The Clearer the Picture ....

 

The set of photographs taken by Mrs. Chie Kelly that appeared a few days ago continue to generate interest and debate. I penned my own initial reaction having found five of the fifteen images amongst various media articles but though they generated a degree of anticipation, I wasn't going to dive in deep without seeing the complete run of images. In the meantime, as I await such a development, I looked to see what other people were saying.

If they are images of the Loch Ness Monster, their detail and clarity may never have been surpassed - depending on what you think of others alleged monster photographs. So the clearer the picture, the more unanimous and convergent the opinions? Nothing could be further from the truth! These are some of the interpretations I found on some Facebook forums:

• giant eel
• seal(s)
• crocodile
• otter or seal being attacked by a reptile
• a big cat carrying prey
• leatherback turtles
• water snakes
• salamander
• two bin bags
• half-sunken dinghy
• tarpaulin
• pareidolia
• dog carrying something
• dead deer
• degraded two man kayak
• two people swimming with rucksacks

Clearly, a lot of these ideas are non-starters but the Daily Mail ran an article which gave us the opinion of Ben Garrod, a biology professor at the University of East Anglia:

However, biologist professor Ben Garrod told the programme that the thinks the humps are something far less exciting - such as debris from a boat or a lump of wood. He added that he doesn't believe that Nessie would be a prehistoric monster - as these were huge and sometimes violent, quick creatures, which would have made their presence known by now.

'As a biologist I would say if we're looking for an animal and we haven't seen it in approximately 50 years or we haven't got conclusive proof it's there, it's extinct.'

However, he thought it might well be 'a massive fish'.

So, a piece of floating wood and not a prehistoric monster as we would have some bodies dotting the shoreline by now - and I don't mean sunbathing. No aquatic dinosaurs but a vague reference to massive fish. Perhaps someone could clarify this as another later Mail article quotes a Hayley Stevens, identified as a paranormal researcher (though actually a sceptic of the paranormal):

But after their publication, paranormal researcher Hayley Stevens said: ‘I personally think it is most likely they saw a large sturgeon in the loch. The photos were taken in August and sturgeon migrate into fresh water in late summer and early autumn to mate.’ 

She added that native sturgeon are large – growing up to five metres in length.

I suppose the Daily Mail regarded these answers as expert opinion, but they come across as ill-informed and hasty. Now if the two had been presented with only the image shown at the top of this article, you might give them some leeway, but how can this two humped object possibly be called a sturgeon which has no such contours (compare below)? In fact, when the second image below is brought in, driftwood and sturgeon look like wholly inadequate explanations. 

If one takes a look at Hayley's original piece, she attempts to answer why she thinks this is the best explanation.

The golden rule for solving ghost and monster mysteries is to keep it simple. Although it can be tempting to let your imagination run wild, the simplest solutions are almost always the correct answer, so start with those. Lay out what you already know and more often than not, the knowledge gaps fill themselves in.

Instead, when Nessie makes the news, people rush in with wild theories about what’s in a photo – theories that often have very little evidential basis to them. I’ve seen it suggested that this could be a deflating inflatable raft or an otter sitting on a ray. These suggestions may not be as farfetched as the idea that a dinosaur survives in the Loch, but they’re still pretty wild…

So, keep it simple, it's a sturgeon .. except the photos look nothing like a sturgeon and no sturgeon has ever been caught in Loch Ness. Apart from these minor points, it's a great theory. Perhaps sturgeon have made their way into the loch at some point in the past but their depleted numbers today suggest this is even more unlikely than past decades. I also doubt a sturgeon getting into Loch Ness to mate (with what?) is ever going to get back out.

So the clearer the picture, the more convergent the opinions? Not likely, it looks more like an exercise in hammering your favourite square peg into a round hole! Hayley even accuses Nessie believers of infighting over such images. I beg to differ, I see the discussions as largely civilized with the odd cross words being the minority. Of course, the vast majority of ideas are wrong, only one or none of them can be right. 

What we have here is the marketplace of ideas on the Internet and like a real marketplace the worst ideas don't sell much, are ignored and fade away. Of course, some bad ideas still get bought like cheap pairs of shoes, nothing is perfect where people are involved. But driftwood will eventually sink and sturgeon will eventually stink. Will this winnowing of ideas eventually leave us with the true explanation? The answer to that is no, but I would hope that if and when we see more data, an awful lot of dross would have been cleared out by then.

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Some Noteable Photographs from Loch Ness

 

I thought this week would see a general winding down from the Quest monster hunt last weekend as I wrote up my own views on the event and moved onto the next thing. But the next thing arrived rather quickly when Steve Feltham received a visit from a local by the name of Chie Kelly who said she took something like sixteen photographs of an object in Dores Bay five years earlier and the weekend hunt motivated her to come forward. The story is related by the Scottish Sun:

THE "most exciting" photographs ever of the Loch Ness Monster have been revealed after a woman too scared to show them before came forward after last weekend's massive search for Nessie. In startling images, Chie Kelly captured an unidentified large eel-like creature slowly spinning on the surface of the legendary loch.

Translator Mrs Kelly, 51, was taking photographs of the area at Dores when she and her businessman husband Scott, 68, saw a strange creature move right to left over a distance of about 100 metres. It then disappeared and never re-surfaced. Mrs Kelly was so shocked by what she saw on August 13, 2018, that she feared public ridicule and did not share the images.

But she was inspired by the biggest search for Nessie in over 50 years at the weekend, in which hundreds of volunteers took part. It was then that she plucked up the courage to show her startling photographs to veteran Nessie hunter Steve Feltham, who has set a world record for the longest vigil of looking for the Loch Ness Monster - now over 30 years long from his Dores base. He was astounded. Mrs Kelly was on holiday with her family from Ascot in Berkshire at the time of the sighting. The family have since moved to near Fortose on the Black Isle.

"My husband was originally from the Inverness area and Dores beach is a very special place to me as it is where he used to take me when we first met, We had lunch in the Dores Inn and then started walking around. I was just taking pictures with my Cannon camera of Scott and our daughter Alisa, who was then five, when about 200 metres from the shore, moving right to left at a steady speed was this creature."

"It was spinning and rolling at times. We never saw a head or neck. After a couple of minutes it just disappeared and we never saw it again. At first I wondered if it was an otter or a pair of otters or a seal, but we never saw a head and it never came up again for air. It was making this strange movement on the surface. We did not hear any sound. There were these strange shapes below the surface. I could not make out any colours - the water was dark. I could not accurately assess its length, but the two parts that were visible were less then two metres long together. I don't know what it was but it was definitely a creature - an animal."

"At the time I did not want to face public ridicule by making the photographs public. But I met Steve Feltham at the weekend and showed him the images and he said immediately that they were 'very interesting'. I have always believed there was something in Loch Ness. There is something unusual there, but I don't know what it is. What I saw looked like a serpent. It was definitely a creature and it was moving."

Mr Feltham said: "These are the most exciting surface pictures (of Nessie) I have seen. They are exactly the type of pictures I have been wanting to take for three decades. It is rare to see something so clear on the surface. They are vindication for all the people who believe there is something unexplained in Loch Ness. They are remarkable. I have studied them and still do not know what it is. We are lucky the Kellys have decided to go public at last. I have met the Kellys twice and they are absolutely genuine. I persuaded them that these pictures were so important they should make them public. They warrant further investigation. It is not driftwood - it is a moving creature and totally unexplained."

So much for the story, but the photographs I have found required more than just a cursory examination. In fact, all sixteen need to be examined in sequence. From my initial search of the Internet, I think I have found five of the sixteen photographs as newspapers and media sites take their choice of images from the agency handling Mrs Kelly's photographs. The one at the top looks to be getting the most coverage as it shows two hump like objects close together in the water. One's initial impression is that they are two rocks in shallow water, but the wider view of the photograph below suggests this is way further out into the bay.

The estimated distance given by the witness was 200 metres which on a nautical map of the loch is a depth of at least 20 to 30 feet, depending on the location. The size of the object or objects was further estimated to be 2 metres. The length of what was not visible below the surface is a matter of speculation. I do not know the precise location of the witnesses, but the distance and size of the object  could be calculated if one had an uncropped image, some camera details and the location. At this time, I do not have all the required information to do this.

The line of water disturbance to the right of the object does indeed suggest it is moving from right to left. The second of the five images I found shows a water disturbance which is further to the right than the previous image. You can line it up with the opposite shoreline to confirm this (assuming the witness did not move very far). The third image I found is (I think) an enlargement of this wider view and is shown further down showing perhaps something solid or just troubled waters. Mrs. Kelly stated the object moved about 100 metres and it was observed for two minutes which would give us an average speed of less than two miles per hour.

To this we can add another image which just shows a single hump below, though it is unclear whether the two humps are one overall object. The images going from two to one or one to two humps may suggest separate objects, but I would not dogmatic on that. Indeed, the chronological order of the images is difficult to determine at this point. I would say though that the single hump is likely the larger hump of the two hump image. 

The final two images just made me that bit more perplexed when I found them. The fourth image I found is shown below and the rough dark humps have given way to a couple of smooth lighter coloured  objects. I thought, am I looking at the same thing here? The answer would appear to be yes as I examined the testimony of the witness and the images further.

Mrs. Kelly said "It was spinning and rolling at times ..." and if you look at the first image at the top of the article you may notice that behind the rough textured humps is the hint of rounded and lighter surfaces behind them. That is certainly suggested to the left side of the larger right hump and maybe less so on the left of the other smaller hump. So perhaps there was a degree of rotation that moved the object from a smooth side to a rough side? That would seem to be the case to me and there is also a hint of this smooth and rough combination in the single hump image.

The final image I found looks again somewhat different to what gone on before and is below with a zoom into the object. One may presume again that this is another single hump image but it looks decidedly more head-like to me with that bright spot suggestive of an eye. But then again, it may merely look like head and the witness did say she did not see a head or neck, but perhaps that meant a head on top of a long neck. However, I would say that this object in view does look somewhat different in appearance to the humps.

So, all in all, these handful of the images from the larger unseen total are a fascinating collection. I suspect that the other ten or so images may not be better than these as the media do tend to pick the best ones for publication. Nevertheless, it is important to evaluate these images in the context of the whole and I appeal to Chie Kelly or her agent Peter Jolly to release the set for serious study by those on either side of the debate as to whether a monster does indeed inhabit Loch Ness.

What do I conclude from these images? Simply that what we have motivates one more to see the complete set and no final or tentative conclusions can be made without them. I used the word "humps" because that is exactly what they look like, but what could they be? A perusal of comments from readers on the Internet offered up various opinions such as waves, bin bags, otters, dogs, a sturgeon, seal, a bear, plastic debris, a deflated dinghy being towed by an out of sight boat, rocks, a lump of peat, a fake stunt by divers or just divers and, of course, the Loch Ness Monster. 

A lot of these comments were based on viewing only the picture at the top. Most can be dispensed with although the bin bags theory got quite a few mentions which reminded me of the similar explanation that Maurice Burton had offered for the 1938 Taylor film which also went through various appearances. Another set of photographs which came to mind when I saw these were the ones taken by William Jobes in 2011 which showed a rough surfaced hump but were also dismissed as flotsam and jetsam by many at the time.

In fact, William had reported seeing a horse like head and one can imagine seeing such a thing in the last photo from 2018. But I digress and further speculation is no more than that while we wait for the complete set of pictures and hopefully a number of serious people apply their minds as to possible explanations as to what is in these pictures. Certainly, one thing I checked was what was happening at the loch back in August 2018. Back then, I wrote of a claimed head and neck sighting nearby by two local women as they walked in the wooded area at Tor Point and that is documented here and occurred only three days later and perhaps only hundreds of metres from the object seen by Mrs. Kelly.

The eDNA experiment team led by Professor Neil Gemmell had been at the loch weeks before in June to collect water samples which would seem to add a twist of irony to these photographs. I am not aware of any other events, but others can inform me what else may have been going on at that time at Loch Ness.

So, something was moving down the loch against the general south westerlies blowing up the loch. It submerged, rolled, changed its aspect from rough to smooth, went from two objects to one. Was it just bin bags and plastic waste doing a good job of looking like a monster or is it the ubiquitous "photoshop" job or perhaps something more mysterious? Once I get my hands on the uncropped images, further deductions may be possible.

But I agree with Steve Feltham, if you were looking to take some monster photographs, they may look like this but I would add perhaps with that famous long neck for good measure. It is a curious coincidence that half a mile away and 90 years before this new story broke, Aldie Mackay saw her "Strange spectacle on Loch Ness" which was also one then two humps and which also perplexingly rolled in the water. If this is an animal, I do not know what to make of it.

P.S. There is also talk of a thermal drone video of an object near the opposite shore of Loch Ness. I cannot really comment on that without seeing the complete video.

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Loch Ness Expedition in Danger?

 

A news item from the Scottish Sun took me by surprise today as it spoke of an "urgent warning as extensive Loch Ness Monster search could stir up a 'whirlpool of evil'". The text of the article was an interview with paranormal researcher, Ron Halliday and written by Oliver Norton (original link here).

A MASSIVE search to find the Loch Ness Monster could stir up a “whirlpool of evil”, a leading paranormal investigator has warned. Ron Halliday fears plans to flush out the elusive beast with drones, infrared cameras and underwater sound detectors later this month will lead to spirits being unleashed. Organisers are calling the two-day operation the biggest search for the monster in more than 50 years. But Mr Halliday, who has been investigating the paranormal for 30 years, said:

“I’d suggest this project be called off or at the very least there’s some psychic protection for anyone involved. I was concerned to read about plans for a massive search for the Loch Ness Monster. I’m not convinced this search is a good idea. We could be stirring up a whirlpool of evil.”

An army of volunteers is also set to watch the loch from safe vantage points on land surrounding Loch Ness on August 27 and 28. They have been warned to “stay vigilant” and bring binoculars and cameras to gather evidence. The effort is being organised by the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit and a volunteer research team called Loch Ness Exploration. The organisation’s Alan McKenna hoped the “large scale surface watch” would inspire a new generation of enthusiasts.

It’s understood to be the biggest search for the monster since the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau studied the waters in 1972. It will also involve technology not previously used before. But researcher Mr Halliday, who has published books including The A-Z of Paranormal Scotland and Scotland’s X-Files, warned the plans could backfire. He added:

“The truth is there’s little evidence that we’re dealing with a flesh-and-blood creature. It’s more likely that the loch is home to an unknown spirit form.”

Paul Nixon, General Manager of the Loch Ness Centre, said: 

“The watch is designed to be observational and not invasive. The Loch is home to a whole host of wildlife and it is very important this does not become disturbed. Whilst we appreciate the offer of psychic protection we are confident our robust safety procedures will ensure a positive weekend for all involved in what will be the largest surface level search for Nessie on over 50 years.”

Now, speaking for myself, I have some experience in the paranormal theory of the Loch Ness Monster. I have studied the works of Ted Holiday, Anthony "Doc" Shiels and others such as Nick Redfern. I have also held to such views in earlier decades. My own contribution has been the book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness" which looks back on the ancient legends of the loch and elsewhere in the Highlands and the pre-Christian animism that pervaded the worldview of the inhabitants. 

Where might the belief that the loch is a place not to be meddled with come from? Going way back to the beginning, what exactly the indigenous Picts of two thousand years ago believed was living in Loch Ness is not known. If they believed in some version of animism, then they may have regarded the entire body of water to be imbued with a spirit which was either part of its essence or distinct from it in some way. The practise of other cultures would suggest they may have offered gifts to the "spirit" of that water by throwing into it offerings of agriculture, livestock or even perhaps other humans in return for favourable outcomes such as fishing, good weather and so on.

The arrival of Christianity in the 6th century overturned that order and any spirit in or of the loch was demonized and subjugated to the God of the Christians. Over time, that "demon spirit" which continued to occasionally show itself to the perplexed natives with that long neck and horse like head became an infernal steed which preyed on unsuspecting travelers in a supernatural bait and switch tactic where its pseudo-equine form would transform from a saddled temptation for the weary walker to a terrifying plunge in its monstrous grip to depths unknown but always fatal.

Such was the Each Uisge of Loch Ness which held such a spell over the locals that it compelled them to keep silent about its appearances lest its curse broke forth upon them. Surely then such interventions as drones, cameras and sonar will once again stir up this "whirlpool of evil" which will do ... what?

Now I must admit when I read the headline, I immediately thought of the occultist, Kevin Carlyon, who has been known to cast a few spells over the water. That is nothing new as the loch was exorcised back in 1973 by the Reverend Donald Omand and doubtless various other incantations have been uttered over the cold, volatile waters. But this was Ron Halliday, Scottish paranormal researcher, who I have met on at least one occasion. Now if one believes there is something paranormal down there, you may be inclined to stay away from it.

Lat year, Ron was quoted as suggesting that the monster may be a creature inhabiting a parallel universe which can be seen when eyewitnesses inadvertently step into a "portal" between the two realms. That could even manifest as a view of a dinosaur from the distant past, though one may retort that dinosaurs belonged to our inverse, not a parallel one. Is he suggesting that the act of observing the loch could open such a portal and unleash something undesirable?

The problem with this theory is that it is essentially meaningless and endlessly malleable. How do you put it to test? What predictions can you make from this hypotheses and what experiments should be devised to verify it or correct it? The malleability is demonstrated to me in the quotes ascribed to Ron this week and last year. This week we are told "the loch is home to an unknown spirit form" but last year it inhabits another parallel universe - "something that looks solid but isn’t actually in our world". You can't have it both ways, which one is it? 

Now perhaps Ron is being misquoted and he is welcome to clarify his views, but my own experience of the world of paranormal theories is that you can say almost anything and get away with it if you cloak it with some scientific terms such as parallel universes (which of course, have not been proven to exist). Now, some may hurl the same accusation at zoological Nessie theorists, but it is clear that speculating about giant eels and plesiosaurs is a far cry from creatures popping out of portals to parallel universes. 

Paranormal theories go too far in what they employ to explain strange phenomena. Sure, you can use them to explain issues about food stocks in the loch or the lack of physical traces, just so long as you are happy importing another entire universe to explain what happens over a 26 mile stretch of water. This is not so much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but an entire division of tanks. In employing such theories, you destroy what you are trying to explain at the same time.

But the historical evidence does not back up such a statement about unleashing a "whirlpool of evil". Go back to the first extensive searches of the 1930s. The surge of people that rushed to the loch in the hope of seeing the monster. The various expeditions that occurred from 1933 into 1934. What evidence is there that evil was unleashed as a result of these activities? 

Now jump thirty years to the 1960s and the large expeditions of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. The various watch stations with cameras, the surface watchers, the large number of volunteers involved, the publicity that surrounded them and the various experiments that developed as more experts got involved. What was unleashed back then? What tales of evil ensued that merited the cancellation of future work?

Moving into the 1970s with the large expeditions mounted by the Academy of Applied Science led by Robert Rines and the help of many based in Scotland and beyond. What misfortune came to pass that could even be classed as statistically significant beyond the normal run of good or bad luck people encounter in these ventures? For goodness sake, they even had a psychic in the form of Winifred Cary helping them with her dowsing! In fact, did not Ron Halliday go to Loch Morar armed with dowsing rods?

We could go on, what about Operation Deepscan in 1987 or the multiplicity of other incursions into the loch? But then again, if one wishes to scan these things in a paranormal manner, did not the Warlock Gregor MacGregor render the Loch Ness Kelpie impotent when he stole its bridle around the beginning of the 19th century? Well, at least, that is what he claimed. Or perhaps the threat of any whirlpool of evil was neutralized by the Reverend Omand in 1973 as he sprinkled the holy water over the loch?

One suspects that the recommended "psychic covering" is not needed. If there is a Loch Ness Spirit, it would probably rip through it like a wet paper bag. The news from the battle front of old was that the locals would send the Kelpie packing by invoking the name of the Holy Trinity. Perhaps they were following the example of St. Columba, who:

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.

Either that or you run your ass off. Either way, people, go prepared. Take all the usual precautions, be suited and booted, be aware of your surroundings, employ your concentration and don't play the fool. Call upon your god, be it deity or reason for Loch Ness, with or without a spirit can be an unforgiving environment to those who fall into its clutches.

And having done all that, enjoy yourselves, partake of the craich and don't forget to take that lens cap off.

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

The First Loch Ness Sonar Contact?

 

Recent publicity about a strange looking sonar image from Lake Champlain brought to mind another sonar image from another time and from another place - namely seventy years before at Loch Ness. I became familiar with this story back in the 1970s as a kid when Nicholas Witchell wrote about it in his book "The Loch Ness Story". I quote from page 115 onwards of the first edition which in itself quotes the Daily Herald from the 6th December 1954:

During recent years the underwater radar mechanism known as Sonar has played an invaluable part in the research at Loch Ness. The first real indication of the potential of this sort of equipment as a "monster hunting" tool came in December 1954 when a drifter picked up a  strange outline on its echo sounding apparatus. At about 11.30 a.m. on 2nd December, the Peterhead drifter Rival III was approaching Urquhart Castle on its journey south through the Caledonian Canal to the West Coast fishing grounds. 

In the wheelhouse was the 46-year-old mate Mr Peter Anderson. The skipper, Mr Donald MacLean and the seven other crew members were below having a cup of tea. Mr Anderson glanced at the echo sounder, a Kelvin Hughes "Fishmaster", and stiffened:

"Suddenly the printer arm on the machine started to draw this thing on the roll of recording paper. As it sketched it out I couldn't believe my eyes. For several minutes the arm went on moving and the outlines of the thing below the water were drawn on the paper. I shouted to the crew and they came crowding up to the wheelhouse. They were as amazed as I was. At once we turned the boat about and tried to track the 'Monster' again. But it was no use, whatever it was had gone."

Mr Anderson tore the chart from the machine and as the boat passed through the locks down to the West Coast he brought it out and showed it to the Canal staff. By the time the Rival III reached Oban the Press was waiting for them and negotiations began for the exclusive rights to the chart. The Daily Herald eventually won and while on the 5th December, the Sunday Mail reported rather sourly that the chart "is not for sale" representatives from the manufacturers were examining it under the Daily Herald's auspices.

Mr L. A. Southcott, the firm's District Manager and Mr A. Sutton, the Technical Development Director, both examined the chart and certified that it had not been faked or tampered with in any way. From the calibrated scale they could tell that the object was 480 feet deep and 120 feet up from the loch bed. It was moving from left to right on the chart, i.e., in the same direction as the boat and was approximately 50 feet in length. Mr Sutton stated, after a long study of the graph that: 

"It is definitely not a water-logged tree or a shoal of fish. These give entirely different signals. If there was a large animal in the loch this is the kind of image you would get from an echo sounder . . . I can't explain it away. I have seen thousands of recordings — but nothing like this."

Mr Southcott said:

"This is definitely animal matter of some kind . . . in all my experience I've never seen anything like this. The object certainly is not like any other kind of fish that has been charted." All that could be said about the shape of the object was that it was elongated and probably irregular."

Among the people consulted by the Press for an opinion on the chart was Dr C. H. Mortimer of the Freshwater Biological Association who had carried out a temperature survey at the loch in 1953. He was quoted in the Daily Herald of 7th December as saying:

"I too got some unusual recordings on Loch Ness. I explained them away to my own satisfaction then as echoes from the side of the loch superimposing themselves on the sounding chart. But from the graph description the object appears to be clear of the sides of the loch. It is extremely puzzling."

One person feeling more frustrated than puzzled by the event was the wife of the Rival III's skipper, Mrs Betty Maclean. She was quoted as saying:

"I am the laughing stock of Peterhead. Everyone looks at me and smiles. While I was out shopping, fishermen and their wives were looking at me as if I had got the 'Monster' in my shopping bag."

Unfortunately, whatever serious interest was re-aroused was marred by yet another hoax. On 8th December, a Royal Naval mine laying vessel reported to Canal staff that they too had picked up a strange echo whilst on passage through the loch. As soon as the Press arrived the Commander admitted that it was all a joke and the cursing reporters left to express their disgust with the whole matter.

One newspaper carrying the story was the Aberdeen Press and Journal two days later as seen below. The actual image on the sonar image occupied a space of one and quarter inches or just over 3cm and it stated a depth of 90 fathoms or 540 feet.

Since then, the image has generally been regarded as a fake and I certainly found such a clearly delineated image unconvincing. Now I must admit, I am not particularly familiar with sonar technology from the 1950s so I turned to the documentary of the BBC's expedition to the loch three years later in 1957 (more info here) where the presenter Raymond Baxter took viewers through an explanation of the latest in this technology with David Anderson, the representative of Marconi with their latest  fish finder machine.

He explained their "noise generator" was only effective if the target was directly below but there was newer technology which would sweep out to the sides with a similar range. The BBC did have an interesting sonar hit which was displayed by opening the front of the machine and hand rolling the paper back to that point. The quality of the overall film was poor but good enough to see what was going on.

The actual image was likened to a "shadow" seen at the top and left from centre and the Marconi man could not give an adequate explanation in comparison to other recordings he had seen elsewhere in his work. It was picked up seventy yards north-east of Urquhart Castle at a depth of three to ten fathoms moving further into the deeps and causing "considerable agitation of the water". Anderson estimated the length at twenty feet and unlike the fish contacts also seen on the trace.

    

The "shadow" is certainly more in keeping with what I have seen elsewhere and should be considered as the first arguable sonar contact with the monster. The Rival III contact image is not so much "too good to be true" but more like "could never be true". The almost face on side view of the "object" with even limbs visible is incongruous with something which is below you, no matter the angle. In that edition of Witchell's book, we also get a clear photo of the BBC contact shown below. 

The image from the Rival III crew was again in the 1975 edition of "The Loch Ness Story" but had been quietly dropped in the 1989 edition and the BBC contact retained. How the image was put on the paper could boil down to inking it on with the same pens used for the device, though that does not appear to be a trivial task - depending on what you are trying to achieve. That would seem to be mandatory as the one outstanding issue with the image is that we are told that a Mr. Sutton, the technical development director of the echo sounder manufacturer, Kelvin-Hughes, examined the paper trace and declared it had not been "faked or tampered with in any way". 

Now we like our experts when it comes to Loch Ness accounts, no matter what side of the debate we are on. We quote them in defence of our positions and feel the better for it. The Daily Herald had bought this piece of paper from the owners of the drifter, but was this contingent on a favourable expert opinion? You would have thought so, but I cannot verify that. Was the Kelvin-Hughes technical man fooled or complicit and does that mean we need to more circumspect about who we look to as experts?

The other thing to note about the image is its resemblance to another image which caught the public imagination three years before. That was the Lachlan Stuart photograph of 1951 and the two are compared below. The three humps of the two images are clearly there and even the middle hump of both is the highest. If you are going to fake a Nessie sonar contact, why not link it to the latest and greatest photograph of the monster?

So the image is dubious and the BBC contact is of more interest. Going back to the Lake Champlain sonar contact that brought back memories of this 1954 incident, I would ask the same questions of that more modern image. But I will leave that for others to develop.

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Visit to the new Loch Ness Centre Exhibition

 

A week or so ago, I made it up to Drumnadrochit to visit the new exhibition which is now under the management of Continuum Attractions and has undergone extensive changes over the first half of this year. It was time to see how the Loch Ness Monster story has been re-created by them over forty years since the first incarnation of this opened under the guidance of Tony Harmsworth. That first one was very much along the lines of the plesiosaur theory and everything was just about evidence while the subsequent exhibition was more along the lines of "no monster here" and everything was no longer evidence.

The exhibition moved from one extreme to another and so the question now was where the new one lay between these other two. Now I have to say here that I would not consider myself a suitable reviewer of exhibitions such as this. That is not because I am being paid to hype it or because I am related to anyone in the company. Rather, having imbibed a lot of the monster story over the decades, one can get a bit pernickety about things others would consider minor matters.

Moreover, the exhibition was not specially designed for me or any other monster believer or indeed for any sceptic. It is an exhibition designed for the average person, who, though not stupid, has little knowledge of the subject and may want to know more. Therefore, the job of any such exhibition is to present the subject in such a way that does not deceive or try and lead a person down one path to a fixed conclusion. In that light, I offer my thoughts and observations.

I turned up on the Friday and found that there had been a power cut and so had to wait for perhaps ten minutes while this was sorted out and everything was brought back up to speed. I went in and at this point I will confess I got in on a free ticket from Continuum Attractions. That was no big deal as I had helped them out on a few minor things and that was a fair exchange. I would say there was about five of us going into the exhibition. This was a week before the schools in Scotland closed for the Summer holidays and so I wanted to be there before the tourists began to arrive en masse over the next few months.

The first room we entered was a kind of ante-room before the main event. There were various famous and purported photographs of the Loch Ness Monster hanging on the wall along with sketches and a picture of the most famous man of all, Tim Dinsdale. On the wall beside these pictures was a quote from myself taken from one of my books. Don't worry, that was the first and last time you would hear about me in the exhibition! A nice touch above the pictures were four numbers hanging on hooks - implying they were subject to change. They were the numbers 1, 4, 4 and 5. Or to be more precise, one thousand, four hundred and forty five sightings and counting ... 

That would be the number taken from Gary Campbell's Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register. So all a good start I thought. Throughout the ensuing exhibits, the "classic" photographs, though not explicitly presented as evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, were neither subject to some of the unfalsifiable and withering arguments you get from sceptics. Well, one or two were but I move on.

Adrian Shine, the curator of the previous exhibition, would feature more than anyone else in the presentations. So he was there in the ante-room in a kind of "live" framed picture. I wasn't sure whether that implied an imbalance in views. On the one hand, he was there as an expert on the hydrology, limnology and history of the loch. On the other hand, he was also there as a sceptic regarding there being any large exotic creature in Loch Ness. Where one began and the other ended was not always clear to me.

Alongside Adrian's animated portrait were two interesting items from the lore of the great story - a copy of the Drumbuie Stone and Marmaduke Wetherell's hippo ashtray. One of them was accompanied by a text asking if this could be linked to the monster - a recurring theme as I ventured on into the first video room. There were eight rooms in all, taking me fifty minutes to go through. The first was an introductory video of the natural history of the loch from ancient geological times. 

I studiously stood and watched this, though a man and his two kids just took a glance at it and hastily moved on. Why pay good money but then rush through? Maybe the power cut delay had messed up his itinerary or something. The video was an entertaining walk through volcanic times using video graphics up to a present day clip and set the scene for the mystery.

I next walked into the Myths and Legends room and was greeted by the voice of David Tennant, famous for his portrayal of Doctor Who and apparently a Nessie fan. He provided the voice over and it was natural that this room was the next subject to greet us. It had that kind of ethereal feel to it which captured well the nether-world of kelpies and water horses.

By this time, I was wondering if the room dimensions were exactly the same as the prior exhibition. It looked like it, but the refurbishment was more important than whether rooms had been combined or split up. It was next onto the room of Nessie's origins as a multi-screen display took us through the early 1930s and the beginnings of the modern monster. This was in a dramatised form using actors representing such people as Aldie Mackay and Alex Campbell in the setting of an old style pub.

Alongside that was a screen displaying people, photos and sketches linked to the mystery as shown below. Here the old classic photos were again on display and in general they were neither praised nor pilloried, which I guess was the best I could hope for. One or two were questioned and I do not recall seeing the O'Connor, Shiels or Cockrell photos.

It was interesting to see actors who were non-white depicting eyewitnesses. I guess this was to fulfill diversity quotas but it made me think whether there had been any such eyewitness over the last ninety years. I could not think of a single one and although back in the 1930s that would have been no surprise, nobody over the last few decades came to mind. Of course, most of the time the ethnicity of the person involved is never stated. They are there out there somewhere, but who was the most famous one? I am sure someone will let me know.

The next room was a high vaulted space bathed in green light which conveyed the depths of the loch and the exploration of it. Well, it is actually more tea-like but green is perhaps more calming. The effects made one think they were standing at the bottom of the loch looking up as a large screen took us through the various underwater searches over the years. The effects were good with the odd mysterious shadow flitting past but I did not agree with the sceptical assessment of the 1975 "body" picture taken by the AAS. Well, I did say this exhibition wasn't crafted with a small cadre of Nessie hunters in mind!

The next room was what I would describe as the previous exhibition compressed into one room. This was the domain of Adrian Shine as he appeared on a large video screen in front of the John Murray boat giving us his perspective on the decades of the hunt, what animals may or may not be Nessie, the other usual suspects which fool observers and where do we go from here? Now I do not mean that Nessie scepticism was confined to this room only, it was not, but this was the room to go to for that genre of opinion. As I said, this was going to be an exhibition that would attempt to balance these two opposing poles. Did it achieve that? I will give my take on that at the end.

Nevertheless, it was a well presented video, and yes, people are fooled by everyday phenomenon, and so that had to be said, it just depends how you say it. As the tour drew to a close, it was into the penultimate room which was a kind of reprise of what had gone before as final arguments were made. There was a display of items highlighting curious explanations of monsters but the main focus was the video wall and at this point we finally got to meet some Nessie believers in the form of Steve Feltham and Alan McKenna who were stating their case to me. No worries, chaps, I am all in.

With all that done and dusted it was time to place your vote. What did I think? Plesiosaur? Big fish? Hoax? Boats? Logs or what? Make your choice and press one or more of those nine buttons. That was quite fun and my vote was added to produce a video wall display of all cumulative results. And the winner was ... well, you just got to love the voting public.

I took snapshots of the running totals and may come back at the end of the Summer to see how the voting has progressed. The final room may or may not have been a room, perhaps more of an exit hall. But it had preserved something that was for me a favourite part of the previous exhibition and that was the video testimonies of some well known sightings, straight from the witnesses themselves. 

This is something any enquiring mind should listen to and so I was glad to see it still there and a bit more modern looking. However, it was hard to hear the audio as there was some music playing over it in the same area. In the last exhibition, there was a set of headphones one could plug in to the display and hear it clearly. But it appeared there was no headphone facility, perhaps this was some health and safety rule about sharing a headphone. Anyway, I told the staff nearby about the issue and hopefully it will be sorted soon.

Overall, it was a big improvement on the previous exhibition in terms of presentation, entertainment and seeking a balance between belief and scepticism. However, what was actually presented as potential evidence for the Loch Ness Monster was small, the sonar hit of October 2020 taken from a Cruise Loch Ness boat got some attention at the end. As stated earlier, it was good to see some classic images presented uncritically, but no more than that. I wondered where some other classic images were, such as the Dinsdale film? Or more modern ones from the last twenty years.

Perhaps there was copyright and licensing issues tied to some of those? You can't just put on display images owned by others when you are charging a fee to see them. Such is the commercial world of the Loch Ness Monster. On the other hand, sceptical images of logs and wakes are pretty much free. So how did I rate the exhibition for balance between scepticism and belief in the creature?

I assigned a mark to each of the eight rooms out of 100, so 60:40 would be 60% pro-Nessie and 40% anti-Nessie for want of better phrases and each room was given equal weight. I added them up and got a balance of 55:45 in favour of Nessie. So I could say that the exhibition had achieved a balance with a tilt towards Scotland's most famous creature. Others of course, may come up with different numbers, but go yourself and form your own opinion as to how the mystery of the loch has been newly presented to us in Drumnadrochit.

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

First Photograph of 2023

 

A tourist from France presents us with the first claimed Nessie photograph of the year as the Daily Telegraph relates from the 16th June:

A tourist visiting Loch Ness has claimed to have seen a 65ft-long dark shape moving just beneath the surface of the water for several minutes. Etienne Camel, a pharmacist from Lyon and his wife Eliane were taking holiday photos from the west side of the loch near Invermoriston when they made the latest sighting of the long-reputed “monster”.

He said: “It was quite strange. I am a man of science so I never believed that the Loch Ness monster is a prehistoric animal. But when I was taking a picture I saw this long, long shadow. I called my wife over and we saw the shadow move. I thought maybe it was a cloud, but there was none, or a boat, but none was near or reefs. There were small waves, like something was moving. It was 15-20m long and was about 150m away. It was quite strange and then it disappeared."

He added: “We could not tell if it was an animal, but something was moving under the water. I have never seen such [things] in lakes – and we have many where we live – before.”

Now the kind of photographs I like show something solid and animate on the surface, but disturbances of the water surface still need an examination. Since there is nothing visible on the water, you can't really argue for it being anything unusual unless the water is being disturbed in unexpected ways which brings us to the various natural explanations suggested in these situations.

Differentials in water turbulence left by boat wakes, windrows, catspaws and wind slicks all figure and sometimes groups of small animals, though this picture is detailed enough to exclude birds. I don't know how windy it was that day, but Loch Ness effectively acts as a wind tunnel channeling the general south-westerly wind up it and magnifying wind flows across the large surface area. That can lead to inconsistencies in the dynamics of the wind distribution.

In other words, localised and large areas can experience more or less turbulence than their surrounding waters and give the appearance of something underneath disturbing the surface or perhaps looking darker is seen at a longer distance. The fact that they will stay for a long time and be bigger than any monster (the witness said it was up to 60 feet long) is normally the give away features.

It was said to move, but alterations in wind flow can give that effect too. So, an interesting image which can be banked in the catalogue of things to look out for. These kind of pictures have been published on this blog over the years. This link tells the tale of another such image taken by Ken Ross in October 2012. 

That one was estimated to be about 200 feet long. We even have some videos as shown below. The first was taken in April 2010 at Urquhart Bay.

The second was taken in the same area later in August 2010 by some Italian tourists.

Now all these do not need the same explanation and indeed perhaps amongst all these there is one caused by a large object under the surface. It has to be said however, that Nessie must be some kind of buoyancy expert if she can consistently disturb the water surface without ever breaking it and exposing a neck, back or tail. Until that happens, at best file these pictures as inconclusive.

One final thought did occur to me. Take Etienne Camel's picture, zoom it out, put it at a much further distance to flatten it, image it on a low resolution webcam rather than a camera and you will likely end up with something like the picture below. They won't explain all of Eoin's pictures - some, but not all.

But keep looking, keep snapping and who knows? Get back to us when y'all get something like this.

... or this ...

... or this. And if you believe that no good, clear pictures of the Loch Ness Monster have been obtained in the last ninety years, then you simply do not believe in the Loch Ness Monster!

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

New Loch Ness Monster Exhibition Opens Tomorrow

 

The day is upon us and it is tomorrow (Saturday 10th June) when the new exhibition opens to the public. Those with a stake in the mystery have already made statements. Adrian Shine, the curator of the previous exhibition and a consultant for this new re-presentation says it is "imaginative, creative, entertaining and accessible". When asked why he did not include the word "definitive", he said:

Stories like this are seldom definitive. But it has moved on. We don’t like to let go of our myths, but we modify them in the light of information we get. We can hold on to the myth and still be reasonable and that’s the fun.

Adrian re-affirmed his sceptical position on the BBC News yesterday, though emphasizing it was not a cynical scepticism. Monster Hunter, Steve Feltham, has also played his part in the production process and has already seen the finished product. He was a lot more positive about the monster as opposed to the myth:

If I were only to be allowed one single word to describe the new Loch Ness Centre exhibition it would be, "Sexy". Continuum have managed to bring the mystery to life in so many impressive ways. They have put back the mystery, the romance, the possibility and the humour, in such an engaging way. Honestly when I stepped out of the last room into the gift shop I just wanted to get back to the waters edge and get on with the hunt. The hunt is on, the game is afoot.

I was invited to a preview myself this Friday, but, alas, other commitments stop me from going up to the loch this weekend. I will have to find a date real soon and get up north to see this promising new development in the Loch Ness Monster story. I will have to avoid the pictures that people will doubtless post on various websites and the multitude of comments for good or ill that may prejudice one's expectations. 

But for starters, the picture at the top is an exhibition animation of St Columba's encounter with a "water beast" somewhere along the river or loch (the Latin text is ambiguous). I covered this story in a previous article. The text by Adamnan doesn't describe what the creature looked like, but the popular plesiosaur-like animal is used here. And therein lies the creative aspects of an exhibition where myth and monster can be allowed to meet without canceling each other out. In the 19th century, the demonic water horse was the explanatory wrapper put around what people were claiming to see. The following century, it was the plesiosaur wrapper. Such are the added accretions of ancient and modern folklore.

People like Adrian will say today that if you remove either wrapper, you will find nothing but empty space inside. To extend the metaphor a bit further, I would contend you can't wrap up nothing - it would just collapse. Whatever that "something" is lying under the various layers added by men over the centuries, it is solid enough and I hope the new Loch Ness Centre Exhibition attempts to take a peek at what lies under the artificial layers.

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

The author can also be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com