The World's Oldest Loch Ness Monster Document

Anyone with an interest in the Loch Ness Monster will tell you that the earliest account of the monster was by Saint Columba sometime in the 6th century AD. The story itself has been repeated countless times in books, magazine and newspaper articles since the early days of Nessie fever in 1933. Even the latest Nessie story can't help but stretch back nearly 14 centuries to make a mention of it.

But today I want to bring that bit of Nessie history a bit closer to its ancient times and instill in you the almost timeless mystery that is the Loch Ness Monster. It is in fact the earliest copy of Adamnan's account of the life of Saint Columba. This manuscript is believed to have been written during Adamnan's lifetime or shortly after which places it late 7th or early 8th century. The library itself says the document:

"is the oldest surviving copy of Adomnán of Iona's Life of Columba, and undoubtedly its single most important witness.  It was copied at Iona during (or shortly after) Adomnán's lifetime, and is also a splendid example of early medieval insular bookmaking, having been colorfully described by E. A. Lowe as embodying the 'pure milk of Irish calligraphy'"

In times past, only the privileged and academic few would have been able to gaze upon this most rare of Loch Ness Monster documents but thanks to scanning technology and the Internet, it is now available to view to all. The document is hosted by the Virtual Carolignian Libraries of St. Gall and Reichenau (the former monasteries which held such documents). The actual physical manuscript is held by the Stadtbibliothek in Schaffhausen, Switzerland.

Now going to the above link presents a Latin document in a beautiful but difficult calligraphy which makes the task of finding the story a challenge. However, after some digging about, I have found the two relevant pages that relate the tale of St. Columba and the monster and they are reproduced below.

They are located on pages 74 and 75 and the story begins with the red text at the bottom right of the first page with a reference to the "aquatilis bestiae" or water beast. If you then go over to the right hand column and look down to the fourth line you will see the words "fluvii" and "nesa" which refer to the River Ness. The account ends on the right hand column of the next page prior to the next red words. I won't reproduce the entire Latin text but the english translation is below.

OF THE DRIVING AWAY OF A CERTAIN WATER MONSTER BY THE VIRTUE OF THE PRAYER OF THE BLESSED MAN.

At another time again, when the blessed man was staying for some days in the province of the Picts, he found it necessary to cross the river Ness ; and, when he came to the bank thereof, he sees some of the inhabitants burying a poor unfortunate little fellow, whom, as those who were burying him themselves reported, some water monster had a little before snatched at as he was swimming, and bitten with a most savage bite, and whose hapless corpse some men who came in a boat to give assistance, though too late, caught hold of by putting out hooks. The blessed man however, on hearing this, directs that some one of his companions shall swim out and bring to him the coble that is on the other bank, sailing it across.

On hearing this direction of the holy and famous man, Lugne Mocumin, obeying without delay, throws all his clothes except his under-garment, and casts himself into the water. 

Now the monster, which before was not so much satiated as made eager for prey, was lying hid in the bottom of the river ; but perceiving that the water above was disturbed by him who was crossing, suddenly emerged, and, swimming to the man as he was crossing in the middle of the stream, rushed up with a great roar and open mouth. 

Then the blessed man looked on, while all who were there, as well the heathen as even the brethren, were stricken with very great terror; and, with his holy hand raised on high, he formed the saving sign of the cross in the empty air, invoked the Name of God, and commanded the fierce monster, saying, Think not to go further, nor touch thou the man. Quick! Go back! ' 

Then the beast, on hearing this voice of the Saint, was terrified and 'fled backward more rapidly than he came, as if dragged by cords, although before it had come so near to Lugne as he swam, that there was not more than the length of one punt-pole between the man and the beast. Then the brethren, seeing that the beast had gone away, and that their comrade Lugne was returned to them safe and sound in the boat, glorified God in the blessed man, greatly marvelling. Moreover also the barbarous heathens who were there present, constrained by the greatness of that miracle, which they themselves had seen, magnified the God of the Christians.

Needless to say critics attempt to dilute the account on the grounds that it occured in the River Ness and not Loch Ness and that saints were encountering fabulous beasts left, right and centre. I address these objections in my book and mention two other stories of Columba and the Monster which are not so well known and place the beast firmly in Loch Ness itself.

I would also note that a few modern sightings of the creature have occured in the River Ness. But I don't think anyone is suggesting these should be discounted because they did not happen in Loch Ness!

In summary, it is a bit awe inspiring to see such an ancient document from the Dark Ages make mention of our favourite cryptid. One wonders how the monks who painstakingly created this manuscript would react if told the very creature they wrote of would still excite the imagination 1,300 years later?

Edinburgh Talk on Loch Ness Monster

Charles Paxton will be giving a talk entitled "The Vital Statistics of the Loch Ness Monster" on the 17th August at 8:30pm as part of "Skeptics on the Fringe 2012". However, I suspect the talk will not be as sceptical as we may think. Anyway, if you can make it, head along to support Charles in his latest analysis of Nessie sightings. I hope to be there myself.

Further details can be found here.

A Nessie Article from 1934

Paul Cropper (hunter of the Australian version of the Bigfoot called the Yowie) sent me a scan of this article from the Salt Lake Tribune of January 14th 1934. Though the image suggests a bit of tongue in cheek it is worth a read and shows how much interest the new subject of the Loch Ness Monster was generating even afar as the state of Utah in the USA. The catalyst for this article was probably the Hugh Gray photograph which had appeared a few weeks before.

Note the early emphasis on the view that the creature was a sea serpent that somehow found its way into the loch. That notion eventually gave way to the dominant theory that the creature had somehow got into the loch much earlier, perhaps thousands of years earlier. I have no opinion myself on when Nessie first took up residence in Loch Ness but certainly prior to Saint Columba which was over 14 centuries ago.

The document can be viewed here. I must admit I like their rendition of Nessie attacking some bekilted Scots amidst a loch full of empty(?) whisky bottles!

The George Edwards Nessie Photograph

(Once you have read this - you can read an important follow up article here - Ed.)

Having spent a week camping in the Kingdom of Fife, I come home to a new alleged photograph of the Loch Ness Monster. It would therefore be remiss of me not to comment on this latest image, not just to add it to the blog's history of Loch Ness and its unfathomable inhabitant but also attempt to wade through what is being said about it.

This is the account from the Daily Mail.

He has dedicated more than two decades of his life to the hunt for the elusive Loch Ness monster, spending 60 hours a week on the water. And now George Edwards believes he has finally fulfilled his ambition of spotting 'Nessie'; he even photographic evidence to prove it. Mr Edwards, who has spent 26 years on his quest, managed to capture this image of a dark hump slinking in and out of the lake's waters from the deck of his boat, Nessie Hunter, before it vanished back into the deep. He claims the picture is the best-ever taken of the Loch Ness Monster and proves once and for all that the elusive leviathan exists - and is definitely not a sturgeon.

He says he has even had it independently verified by a team of US military monster experts as well as a Nessie sighting specialist. Mr Edwards spends his life on the loch - around 60 hours a week - taking tourists out on his boat Nessie Hunter IV, and has led numerous Nessie hunts over the years. 

'I was just about to return to Temple Pier (in Drumnadrochit) and I went to the back of the boat which was facing the pier and that’s when I saw it,' said 60-year-old Mr Edwards, a lifelong believer in the monster.

'It was slowly moving up the loch towards Urquhart Castle and it was a dark grey colour. It was quite a fair way from the boat, probably about half a mile away but it’s difficult to tell in water.'

After watching the object for five to ten minutes, Mr Edwards said it slowly sank below the surface and never resurfaced.

'I’m convinced I was seeing Nessie as I believe in these creatures. Far too many people have being seeing them for far too long,' he said.

'The first recorded sighting was in 565AD and there have been thousands of eye witness reports since then. All these people can’t be telling lies. And the fact the reports stretch over so many years mean there can’t just be one of them. I’m convinced there are several monsters.'

Steve Feltham, who has dedicated the past 21 years to hunting for Nessie was unequivocval. 'It is the best photograph I think I have ever seen,' he said. From his base on Dores beach and has studied many Nessie sighting photographs.

'I think the images are fantastic - that’s the animal I have been looking for all this time,' he said yesterday.

'I would say it doesn’t prove what Nessie is, but it does prove what Nessie isn’t, a sturgeon which is a fish that has been put forward as one of the main explanations as to what Nessie could be but this hasn’t got a serrated spine like the sturgeon.'

Mr Edwards attempted to use his vessel’s sonar to make a contact but to no avail.

'I hung around for a good half-an-hour and used the deep scanning sonar to try and pick it up, but I’m afraid I had no luck at all.'

Mr Edwards took the photo at 9am on 2nd November last year on a compact Samsung digital camera that he always keeps on the boat.

Before releasing it publicly he sent it to the USA for analysis, though he can’t reveal further details. 

'I did not want to mention my sighting until I was sure that I had not photographed a log or something inanimate in the water,' he said. 'I have friends in the USA who have friends in the military. They had my photo analysed and they have no doubt that I photographed an animate object in the water. I was really excited as I am sure that some strange creatures are lurking in the depths of Loch Ness.'

I actually was informed of this photograph by a local man back in May when the photograph appeared on a postcard sold by George Edwards from around Easter which is shown below and tells us a bit about George's Nessie hunting history.

The pictures marked 3 and 4 are the one of interest whilst picture 2 is of the cruiser boat that George Edwards (in picture 6) employs in his tourist trade. Picture 5 reminds us of George Edward's other claim to fame which was the alleged 1989 "Edward's Deep" which he claimed registered a record depth of 812ft in Loch Ness (as opposed to the accepted 754ft). This reading is disputed and has not been officially recognised.

Picture 1 is of another image allegedly of Nessie in its single hump aspect taken by George Edwards on the 6th June 1986 at about 7am to which we shall return.

Some years prior to all this, George had been working on a Nessie book called "In Search of Eioch Uisge (The Water Horse)" which had been mooted for publication in the late 1990s but so far only extracts of it have surfaced on the Internet. This is a pity as it would have offered some insight into a person who has claimed to have seen the creature up to 19 times.

Three claims against the pictures are made. The first that the sun could not be that high at 9am on the 2nd November. The second is that the object is much closer than the claimed "half mile" and the third asks why only one picture was taken if the object was visible for up to 10 minutes.

On the first point, the shadow on the enlargement below does suggest to me that the sun is on the opposite side to the south east though on that day the sun does not rise until 0720. A look at the picture shows that the castle's north west side is darker than the rest which is supportive of this idea. It is not readily apparent from the picture whether the sun is low in the sky or this is just cloud reflection.

The sun position on that day and time are shown below. From the red marker showing the probable site of the incident, the green line points to sunrise, the yellow to where the sun is at 9am and the red line is sunset.

On the second point, it has to be admitted that the object is not half a mile away. In the top picture, you can see Urquhart Castle which is about one mile away from the stated position at Temple Pier. To the bottom left of the picture you can see an object which is undoubtedly part of the boat he is on. Based on that, I would guess the object is much, much closer. However, George Edwards is rather non-committal on the distance which given the alleged analysis by military experts is rather disappointing. They said the picture shows an animate object (though no wake is unambiguously visible) which leads me to ask George if I could see a copy of their analysis.

But there is actually a concentric ripple around the object which can help estimate distance. It is just about visible on the outer edges of the zoom in above. As you may know, a circular ripple seen at an angle can appear elliptical. The "flatness" of the ellipse can allow the angle of observation to be calculated and if the height of the observer above the water is known, then so can the distance to the object.

The ellipse has a ratio of about 12:34 (0.35) which suggests an angle of observation of  about 31 degrees. If the observer is standing 3 metres above the water then a bit of trigonometry gives a distance of 5 metres (another study emailed to me suggests 13 metres).

Witnesses being accused of being vague or wrong about dates, times and distances is part and parcel of media reporting of theses stories and I personally regard them as of secondary importance. I say that after recent experiences of newspapers getting some facts wrong. It always seemed strange to me that a witness would lie about such things. What is to be gained from such a stance especially as George Edwards himself is well aware of the depth of questioning that is applied to modern photographs purporting to be of Nessie.

The third point about why further photographs were not taken may seem an irrelevance but the context for asking such a question is the idea of motion. If the object was indeed moving slowly towards the castle, then a sequence of pictures would not only show this but reinforce the case for the images being genuine (as a sequence is harder to fake). 

If one were a sceptic, the case may seem closed at this point, but I would like to hear Mr. Edwards address these points before making further comment.

On a more serious note, I said I would get back to that 1986 photograph. Dick Raynor worked with George Edwards for some years and said this about the earlier photo at his website:

"Passengers on George Edwards Cruise boat "Nessie Hunter" will also be familiar with the  photograph he took in 1986, now available for sale on the boat for 50 pence.  I remember him telling me at the time how hard it had been to drag the water filled tube out of the back of a van and down to the water before it was towed out into the loch!"

If that is true then Mr. Edwards is in serious trouble. However, as with the scutter about distance, time and number of photos, I invite George to exercise his right of reply before the matter is settled.

But if we lay these things aside and approach the picture from the opposite direction, what can we further say? The first thing is that the object appears rather flat along its presumed spine. What this would indicate I could not tell. There is a general reddish brown colour to the object but with a darker ridge running along the top. The general shape in my opinion is not suggestive of seals, deer or otters.

The wave patterns around the object strike me as being interesting. There is a general pattern of waves washing in from the loch towards the photographer in a line roughly parallel to the horizontal axis of the picture. However, there is also some unique wave formations around the object.

I mentioned earlier the just visible concentric ripples which is more suggestive of a stationary object bobbing up and down than an object moving towards the castle. But water is a complicated medium and the complexity of interpreting waves can get too much if multiple forces are acting on the water. Indeed, if this was a fake Nessie tethered by a buoy, I may have expected more concentric ripples reaching as far as the boat, but that is just speculation on my part.

The bottom line is that this picture raises more questions than it answers and until Mr. Edwards helps out by answering some of my questions, then this picture needs to be treated with caution.

 

The Lachlan Stuart Photograph (Part 1)

In our series on the classic photographs of the Loch Ness Monster we move onto the famous picture taken by Lachlan Stuart in 1951.

At that time, things were pretty quiet at Loch Ness. Sightings of the creature still continued but these were the years of post-war austerity and rebuilding, so it seems that the Loch Ness Monster was not high up on the list of newsworthy items. Indeed, the last photograph of note prior to Lachlan Stuart appears to have been the one taken by F.C. Adams 17 years before in August 1934. Despite the alleged ease with which supposed fake photographs can be made, this seemed a long time to wait for the next one. Either way, this photograph exploded onto the scene on the 16th July 1951 via the pages of the Sunday Express.

The incident had happened the day before and Constance Whyte in her book "More Than a Legend" recounts the tale which we summarise here.

On that Saturday, Lachlan Stuart had arisen at about 6:30am to milk his cow on the croft he and his family occupied about 100 feet above Loch Ness at Whitefield which is almost opposite Urquhart Castle. He glanced out at the loch and noticed what he took to be a motor boat heading north up the centre of the loch.

However, on further inspection, the object looked more rounded and when a second hump appeared behind it Stuart called to his wife and fellow woodsman Taylor Hay. By the time Hay and Stuart had scrambled through the trees to the shore, the object was now displaying a third hump and had changed direction moving quickly southwards about 50 yards from them.

Stuart readied his box camera, saw the three humps in the viewfinder and took a picture. The creature was now moving towards a small promontory further south and a long neck and head had by then surfaced which was generally held parallel to the surface whilst intermittently submerging. The head was described as sheep like but without the ears. The small black dot in front of the left most hump in the photo is said to be the almost submerged head.

At one point the creature was close enough to shore to make the witnesses cautiously head back into the trees but the monster eventually headed back to the centre of the loch where it finally submerged head first about 300 yards out.

Stuart estimated each hump was about 5 feet long at the surface line with about 8 feet of water between them. The first hump stood about 2 feet out of the water, the second about 4 feet and the third about 3 feet. The head and neck combined to about 6 feet in length and Stuart also commented on their being a commotion in the water at about 15-20 feet behind the last hump which he surmised may be a powerful tail (adding these numbers up gives a total of about 50 feet).

The skin was not hairy but was uniformly "blackish" in colour. The foot long head though sheep like had no discernible features and the neck thickened suddenly to join the first hump. Hay and Stuart were at variance as to whether the humps were fixed or some kind of undulation.

And so the picture entered the lore and literature of Loch Ness. The picture was accepted as positive evidence by researchers such as Constance Whyte, Tim Dinsdale, Ted Holiday, Nicholas Witchell and Roy Mackal. In fact, Constance Whyte gives the fullest account and relates in her book "More Than a Legend" how she saw the picture on the same day it was taken and conducted interviews and onsite investigations within a few days. Tim Dinsdale goes into some detail in his "Loch Ness Monster" book but misspells Lachlan's surname as "Stewart".

Holiday in his book "The Dragon and the Disc" uses the incident of Stuart's camera failing to take a second picture as an example of the paranormal "Loch Ness Hoodoo" but misplaces the event as happening in 1952. I don't think Ted Holiday's statement holds as Lachlan Stuart had stated that the camera had a pre-existing shutter problem. Maurice Burton in his 1961 book "The Elusive Monster" says that he visited the site of the photograph during his 1960 expedition and though predictably dismissive of the picture is vague as to the reasons why.

But once the years rolled into the 1980s the mood changed and suspicion was cast upon the picture and it is one sceptical claim that this article will particularly examine.

THE STORIES OF RICHARD FRERE

When I looked around for information on this photograph and googled for "lachlan stuart" and "loch ness", I found that eight out of the top ten hits dubbed the photograph a hoax because of a man called Richard Frere (above) who claimed to be privy to the hoax. There are other "evidences" for this photograph being faked which we shall examine in later posts but for now we look at Frere's claim.

Richard Frere himself was most noted as working with and publishing a biography on the famous author Gavin Maxwell. Frere's other well known book was the 1988 "Loch Ness", a history of the loch and its surroundings as well as its most famous inhabitant. However, Frere was a Nessie sceptic, indeed an ardent one as his aforementioned book shows. He was also a keen supporter of preserving the beauty of the Highland countryside against commercialisation (as his opposition to the expansion of Urquhart Castle demonstrated). Needless to say, Nessie and Highland commercialisation went hand in hand adding more fuel to Frere's anti-Nessie stance. You can read more about Frere from his 1999 obituary in the London Times.

However, when one looks into this particular story by Frere, it turns out there are four different versions of his account in the online and offline literature. They are listed in turn here.

VERSION ONE

First, we have the version of Tony Harmsworth who received a visit from Richard Frere around the time of the opening of the Official Loch Ness Monster Exhibition in 1980. According to Tony's book "Loch Ness, Nessie and Me", Frere approached him and told him he had seen Stuart in the act of setting up the hoax with hay bales and tarpaulin. To summarise this version on Tony's website:

"Richard Frere, a well-known local author who died in 1999, actually watched Lachlan Stuart setting up his Loch Ness monster fake picture. It was three bales of hay covered with tarpaulin.

When the Webmaster (i.e. Tony Harmsworth) published the fact that the picture was faked in his "Loch Ness - The Monster" publication, he received a poison-pen letter from one of Lachlan Stuart's friends ... which shows how well the photographer conned his friends. Recently his son called at the Loch Ness Centre and, surprisingly, he didn't know that his father had faked the picture either.

  

It must be understood, however, that if you are going to produce a convincing hoax you must tell no-one the truth."

VERSION TWO

The second account was published by the current curator of the Loch Ness Centre, Adrian Shine, in a piece for the BBC on the 75th anniversary of the mystery in 2008:

"The remnants of this hoax were witnessed by local author Richard Frere. He spoke to Lachlan Stuart the next day, who confessed that he had constructed the image from hay bails and tarpaulin."

This account implies Frere only saw the "remnants" which is an unclear term to me (e.g. perhaps he only saw part of the hoax being enacted or only saw the hay bales) and it seems Frere only got to the truth of the matter when he quizzed Stuart the next day. It seems Stuart failed miserably to follow Tony Harmsworth's advice to "tell no-one the truth"!

VERSION THREE

The third account is from the Loch Ness Project website and mentions no witnessing of the hoax. This version from their timeline link says:

"Lachlan Stuart takes a picture of three angular humps close to the beach. A little later, he confesses to a local resident, the author Richard Frere, that it was a hoax. Frere did not reveal the secret for thirty years."

The implication here is that Frere was not at the site of the hoax being enacted but somehow he managed to get Lachlan Stuart to confess the deed.

VERSION FOUR

The fourth and final version is from Richard Frere himself in his book "Loch Ness" and is even vaguer than the above accounts (page 169 from the 1st edition):

"A further photograph, published in the national press, was necessary if popular support for the story was to be retained. It came in 1951, a print of poor quality showing three black objects floating a few yards offshore. The picture was a deliberate deception, and a bad one at that. I have no particular objection to hoaxers, unless they endanger lives or waste taxpayers' money, and my chief reaction on getting first-hand knowledge of the affair was surprise at how easily even experts can be duped. This amateurish invention was given the seal of approval by a leading zoologist as the 'most important picture'."

From this version from Frere's own mouth, we are left in an even more uncertain position as to how he gained this "first-hand knowledge" and the phrase itself could mean anything. It is interesting to note that in none of the above is the alleged head in the picture mentioned by Frere.

CONFUSION REIGNS

So, which account is true? Did Frere see the whole thing (version one), or did he only see the discarded "props" and required a confession to complete the picture (version two)? Or was he never at the scene of the "crime" and was wholly dependent on confessions either directly (version three) or directly/indirectly as his own fourth and final account ambiguously states? Clearly something is not adding up here and if Lachlan Stuart was in the dock charged with deception, his lawyer would have no problem casting doubt upon the quality of the evidence against him.

In fact, Tony Harmsworth's book lifts a bit of the veil on what is going on here when he recounts how Adrian Shine talked to him about Frere's account (page 82). Tony had his "version one" story but Adrian Shine had been told "version three" by Frere. How could these two stories be reconciled? My guess (though it is not primary to the overall problem) is that this conversation happened because the BBC had asked Adrian for this 75th anniversary summary of the Nessie evidence. Which version would he use for the article? The answer appears to be "both" or "neither" depending on your point of view as Adrian produced our second but conflated version for the BBC.

By "conflated" we mean the critical device of conflation which involves the fusing of two variant texts into one with the intention to produce a new text which attempts to harmonise the variations in the originals. In other words, the second version of our four stories was not told by Frere but is an artificial construct which attempts to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements. Instead of these conflicting accounts from Frere setting off alarm bells, an attempt to harmonise was made instead.

So in the light of these varying accounts, we could justifiably label Frere's stories as "unacceptable as evidence" and end this article. After all, if a witness to the Loch Ness Monster changed their story, the critics would be dismissive of it, n'est ce pas?

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

But I wanted to dig a bit deeper before finally rejecting this evidence. The first thing that has to be said is that Richard Frere was not the "local" resident described above. In fact, he did not move to Loch Ness until 1959 - eight years after the photograph was taken!

According to Frere's own autobiography "Beyond the Highland Line" (John Murray 1984), he was actually living in Carrbridge near Aviemore in a set of converted railway carriages. The map above shows its location relative to Loch Ness and the journey by road to the Lachlan Stuart location would be about 35 miles. Of course, this does not prove he did not pass by that spot in 1951 but it would make it less likely not only because he was not local but also because in 1951 petrol was still being rationed and Frere states in his book that he was so cash strapped that he could only run a motor cycle.

On the subject of petrol, Frere also has a rogue side to his character freely confessed in his book. Since petrol was being rationed and thus limited peoples' movements, Frere indulged in the illegal activity of using paraffin to top up his motorcycle. It also transpires that he regularly defrauded his employers in two jobs by bunking off to go hillwalking or working on house renovations. One Loch Ness author suggested we should believe Frere's account over Stuart's because he was a "respected pillar of the community".  What Frere would have made of such high praise we will never know.

As it turns out, his autobiography gives us a neat rundown of his activities in 1951 and he reveals that he had a temporary Summer job from May with the Forestry Commission at the time of the Stuart incident. This is potentially significant because Lachlan Stuart also worked for them. However, Frere says that the job was a local one at Glenmore Lodge (about 5 miles SE of Carrbridge and marked on the map) and he makes no mention of working anywhere else. After that, he tried his hand at mushroom growing and poultry before setting up his own business in the mid 1950s as a timber cutter before he gave it up around 1960.

It is possible that he knew of Lachlan Stuart through other employees, though it is unlikely he met and became Stuart's confidant due to his short tenure and large distance away. Certainly, Frere does not mention anything about Lachlan Stuart or his photograph anywhere in his book which is a strange omission given it is sandwiched between his conversation with Tony Harmsworth and his mention of it in his subsequent "Loch Ness" book. Certainly, his own autobiography offers no support for being familiar with Lachlan Stuart or Taylor Hay.

Either way, it seems unlikely that if Stuart was a hoaxer he would blow his cover to someone he barely knew. In that light, if there is any grain of truth in what Frere says, it is more likely he merely heard someone indirectly saying that the photograph was faked or they thought it was faked which is hardly prime quality evidence. It is entirely possible the two men did meet as working colleagues but whether this was under good, neutral or bad circumstances is difficult to ascertain sixty years since the incident occurred.

But, as you may rightly point out, Frere told Tony Harmsworth that he was actually driving past and witnessed the whole hoax being staged. Now I don't think that working for the Forestry Commission made this stumbling upon Lachlan Stuart any more or less likely. The reason I say that is because Constance Whyte's account says that part of Loch Ness was quite busy for forestry at that time which leads me to conclude any alleged hoaxing would have to be perpetrated on a non-working day as early or late as possible which would suggest Sunday morning or evening. I don't consider this a time that Richard Frere was highly likely to be far from Carrbridge. But it is a strange coincidence that a Forestry Commission worker chanced upon another one 35 miles away in the middle of perpetrating a Nessie hoax! In fact, too much of a coincidence in my opinion. 

VISIBLE OR INVISIBLE?

The mystery for me deepened when I visited the site of the 1951 photograph a few months back. As I drove around the area and checked the beach itself, a big problem arose for Richard Frere. The first is that the beach is about 30 feet below the road. To access it, I parked on a lay by and then crossed about 40 feet of grassland before descending down a slippery slope to the beach (the lay by is pictured below from Google Street View plus my own photo of the obscured beach follows). There was some old stone steps at the bottom which suggested this area was once in more frequent use. I looked back up to where I had come from and I could not see the car from where I was. That meant the beach was not visible from the car which begs the question as to how Richard Frere could claim to Tony Harmsworth that he saw the men setting up the alleged hoax from the road?

Giving the man the benefit of the doubt, I surmised perhaps he could have seen the beach from a distance approaching from the north or south. However, a drive up and down that area proved fruitless as the beach was simply not visible. These two pictures from Google StreetView show the problem. The first picture shows the loch view as we approach the Stuart site from the south. The layby of the first view is away up at the top right (as usual, click on image to enlarge).

The second is from the approach from the north. In both cases, it is hard to believe that anyone could see the beach and its immediate waters from the road.

Or perhaps the tree growth along that portion of Loch Ness was less in 1951 compared to the present day? I could accept that if a situation similar to 1933 had happened. Back then, a lot of shoreline was cleared to allow better views from the newly upgraded Glasgow to Inverness road. However, our road from Fort Augustus to Dores was not upgraded until the 1960s. In that light and since an ecosystem tends to reach an equilibrium with its resources fairly quickly, I suspect the shoreline of Whitefield in 1951 was not much different to 2012.

However, the problems continued to mount. Tony Harmsworth's account from Frere says he was "driving" past the spot at Whitefield. However, people "drive" cars but "ride" motorbikes and Frere's autobiography is quite clear in stating he only owned a motorcycle called "Boanerges" at that time.

Motorcycles also present further problems as they are a lot noisier than cars and can be heard approaching from much further away. However, Frere told Harmsworth that he approached and stopped to watch the whole hoax being enacted. Are we supposed to believe that Lachlan Stuart and Taylor Hay failed to hear this motorbike approach then stop and carried on regardless? More likely they would have aborted the operation and we would never have heard of this photograph at all.

CONCLUSION

To put it simply, I doubt Richard Frere was a witness to an alleged hoax being perpetrated, let alone near Loch Ness that day. Neither do I believe Lachlan Stuart confessed anything to a stranger such as Richard Frere. The various and contradictory accounts force one to label this entire episode as unacceptable as evidence. One may speculate upon why these conflicting stories came to be but I will refrain from theories. It is sufficient to state the problems and move on. Sceptics may still accept Frere and make excuses but by their own standards the evidence is compromised and should be put aside.

But having critically analysed this piece of testimony, I would need to point out I have not actually proven the photograph is genuine. This blog approaches the mystery of Loch Ness from two directions. Defend the evidence for the monster where necessary is obvious, but removing objections to the creature or items of evidence presented against it is also important. The other aspect to this is demonstrating how poorly peer reviews of sceptical evidence is conducted. To put it more bluntly, it is not conducted at all as any critique which makes sense on the surface is accepted. It is the job of this blog to scratch that veneer of plausibility and expose the problems underneath.

If sceptics of Lachlan Stuart's picture are seeking evidence against it, they will have to go somewhere other than Richard Frere. To that end, our next article on this picture will address more objections.

Part Two can be viewed here.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

The Collecting of Loch Ness Monster Sightings

I am not long back from my holiday and have some things to post but I thought a quick look at the year so far is in order.

As of the current date, there is only one claimed sighting from April which we covered here. Some put this down to a boat merely doing a circular turn but my own investigations suggest this is not a good explanation as I shall post later. My PC is actually not powering up properly just now, so certain posts have to be held back until that is resolved.

One sighting may not seem much but I am convinced the vast majority of sightings do not make it to the public media. Indeed, one researcher I correspond with suggests from his own contacts that dozens of sightings are plain ignored and discarded each year. That this should happen in the current environment is no surprise.

In the past, witnesses would relate their experiences in several ways.

1. Local and roving monster hunters such as the Dinsdales and Whytes would investigate and publish sightings.

2. There was also the more "official" approach with larger organised groups and this is in particular reference to the now defunct Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. This group would be approached by witnesses at their HQ at Achnahannet and they would fill in sighting reports. These would then be analysed and summarised in their annual report and made generally available to researchers. 

3. In other cases, witnesses would go straight to local newspapers such as the Inverness Courier or more national papers if they thought they had evidence of a more substantial nature.

It was also the case that these groups would approach witnesses on a "tip off" if the witness was reticent or slow to come forward.

But what is the situation now? The Dinsdales and Whytes are gone and have been replaced by a more sceptical set of investigators. This modern genre do not accept the idea of an exotic species in Loch Ness and so what is their motivation to collect claimed sightings of a monster let alone make them publicly available?

There are the two exhibition centres in Drumnadrochit and so one may presume that witnesses may approach the people there but I have no idea how that scenario has panned out over the years. However, if the witnesses take in the sceptically-oriented multimedia displays at the Loch Ness Centre, they may not be so motivated afterwards!

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems likely that if the witness goes to a sceptical representative, their story is unlikely to go much further after the representative has decided it was a deer, log, otter or birds.

In fact, options 1 and 2 above now seem forlorn hopes and it is down to witnesses to approach the local media who still like to run these stories for human interest (after all, Nessie stories still attract readers).

To this we can add the increased reticence of witnesses to speak up in an environment where they may be regarded as fools. I will admit the Loch Ness Monster has always had plenty of doubters in society as a whole but today witnesses do not have the firewall of a publicly recognised figure such as Tim Dinsdale to stand by them and back them up.

Such is the modern environment that Loch Ness Monster witnesses find themselves in. The majority of sightings never go public but undoubtedly they are there.

New Fictional Book on the Giant Eels of Loch Ness

A while back, readers may recall I wrote on an anonymous blogger posting chapters from a story called "The Loch Ness Eels". The complete book has now been published as an e-book which can be purchased for about $5 from the following link.

Having got to read about half of Nigel Wakefield's engaging story for free, the least I can do is buy the rest to see how his story of giant eels pans out! I may even take it on holiday for light reading, so no posts here I suspect for a couple of weeks.