closer to the castle than the first. However, a comparison of the pictures shows that the tree to the left of the castle is substantially bigger in the Disney version which implies this picture was taken years later by Disney when they visited the loch and faked up their own inferior version (presumably because Peter MacNab refused them permission to use his picture in what was a fairly infantile production).

SIZES AND MONSTERS

The final objection concerns the presumed size of the object in the picture. If the object is one creature then it is huge even by normal Nessie standards. A size of 60 to 70 feet would not be out of place. This is too much for some and so is rejected. However, it is clear to me from what I said above that this is in fact two creatures as the humps are out of alignment and the wave structure is different between the two. In that light, the bigger hump is about 30 foot long and the smaller one about 13 feet long which brings the total dimensions of these creatures within the historical record.

RELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS

Now this photograph is put forward as proof that the "reliable character witness" scenario is bunk. After all, if a respected bank manager and local councillor such as Peter MacNab (pictured below) could indulge in such deception then who can you trust? But this is a stance we should seek to defend on the simple premise that those who have much to lose have little to motivate. In other words, there is no equality when it comes to Nessie witnesses (as in any category of witness testimony).

So that assertion may be true if the original premise was true but there is no proof that Mr. MacNab hoaxed the photograph. In fact, looking at his CV, it would have been extremely foolhardy of him to have attempted such a risky endeavour.


So, Peter MacNab had a lot to lose in such a venture. Just previous to the time he claimed to have taken the picture, he had been elected as the President of the Clan MacNab Society. In fact, we'll let extracts from his obituary in The Scotsman for the 17th October 2002 do the talking for us.

Peter Angus Macnab, writer

Born: 1 November, 1903, in Portmahomack, Easter Ross Died: 3 October, 2002, in Ayrshire, aged 98

PETER Macnab was one of Scotland’s oldest active writers and authors, renowned for his unparalleled knowledge of and passion for the island of Mull and its people. This special interest came through in his writings, lectures and broadcasting over the past 70 years and resulted in his becoming probably the most authoritative source of information on the social history and folklore of the island. He is the author of the standard work on Mull and Iona. He also covered a wide range of subjects related to Scotland in addition to local history and was the author of a number of successful books and guides.

He had contributed to a variety of national and international magazines and publications since the Second World War, including The Scotsman. He was probably the longest-serving, as well as the oldest, active contributor to The Scots Magazine, having been associated with it for more than half a century. His last book, Tobermory Teuchtar, a personal account of life in Tobermory and Mull in the early years of the last century, was published when he was 95.

He was actively engaged on another at the time of his last illness, together with a number of articles. Peter Macnab saw his knowledge and writings on Mull as an attempt not merely to remind us of past times and values but also to encourage interest in what Mull and the Highlands and Islands can offer today to visitors. In addition, he stressed the importance of retaining viable communities, which hopefully might retain something of the Gaelic culture - something that his local school had done its best to discourage during his boyhood days.

He joined the Clydesdale Bank and although predominantly based in Glasgow served in numerous positions in the west of Scotland. During the Second World War, when his medical history ruled him out of military service, he travelled to many parts of Scotland on banking duties. Banking never quite fulfilled his restless ambitions, however, and he used his natural ability and restless energies to expand his interests in writing, lecturing, and broadcasting in addition to a range of social interests and hobbies.

He had set up home in West Kilbride in 1930 and he was active in public life for over 70 years in Ayrshire. Retirement from the bank in 1963 was merely an opportunity to expand on his favourite pursuits, including local community work. He was a county councillor for North Ayrshire, a district councillor and a special commissioner; a past captain, long-term committee member and honorary member of West Kilbride Golf Club. He had been an elder of Overton Church, West Kilbride, since 1941 and an office-bearer for many years for various local societies.

He lectured on the history of the Scottish clans and the history of Scottish banking, was a professional guide for the Ministry of Information, a former president of the Clan Macnab Society, a skilled photographer, keen angler, beekeeper, horticulturist, maker of rams’ horn crooks and walking sticks and, not least, a vintage car enthusiast - the family black and primrose Swift, which he nicknamed "Rosinante", was until a few years ago a familiar sight on roads in the west of Scotland and beyond.

Would a man of this breadth and experience risk it all for a practical joke which could blow up in his face if exposed and branded a liar and a thief (if he accepted payment from the newspapers)? I don't think so, the burden of proof lies with the sceptical position here.

CONCLUSION

In the realm of Nessie photographs nothing is clear cut. Accusations are made and defenses are mounted. The case for this photograph is I hope stronger after today. Tony Harmsworth in his analysis of this picture hoped that one day Mr. MacNab would come clean and tell us all how he managed to fool us. He did not volunteer such information because in my opinion he is guiltless in the matter.

At the aforementioned Dick Raynor website, there is a photograph of Mr. MacNab with other Nessie witnesses at the making of a Loch Ness documentary in the early 1980s. Is this an example of brazen cheek after 25 years or a man who simply believed he took a photograph of something mysterious that balmy summer day in 1955?

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

RECENT BLOG POSTS:

Is there enough food for Nessie?

Seven Deadly Sins of Nessie Witnesses

Today, eyewitnesses to the Loch Ness Monster are the untouchables, the flotsam and jetsom of evidence and scepticism. Why is that? Because by a process of logical deduction, it has been proven there cannot possibly be large creatures in Loch Ness. Ergo, not one - not one single person out of the thousands who have claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster can possibly be right. The logic is flawless (even if the data and assumptions it is applied to in order to generate that conclusion may not be).

However, scepticism is required to give such people a second glance because they continue to see things and films and photographs continue to turn up in the media. Reality continues to intrude upon the logical arguments which are supposed to redefine reality in a conformist kind of way.

Having read the reactions to various eyewitness accounts over the years, certain trends have become apparent which critics of such people may focus on to discredit what they claimed to have seen.

1. Be able to develop their own photographs. An obvious no-no as it will then be "suggested" that the picture was faked in the darkness of their developing room. The modern equivalent is finding out the witness had PhotoShop installed on their PC.

2. Own a commerical outlet near the loch. An old and cynical chesnut that gets trotted out when Summer approaches. Need some extra trade? Then just make up a Nessie story.

3. Tell jokes about the monster. If you are not deadly serious about the subject then it is clear you are a practical joker who faked it all up for laughs.

4. Be associated with another Loch Ness Monster witness. Two witnesses know each other? Obviously this means a conspiracy, what could be clearer?

5. Diverge from your account in the slightest detail. A mainstay of debunkers. If you can't retell the tale precisely, you must have made it up!

6. Sell your photograph or film to a newspaper or other pecuniary gain. The ultimate sin and final proof that you fabricated it all for the sake of filthy lucre!

7. You have other "crazy" views.  Also claimed to have seen a UFO or perhaps believe Nessie is something paranormal, etc, etc? You are already plunging down the credibility ratings and are probably delusional.

Perhaps you can suggest others. In some respects, a Nessie witness must be as squeaky clean as a politician. Good luck to them!

RECENT BLOG POSTS:

Is there enough food for Nessie?