The Mysterious MacRae Film

In 1939, Winston Churchill described Russia as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. When it comes to the MacRae film of the Loch Ness Monster, this seems an apt term for the riddle of a mysterious film of an enigmatic object.

If you stumbled across this article seeking information on the clan of MacRae or McRae or perhaps sought information on matters pertaining to history, genealogy, tartan and ancestry, you may well get some, but it comes with a tale of monsters, claims and counter claims.

ENTER TED HOLIDAY

But why should anyone be bothered about a film that has never seen the light of day? Why should it be a forum for debate? The answer lies in what it claims to offer – undisputed proof of the Loch Ness Monster. It was what Loch Ness author, F. W. Holiday, held up as the “most sensational wildlife film of all time”. If that was true, it would be a matter worth pursing and indeed a sizable number have pursued this Holy Grail of Loch Ness Monsterism with the zeal of medieval knights. But like the knights of old, the grail has not come to Camelot and various legends have perhaps grown to fill the void. 

Fifty years on, since this story first came to light, it would seem appropriate to review what has gone before us and what could lie beyond in the unwritten future. The players in this tale are varied, but all with the same intention of arriving at the truth of the matter.

The people that have contributed to what we know include Ted holiday, Mike Dash, Paul Harrison and Alan Wilkins. There will be others, but these are the ones we focus on today. I will add my own observations at the end, so I am more the editor rather than the creator of information for now.

We would not have known anything about the McRae film if it was not for Ted Holiday, maverick Nessie researcher of the 60s and 70s, who revealed the possibility of this game changing film in his 1968 book, “The Great Orm of Loch Ness”. In the chapter entitled, “Expedition '65”, Holiday tells us of his trip to Loch Ness in 1965 and an unexpected end to that particular expedition.

Ted Holiday

The evening before he left, he was informed of a man named Alastair Dallas, who had knowledge of not one but two extraordinary films. Armed with this information, Holiday stopped off on his way back to Wales, in the small Borders town of Kircudbright, where Mr. Dallas lived. Initially, he was not well received by Dallas who was surprised that he was in possession of such information. 

However, once Holiday had convinced him of his pro-monster credentials, he relented somewhat and told the story of the two films which had both been taken in the 1930s by a Doctor MacRae. The physician had retired to the shores of Loch Duich and was now deceased. But before his death he had captured two animals on two separate sequences of film.

The first was taken at Loch Ness, the other further west in Loch Duich. However, the claimed clarity and detail of the long necked animals in the films suggested they went way beyond anything yet achieved in terms of evidence for mysterious aquatic monsters. According to Holiday’s book, the film of the Loch Ness Monster is described thusly ("orm" is Holiday's name for the creature):

Mr. Dallas told me that this film runs for several minutes. Three humps, together with the neck and head, are clearly visible. The neck is held low over the water and seems to be writhing to and fro. During the sequence, a bird flies down and lands on a stone in the foreground, which helps to give scale to the picture.

The Orm's head appears to be bluntly conical in profile - rather like half a rugger ball, to quote Mr Dallas. On the crest of the head are two hornlike sense-organs. Starting between these, and running down the neck, is a bristly mane. Mr Dallas said that this mane reminded him of baleen; it is stiff yet flexible and the texture seemed to him fibrous rather than hairy. Slit-like eyes can be made out on the head but they are not very distinct.

Occasionally, the animal, rolls in the water and one of the forward flippers makes an appearance. It is thick and fleshy in section and seems to be capable of independent movement. The skin looks tough and leathery. Another interesting feature is the fact that the head seems to be in a state of continuous flux or movement, apparently due to the play of muscles under the skin.

The creature in Loch Duich is described in these terms:

The second film, which was also taken by Dr McRae, shows a creature lying in Loch Duich - a sea-loch on the Scottish west coast. The monster is lying against the shore and is writhing its neck over a bed of seaweed. It differs from the Loch Ness specimen in having a longer neck and a mane which looks tufted. A man appears in the picture during this sequence, probably in the background.

With both being shot at a range of about one hundred yards, the attraction of pursuing this matter further was not a difficult decision. However, Alastair Dallas brought the whole thing to a screeching halt with the claim that Doctor MacRae had decided to leave the films in an unnamed bank vault in a safety deposit box and put them under a legal trust until such time as the matter of the monster was taken more seriously.

One of the trustees was Dallas himself, the other was the late Colonel Sir Donald Cameron of Locheil and the third trustee he refused to name (presumably because he or she was still alive). It was only because the terms of the trust did not forbid a description of the film that allowed Dallas to relate the episode to Holiday. Beyond that, Dallas was not prepared to go further.

 Alastair Dallas

After leaving Scotland, Holiday followed up the matter with the present Donald Cameron of Locheil who denied any knowledge of the films. Further letters to Alastair Dallas went unanswered and Ted Holiday concluded he could take the matter no further.

SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH

Apart from a reference by Roy Mackal, it was not until the late 1990s that the matter was taken up again in the research of Mike Dash and Paul Harrison. By coincidence, they had both resolved to see if anything extra could be gleaned from this almost mythical tale of monsters. At this point, I defer to a talk given by Mike Dash to the Weird Weekend convention in 2008 where he laid out his findings and conclusions to the audience. You can find the talk here and I thank Mike and Paul for their permission to use material for this article.

The first question to answer was whether Dr. MacRae ever existed. Mike Dash is quite certain the answer to that question is “Yes”. Using Holiday’s statement about the doctor retiring to the shores of Loch Duich and armed with the Medical Register for that period, he was able to whittle down the various medical MacRaes to a Farquhar MacRae who lived in the village of Ratagan by the shore of Loch Duich. Using various sources, Mike pieced together a life of the man who it is claimed filmed the best evidence ever for the Loch Ness Monster.

• 1855 Born at Lochalsh
• 1884 Qualified as doctor Aberdeen
• 1888 Employed as medical officer for mining company, Rio Tinto Zinc, in Spain
• 1889 Lives on the Isle of Lewis and Harris with brother
• 1892 Moves to Newgate, London,
• 1896 Joins BMA
• 1899 Lives in Belgravia, London
• 1903 Spends one year at the Golden Square Throat Hospital
• 1904 Returns to his London private practise
• 1925 Retires and buys house in Ratagan and names it Selma (after Fingal's palace in Ossian)
• 1948 Dies in Inverness aged 92

Further research by Mike revealed nothing in the wills of MacRae or Cameron of Locheil. However, he uncovered a photograph of Farquhar MacRae taken from Volume 7 of the Celtic Monthly published in 1899 which is shown below. Interestingly, Mike also found some wax cylinders from 1908 held by the British Sound Archive in which McRae sings some Gaelic folk songs!

Farquhar MacRae

So, it seems certain that the man existed as described by Alastair Dallas. But, he had died childless in 1948. Would it be possible to find any living relatives to ask awkward questions about the Loch Ness Monster? The answer was again “Yes” and this involved the parallel research of Paul Harrison who had placed adverts in papers asking for information on the film.

This led to the great-niece of Farquhar MacRae, but she refused to discuss the matter saying there was nothing to it. However, her daughter, Fiona MacRae was a bit more forthcoming in two letters to Paul in 1998.

Farquhar MacRae was born in Lochalsh, December 1855, he died in 1948 and is buried with his father in Kirkston of Lochalsh. He was unmarried. I have heard a story about photographs, not film, that he had taken of the Loch Ness Monster, but know nothing of their whereabouts.

Farquhar MacRae was a cousin of my husband's grandfather. As far as we remember, the film/photo story came to us from his uncle, who died some 30 years ago. I am sorry I can't tell you more. 

Since this letter is dated 1998, the story coming from a relative before he died some "30 years ago", places that before the publication of Holiday's book. At the same time, Mike Dash had constructed a family tree and contacted another relative, Jack MacRae, who lived nearby in Inverinate. He replied:

A rumour has appeared in the Inverness area that Dr F. made a film of the Loch Ness Monster, and that it was stored in a bank on his death. It's not known where he banked in his later years  - could be a London bank. Dr Mary makes light of the rumour, so I wouldn't worry much about it.

Dr. Mary was the mother of the aforementioned Fiona MacRae. Both are tantalising pieces of information, though one might try and argue that the Jack MacRae rumours were a result of Holiday's book rather than an independent source. These accounts might add some weight to the veracity of the story, but, ultimately, do not really take us much further forward.

However, another player enters the stage when Roy Mackal wrote his 1976 book, "The Monsters of Loch Ness". In discussing the MacRae film, he mentions the work of researcher, Alan Wilkins. This is a name which some readers may recall as he was credited with taking a somewhat grainy film of Nessie back in 1975. In fact, I still recall seeing the pictures as a teenager, having cut it out for my clippings collection.

Mackal informs us that Wilkins was told by Dallas that he disputed the account by Holiday and said there was no trust, only one film taken at Loch Duich and he did not know where this was. As a result of this confusion, Mackal declares the film "unacceptable as evidence".

Mike Dash pursued the matter further in the 1990s and added some detail when he spoke to Wilkins by phone. When Wilkins made contact with Dallas in 1974, unlike Holiday, he was refused an audience. According to Mike Dash, parley was eventually granted, but only through an intermediary whom Dallas knew, by the name of Tom Skinner.

Skinner relayed Dallas’ answers back to Wilkins and they painted a different picture to the one presented in Holiday’s book. According to this interview with Dallas, there was only one film and it had been taken at Loch Duich, and it was not as clear as originally claimed. The purported Loch Ness film was actually a sighting Dallas had himself of Nessie on land in September 1936. Dallas claimed that Holiday had completely twisted his original story.

Dallas provided a basic sketch to Wilkins of the creature he claimed to have seen half out of the water in the 1930s. He then later sent what he said was a contemporary sketch and is shown below. I have covered this report before and it is a rather strange creature with multiple dorsal fins, droopy ear like structures and a mouth apparently sucking on a rock. Mike Dash was quite convinced that this was indeed warped by Holiday and did a point by point comparison of the creature described in the Loch Ness film above with the Dallas drawing. We have no record of Holiday’s reply to this accusation, but like Holiday before him, Wilkins closed the case and moved on.

Alastair Dallas' Monster

Around this time, Mike Dash made contact with Alastair Dallas’ son and put again the questions to him that Holiday and Wilkins had done before. In a now familiar refrain, his son denied any  knowledge of any such film and suggested that his father had made up the whole thing and suggested there was nothing to see here and move on. He told them his father had a penchant for tall tales and this was likely one of those tales.

And there our tale of sensational films of mysterious monsters grinds to a halt. What are we to make of it all? Is it an artist’s fantasy from the Borders, unwittingly aided by an over-zealous monster hunter? 

Indeed, as Mike Dash points out, the idea of a trust with no obvious beneficiary seems ill conceived. Nor is it likely to be a vehicle which could legally carry on in perpetuity. All the supposed trustees must be dead now, so where is the film now? Does it lie languishing in a bank vault, outlasting its protectors? In fact, how could it lie in a vault if no one is paying the annual fees for such a service? Moreover, the presence of a trust presupposes a solicitor, so what was their duty should all the trustees die?

A FURTHER PUZZLE

During the course of Mike's research, he stumbled upon a further conundrum. Farquhar MacRae succeeded a Farquhar Matheson as President of the Gael Society of London. So what, you may ask? As it turns out, Matheson had a famous sighting of a sea serpent back in 1893 in the Kyle of Lochalsh near Loch Duich. In fact, the Farquhars were both ENT doctors, both from the same distant parish and both are buried in the same cemetery in nearby Glenelg!

Is it just coincidence that two Farquhars who were sequential Gaelic Society Presidents also had experiences of sea serpents? Mike Dash thinks this synchronicity might mean something, but can't  come to a compelling conclusion. A contemporary drawing of Matheson's sighting is shown below.

Farquhar Matheson's Monster

The conclusion of the researchers is that there is nothing or little of substance to the Loch Ness story, though there is still held out the hope of some kind of film or photograph of something in Loch Duich, though not as sensational as first made out. Indeed, to recall the Grail metaphor in the context of an Indiana Jones film, this Holy Grail may yet turn out to be no more than an unappealing cup.

Then again, it may not.

FURTHER THOUGHTS

Gathering everything together, this is a case which has always proved an entertaining diversion for me as I speculated where that McRae film may or may not be. Back in the 1960s, researchers would have been more focused on the various hi-tech experiments at the loch and would have been confident that their work would render a 30 year old film surplus to requirements. With the failures of the 1960s and 70s, researchers took a fresh look at the legendary film.

I did some digging around myself, albeit aware that the aforementioned researchers had already done a lot of the digging for the Nessie community. The first thing is the alleged twisting of the story by Holiday. To recap, Dallas told Wilkins (via Skinner) that Holiday had screwed up and confused his own sighting with a presumed film taken at Loch Ness by MacRae.

Now since we are told by Dallas' own son that he was prone to telling tall tales, one wonders whether Dallas is the one screwing things up? Reading Holiday's account, it is clear that he mentions not only the two films, but also the Dallas sighting. So it seems Holiday did distinguish between the three events without any conflation. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Holiday could confuse the story that much.

Mike Dash compares the Dallas sighting with the Holiday description of the Loch Ness film and thinks there are parallels which suggest conflation of stories. I am not so convinced by that. Indeed, one could argue that the description of the Loch Duich creature correlates more with Dallas' own sighting. Note how the Duich creature is described as lying on the shore, just like the Dallas land sighting. It could be argued that Holiday was confusing this rather than the other.

But, if Dallas was a tall tale teller, why trust him ahead of Holiday? On the other hand, if Dallas was lying, how did he manage to connect himself with a doctor from a remote hamlet who was forty years his senior? Form your own opinion on who might be the one who is exaggerating.

THE ABBEY CONNECTION

The other point of interest is that it was not Dallas that told Holiday about the films, but an unnamed individual at Loch Ness. Indeed, Holiday states that this person told him there were not one but two films. This would appear to be independent confirmation of the films, but Holiday does not say who this person was. However, there is a clue in the text which points to Fort Augustus Abbey.

We are told in Holiday's book that he and Dallas discussed a sighting by a Prior of the Abbey who was a friend of MacRae. Why would they focus on this obscure sighting? What was the catalyst for this minor topic?  I suspect it was because someone at the Abbey was involved in the story of the MacRae mystery. I am only aware of one Abbey Prior who claimed a sighting of the monster and that was Sir David Oswald Hunter-Blair who was in charge of the Abbey until 1917 but returned there on other occasions.

Sir Oswald Hunter-Blair

This abbot connection was not lost on Mike Dash, who wondered if such a person was the third, unnamed trustee. But since Hunter-Blair died in 1939, Mike concentrated on later abbots of the monastery.  I myself am more focused on Hunter-Blair who was one of the Monster’s supporters during the 1930s; which is probably no surprise if he claimed to have seen it.

However, Hunter-Blair was long dead before Holiday's tip off in 1965. Who could the informant have been? One could draw up a list of suspects, but my money is on Fr. Aloysius Carruth, a Brother at Fort Augustus Abbey best known for his popular booklet, "Loch Ness and its Monster".

Fr. Aloysius Carruth

Carruth's Booket

One possible link here is an article by Dick Raynor on this film which says of Carruth:

The last I heard of him was that he was engaged in missionary work in southern Africa. Significantly, perhaps, the Dallas family received a letter from a Catholic mission in southern Africa asking if the McRae film could be used to raise funds for their work.

Did Carruth get wind of the MacRae film via some direct or indirect information from Hunter-Blair? The two men could have overlapped as Carruth's booklet first came out in 1939, so a conversation may have happened before Hunter-Blair died. A search of Carruth's booklet reveals nothing about the film and does not even mention Hunter-Blair's sighting. Ultimately, we won't know anything more without some new revelation.

AN INTERESTING SIGHTING

As to the Hunter-Blair's sighting, this is mentioned in Constance Whyte’s “More than a Legend” published in 1957. However, on checking the two sources stated, I don't think the sighting she refers to was actually witnessed by him. That he did see something is clearly stated in his own book "A Last Medley of Memories" published in 1936. We even read that he recounted this sighting to Pope Pius XI during an audience.

But despite consulting his works and even making further enquiries to his great-great-nephew, nothing more could be gleaned concerning this sighting. For a man who was quick to promote the monster, he was fairly cagey about his own sighting - just one sentence in the whole scanned literature. I had speculated whether Hunter-Blair was present at the MacRae filming, but we won't know from his own briefest of accounts.

But is it possible that the MacRae sighting is already on the record? A look at the four hundred sightings between 1933 and 1936 for descriptions of a beast that rolled like the MacRae one proved to be very rare. I found only one candidate which described a hump, long neck and rolling motion. It is a little known sighting from 15th July 1934 witnessed by a Mrs Biddle from a Fort Augustus hotel who saw the creature moving near the Abbey Boathouse. This is the extract from the Scotsman dated 17th July while the corresponding Inverness Courier article places the sighting at 9am near the Abbey boat house.

The only other report which mentions the creature rolling several times is mentioned in the Inverness Courier dated 14th November 1933, but this was at noon and no neck was observed. Two other reports (6th March 1934 and 21st August 1935) mention a single roll and no neck. Comparing the Biddle with the MacRae description from Holiday, the two sightings are similar, though the Biddle one is more lacking in detail. One striking similarity is how Mrs Biddle describes the creature as resembling a huge slug while Dallas (in Holiday's book) said it reminded him of a worm.

Remember also that Holiday quoted Dallas as saying there were two horn like projections on the head, which reminds us of a similar configuration on your typical slug. I don't say this because the Loch Ness Monster is a giant slug, but because the appearance of it reminded the witness of such an animal.

If MacRae did indeed film the Loch Ness Monster, Was it possible that Mrs Biddle was witness to it from another vantage point further away? If MacRae was beside the Abbey boathouse with his friend, Hunter-Blair, he was in a superb position to see and film the monster.

CONCLUSIONS

It would be easy to dismiss all this based on the erratic testimony of Alastair Dallas. But Holiday claimed someone else knew about the films and some of MacRae's living relatives seemed to independently confirm this. Something is out there, but what is not entirely clear.

There are other avenues which as yet remain unexplored, those will be left for another time. As you can see, there is a network of people and possibilities, but, alas, none leads anyone to a roll of film. However, there seems to be enough testimony to some kind of image being taken that keeps the MacRae door slightly ajar.

If there is still a film out there, my own guess is that with the death of the last trustee, it is no longer under a trust, but has moved into the ownership of person or persons unknown. Given the connection with Hunter-Blair, that could be a religious organisation, but who knows?

The sticking point is why MacRae would withhold the publishing of such sensational material. One might think the stated reason of waiting until the subject of the monster was taken more seriously is a self-defeating tactic as such a film would surely make people take the subject more seriously. It seems that M'Rae took this matter personally, though, as the mention of "Scottish persons of repute" being treated like mental defectives, may have involved people he held in regard (such as Hunter-Blair).

But the second stated reason was the distasteful expectation that those who scoffed at the monster, would then rush to profit from it, if the film was released. This is an understandable revulsion, but it is one which could permanently keep such a film from examination.

Ultimately, the scientific establishment still requires a live or dead specimen and nothing is going to change that. Indeed, such a film will not persuade as many now as it would back then, especially in this age of CGI accusations. But, if there is a film, let those who stand together with Farquhar MacRae on this subject view it and let them put forward the case for unveiling it.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Previously Unpublished Monster Sighting

Late last year I received an email from a reader telling me about her sighting of a strange object in Loch Ness over ten years ago. I get various emails at certain times from people who claim to have seen the monster and having checked she was not one of those Fake News sceptics who sometime pretend to be a witness, I am happy to recount her story to readers today. I reproduce her email to me below.

Hi, I have been reading your blog for a while now and have toyed with the idea of emailing you about a sighting myself and my husband had in 2000-2003 (not sure exactly what year it was). I have been interested in Nessie since I was young and my parents used to keep newspaper clippings for me and also make sure I could watch any news items on it.

Having grown up and married I travelled to Loch Ness once a year for a week with my husband and daughter. The last time it was just me and my husband. We were staying at Invermoriston Caravan and Camping Site in a caravan. The evening we had the sighting we had been to the Sports club at Lewiston at least I think its Lewiston as we stayed in a log cabin there the first time we came up.

It was about 8pm and I was driving back to Invermoriston and just before the bend near Urquhart Castle my husband said there is something in the water over there. I pulled in but couldn't see anything so he said to look across the bay and half an inch out I could just see something black. I turned the car around and sped back round through Drum and round the other side of the bay.

As we came round the bend I couldn't believe my eyes as there was a huge hump about 3 to 4 foot high. It reminded me of a huge chocolate brazil if you understand what I mean by the shape of it and a ridge running right the way down it. It looked mottled but I don't think it was rough just appeared so because of the mottling.

I am not sure I will be believed because it was so close inshore, feet rather than yards. I had only just come round the bend and was worried if I stopped that a car may come round and hit me but slowed down and we had a very good look at it. I drove until I came to a layby and waited for a long time but saw nothing more. I have no idea how deep the water is there but it was definitely not a bird, log or seal. It was enormous.

We have told people but as always we just get laughed at or asked how much had we drunk. I really don't care if anybody believes me but thought you might like to have the sighting for your records. I would of course rather stay anonymous as to most people its a laughable subject but I know what I saw that evening and whatever the animal is its huge.

I asked her to sketch what she saw and that drawing is shown above.  Enquiring more, she told me the length of the object at the water baseline was about seven feet, which tallies with the height of three to four feet mentioned in the original communication. The month of the sighting was also June.

As to where the creature was on the second, closer sighting, the witness cannot remember the exact location, but we can assume it was likely to be between the two lines shown on the map below.

By the time they parked at the lay by and went to the location of the object, it was no longer visible, despite waiting for a prolonged period of time. The presumption being that is had either submerged or moved off. I also asked whether the closer view on going round the bend was at Temple Pier, but she was sure it was further on.

Looking into the account more closely, the creature could have been at one of multiple points along the shoreline indicated in the picture below. Temple Pier is to the left and the curvature of the hill to the right sets a natural limit on where the creature could have been seen from Urquhart Castle.

As you can see from the buildings, this area would normally be a place of activity with people milling about and boats heading in and out of the pier. However, at 8pm onwards, most activity would have closed down for the day.

Looking further at the shoreline image for objects that could be mistaken for a seven by four foot dark shaped hump, the options are severely limited. We see buoys and some moored boats. In their attempts to discredit this report, sceptics may well resort to at least two items of fake news. They may say it was a boat, perhaps covered by tarpaulin. One would wonder why this imaginary boat then disappeared from view (covered in tarpaulin)? I note there is a covered object (probably a boat) in the photo, but it is on terra firma.

The sceptic may also try and cast doubt upon the location and claim nothing would be visible from the road due to the tree line. Having "driven" the route via Google StreetView, I am not buying that one. Or perhaps our witnesses saw the fibreglass hump that formed the basis of the 2012 George Edwards hoax which would have been used in that area? It did have a nice ridge to it, after all. Well, apart from being much smaller, this prop was used much later in 2011.

Or perhaps it was the oft invoked seal-on-demand which turns up just at the right time of witness reports before disappearing back to the sea. It could present a mottled appearance, but again, it would be too small, not have such a ridge and could not arch or suspend its back in the way described.

Either way, the witness was convinced that what they both saw was unusual and an animal.

THOSE RIDGED BACKS

The mention of the ridge running right down the back of the creature places this sighting in a unique niche of reports which mention this curious feature. Looking back at the database of sightings, I can count eight reports which mention a ridged back or something similar. That comprises less than one percent of all sightings, though I suspect there may be more; especially those describing the creature like an upturned boat, which suggests the underside ridge of its structure (see photo below).

So, the ridge may be more commonplace than realised. But going back to the sightings which are explicit on the matter, readers may be reminded of the Commander Meiklem report from August 5th 1933 in which he described a similar object in Inchnacardoch Bay. Curiously, this object was also seen in shallow waters and was also about four feet out of the water. The illustration is from Rupert T. Gould's book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others".

We could also not pass by Tim Dinsdale's account of his filming of a strange hump in April 1960 from Foyers. In his first book, he included a sketch of the hump he saw through binoculars and one can clearly see the ridge line splitting the hump into two sections.

Another famous monster hunter saw a ridged back on June 15th 1965. That man was F.W. Holiday who describes his sighting of a humped object in his book, "The Great Orm of Loch Ness". He sketched what he saw (below) for the book. I would point out that Meiklem, Dinsdale and Holiday all observed their objects through binoculars for greater clarity.

What is of more interest was the sighting by Mrs M'Grath and her son in Loch Dochfour just north of Loch Ness on the 11th June 1935. As reported by the Scotsman newspaper, the long head and neck was accompanied by a back from which "protruded two distinct rows of fin-like excrescences, also several feet apart". The creature was seen at a range of about 100 yards. An excrescence refers to a growth, protuberance or swelling and so on. M'Grath's ridge sounds more haphazard in appearance than the smoother ridges of Dinsdale and Holiday. 

Another reason why ridges may not be so visible may be down to the large distances involved in many sightings. but perhaps also that many will be side views of the back seen at almost eye level. For example, the other witnesses to Holiday's encounter, who were on the other side of the loch, drew a side on hump with no ridge.

One sighting on our list that bucks that trend is the August 16th 1933 account by Mrs E. Scott who saw a blackish ridge along the top of the hump. However, the object in question was about 800 yards away and was only seen for a few seconds and hence is not as strong as the other reports.

The final case I wish to mention brings things up to date and is William Jobes' report from May 2011. William has mentioned the possibility of a ridged back in his photos of the creature. The best picture is shown below which does give the suggestion of an unevenness along the back. 

However, something need to be compared and contrasted here. Namely, that a ridged back appears to conflict with the observation that the creature can control its humps in an almost fluid manner. Be it air sacs or fatty deposits, how does that fit in with a solid, ridged back?

Well, it is not clear that the ridge is as solid as it may appear. In fact, it is not clear what it is at all. Is it just darker markings along the presumed spine of the creature? Is it just skin deep serrations which would readily yield to expansion of the skin during sac inflation? I would go for the latter theory, thus accommodating both aspects of the creature's gross morphology.

What the ridge feature signifies as regards the creature's possible identity is ambiguous. Plesiosaurs are sometimes depicted with ridged backs, though it is not clear to me whether the fossil record bears out such an interpretation.

That other favourite of Nessie theories, the Atlantic Sturgeon, definitely sports a nice ridged pattern on its back, but could not possibly arch its back in the manner of the beast described by our various witnesses.

What I would say is that this ridge is inconsistent with a mammalian interpretation such as a long necked seal. However, some would interpret such a ridge as a mane, which would obviously take us to a fur lined Nessie, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of eyewitness accounts.

The idea of a mane tends to focus more on the neck of the creature rather than the entire length of the back. But the ridge as an extended mane is nicely pictured on Peter Costello's "In Search of Lake Monsters" where the extended mane idea is clearly seen.

So, it appears to be a case of "you pays your money and you takes your choice" with these ridge theories. We began with a good sighting of the monster just over ten years ago and expanded into the general realm of monster morphology. The witness was hesitant to write due to the predictable disdain and scorn of sceptics.

They will disdain and they will scorn, hence the anonymity. At this blog, we continue to accept genuine eyewitness accounts, just as the monster continues to appear at the loch.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Analysis of the Jonathan Bright Picture

Two weeks ago I published the latest photograph of the Loch Ness Monster without much in the way of comment. Jonathan's story and photo have already been published in the latest issue of Fortean Times (No.308) and so now having had a closer look at the picture and the accompanying facts, let us see what else can be found out.

The photograph was taken by Jonathan Bright on the morning of the 2nd November 2011 as his ride on the Jacobite Cruiser boat was heading out towards Urquhart Bay. He was snapping pictures randomly with various cameras. As he was looking out from the stern of the boat, he snapped a series of pictures with his specially adapted infra-red camera but did not notice anything unusual at the time or even later, during his initial review of the pics. But it was a coincidence of the unexpected kind that prompted him to go back and check what he had.

For it was on that same day that George Edwards claimed to have taken his now infamous picture of a hump in Loch Ness. When Edwards' picture became news in August 2012 and thinking he might have taken pictures in that vicinity, Jonathan reviewed his snaps and did indeed find something unusual. However, what Jonathan Bright photographed is not what George Edwards photographed.

Based on what Jonathan has said, the picture was taken as the Jacobite was a few minutes out of the pier beside the Clansman Hotel and a suggested point is circled in the map below. The boat would be generally heading south west towards the vicinity of Urquhart Castle (marked A). The time would have been shortly after 11am when the tour boat departed from the harbour.

So what is in this first ever infra-red photograph of the mystery of Loch Ness? A zoom in of the picture reveals a bit more detail. In fact and in my opinion, it reveals something that looks out of the ordinary. But first, let us try and get some data out of this picture.

Jonathan kindly provided me with the uncropped image, the EXIF data and the model and make of his digital camera. From that an estimate of the object's size and distance can be made from the focal length, crop factor, distance to horizon, height of witness standing at the stern of the boat and relative distance of object to horizon.

That gave an object height of about 0.75 metre and a distance from the observer of about 31.5 metres. If we assume the object is turned at an angle of about 45 degrees to the observer, then the side aspect is estimated to be about 1.3 metres. This was based on the camera being 2.8 metres above the water. But a greater witness height would result in a bigger and more distant object and vice versa. So, for example, a combined witness/boat height of 3.5 metres gives an object height of 0.93m and a distance of 40 metres. If any wants the full trigonometrical calculations, send me an email.

So it is an object of some proportions but not as big as some Nessie sightings. But what are the possible candidates for such an object appearing on the surface of Loch Ness? Based on your comments to the previous posts, I address them here.

DEBRIS SUCH AS A LOG

Are we simply looking at a natural object such as a log or some man made rubbish? Apart from the shape of the object not suggesting the usual stuff that floats around Loch Ness, several other things dictated against this interpretation.

Firstly, Jonathan was on a boat ploughing through the water. I emailed Marcus Atkinson, who operates one of the large cruise boats at Loch Ness. I asked him what they do when an obstacle lies dead ahead of the boat.

He said they normally steer a course around it unless it is something minuscule such as twigs. So it is unlikely that such an object is going to end up only 31 metres behind the boat.

Secondly, once the object is avoided, the bow wave of the boat is going to be another reason why the object won't be so easily found right behind the boat. The reason being that the outward going bow wave will tend to push objects away from the boat's direction of travel.

Thirdly, even if the boat went over the object due to it being very low in the water, how come it manages to appear nearly a metre high on the other side? In the light of these propositions, I do not regard the debris as a valid theory. (Jacobite Cruises do have a catamaran boat which technically allows debris to pass underneath but it was not commissioned until 2012).

THE PASSING WAVE

The other explanation offered is that this is merely a wave. This might seem to carry more weight than floating logs. A quote from the Great Loch Ness Monster Debate Facebook page is appropriate here.

In my opinion, as a boat skipper who daily sees the waves made by the larger trip boats near Urquhart Castle, the "Nessie" photo is indistinguishable from the usual interference waves generated when the bow-wave from a south-west bound boat meets the north-east moving wind generated waves on an ordinary day. If someone offers a more logical explanation I will be pleased to learn from it.

So, be it logs or waves, the skeptics say their bit, mark it "solved" and move on (and let it be known that monsters do not constitute a "logical explanation"). Meanwhile, I had obtained the Fortean Times issue which carried the story of this photograph. Elsewhere in the issue, I came across a quote from Charles Fort which summed up it all up for me.

"When I see that a thing has been explained, I go on investigating."

So let's get on with the investigating. There are some reasons why I do not agree with this wave theory.

The person whom I quoted on waves is Dick Raynor. He has spent decades at the loch taking pictures of phenomena which can fool inexperienced observers of the loch. I looked at his web page on waves and wakes to see what his years of taking pictures has produced. I assume it was representative of his research on this topic. 

To put it bluntly, none of his photos look like the object in Jonathan's picture. But his quote says it is indistinguishable from the "usual interference waves" on the loch. I take the word "usual" to mean these are a common phenomenon, so he must have a better picture on file somewhere which matches Jonathan's picture.

In the meantime, the photos on his site show waves which are too flat, extended and appears together in sequential groups. Neither of these apply to the object in our picture which is more peaked and is on its own. I have scanned the uncropped picture and see no evidence of this being in those classes of wakes and waves. That is how we determine if it is distinguishable from the "usual" waves. The photograph below shows an actual Jacobite cruiser interacting with another boat wake. I see nothing in this picture to suggest the production of a stand out lone metre high wave.

Jonathan also sent me the photographs he took immediately before and after our main picture. The one below was taken seconds before and shows nothing.  However, I overlaid the Nessie picture over it and it just makes the right hand edge of the overlay. So, it is a matter of debate whether our object would have appeared in both pictures since its direction of travel is not clear.

Furthermore, the photo below which was taken after Nessie is too far to the observer's right hand side but is included to show the lack of any proposed interference waves. Readers may note unusual colouring of the pictures. This is because they were taken in infra-red. I have not come to any conclusion as to whether this adds to or takes away from the analysis of the picture.

Jonathan says it is a picture taken with τhe internal IR pass filter of his camera, which allows infrared light from 720 nM (the near infrared range extending from 700nM to 1000 or 1400nM, depending on the dividing system). So this is not in the thermal IR range beloved of Bigfoot Flir camera hunts. Jonathan's own comment on near IR suggests:

"The dark/light colors seem to rather depend on the composition of the surfaces, for example, healthy vegetation/chlorophyll reflects large amount of near-infrared light, thus giving the whitish appearance to the tree leaves and grass, while rocky surfaces reflect little nIR light. But I really don't know how a 'Loch Ness monster' body would behave."

Perhaps this is a clue which suggests the object in the picture is of a more rough texture. 

The other issue I noted was the height of the wave compared to others round about. Consider how waves normally interfere constructively to produce one bigger wave. The compound wave cannot be greater than the combined energies of its parent waves.  This wave looks at least twice as big as the waves around it which suggests another boat or wind source of comparable energy is nearby churning out waves.

There is no indication of such a thing in the picture. Indeed, the Jacobite cruisers are amongst the most powerful boats in the loch and, being November, I think the other cruises have closed out for the season. I am wondering what powerful boat could be around to provide this additional energy? Not that it matters, this "wave" does not look like such a wave. Jonathan also commented on how this "wave" seems to have water running off it as suggested by the white "streaks" you can see around its base.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Could it be an animal known to science such as a seal? I do not consider this a seal as the back would look smoother and more rounded. Could it be a sturgeon? Well, despite the fact that such a sight would be extremely rare, I do not think an Atlantic Sturgeon could arch its back like that or display the contours I think I can see.

Finally, it was perhaps no surprise that it was suggested that Jonathan had faked the photograph via the ubiquitous Photoshop. Now, this gets trotted out now and again and I suspect without much in the way of analysis. But these type of images are becoming more and more prevalent and the Loch Ness researcher needs to be able to conversant with their tell tale signs.

But based on my conversations with Jonathan, he comes across as no faker to me. Moreover, to my less than expert eye, the image looks "in situ" based on contrast and light considerations. It is darker than the waves around it, but that is more an argument against it being a wave than a digital artifact.

Moreover, Jonathan is not a tourist seeking five minutes of fame. He is involved in various public events in Greece as a researcher and it would be plain stupid to put all this on the line for a fake photo. Indeed, why not make it a better photo and add a sequence if one was intent on fooling people?

Others may wish to comment, but please state your reasons rather than just state your opinion!

THE LOCH NESS MONSTER

So what could it be? How about I go out on a limb and suggest it is the Loch Ness Monster? Considering the estimated dimensions, this looks more like the head and neck of the creature than its main body. Jonathan has suggested he can see the head looking back at him but I have reservations about that interpretation. In fact, to me the object looks somewhat similar to the photo taken by Sidney Wilson back in 2007 (below). However, I think Jonathan's is a better picture and again we have to be wary of the effects of pareidolia. Indeed, the Wilson image looks like a polar bear's head to me!

I do agree with Jonathan that the picture could be interpreted as a head with two white horn-like projections being visible. It could even be argued that two eyes can be made out and a muzzle of some description. What can be seen is to some extent dictated by the viewer.

But in my opinion, the proposed head is too large to fit what we know about the head and neck of the Monster from the witness database. By and large, the classic head is lacking in features and sometimes is no more than a continuation of the neck. I say that without going into detail about what this "head" may actually be. Moreover, the proposed head gives the impression of looking back in the direction it appears to be travelling in which looks quite un-animal like behaviour to me.

The other question to ask is how big the entire creature is for a head in this size range? Now when I say the head is too big, I mean in terms of internal proportions rather than absolute size. If we assume a 0.6m (1ft11in) head height from the picture, I would estimate the entire size based on a rough and ready plesiosaur body shape to be 12:1 overall giving us a 23 footer (a respectable size for a Loch Ness Monster).

Jonathan is a member of the sizeable community of paranormal researchers and is open to such an interpretation for Nessie, so that does offer a wider latitude in interpreting the picture.  However, there are some recorded sightings which claim to see larger heads and I would neither wish to be dogmatic or claim the final word on that matter. In fact, the head and neck reported by J.M. Ballantyne in 1965 is a good example in that regard (sketch below).

On the subject of backs, there was one back sighting that immediately came to mind when I saw this picture and that was the Commander Meiklem report from August 1933. He saw a ridged back in the relatively shallow waters of Inchnacardoch Bay. I say that because there is the appearance of something ridge-like running along the top of the object.

But Meiklem's object was at least the size of a "cart-horse", this is a lot smaller. Back ridges are occasionally reported by witnesses but they are not a universal feature of Nessie morphology which leads me to speculate whether it is a feature that is specific to age, gender or season.

Or could it be the back of a juvenile Nessie? If we know little about the Loch Ness Monster, then we know even less about alleged little Nessies. Do they even exist? One presumes so biologically but next to nothing can be said about them from the witness record. I addressed this subject in a previous article.

But if I suggest that this is the rear view of the head and neck then could the proposed ridge be more akin to the mane of the legendary water horse? Again, we have reports of mane like structures being reported by witnesses. And again, they are not a universal feature of the witness record and so I presume they are also gender, age or season specific. The problem is similar to the old tale of the blind men and the elephant. What exactly are we looking at? Neck, back or perhaps even tail?

One aspect of reported manes is that they tend to "flop" down over the neck while this apparent mane looks more erect. Can these mane like structure be raised in the manner of a courtship or territorial display? Yes, I know, speculation.

It is this mane or ridge like structure that distinguishes the object from any proposed wave, log or other object but the picture highlights an ongoing issue. This was taken at a mere range of about 100 feet but still there is no unambiguous data to extract. By unambiguous, I mean acceptable even to sceptics (but perhaps I use that term too optimistically).

Admittedly, the object's relatively small size is a hindrance, but how close does one have to get to this creature to get the picture that gets the whole world talking? If it had been a classic ten foot hump then we would get closer to that scenario.

In conclusion, I think this is a picture of the Loch Ness Monster. I think it tells Nessie researchers a bit more about the creature's morphology but does not provide the slam dunk evidence.

To rephrase some words mentioned above, if someone offers a more logical explanation I will be pleased to learn from it.

The William Jobes Photos

On the 23rd May 2011, William Jobes took a series of photographs of the Loch Ness Monster. I have covered this story from the start when it first came to the attention of the media, which then led to a follow up article. Late last month, I published some more of William's pictures taken on a subsequent visit in August 2011.

But I would like to visit the original report as there was some confusion around it at the time. First, I would like to reproduce William's own recounting of the experience which was printed in the February 2012 issue of the "Fate and Fortune" magazine:

The wind whistled round my ears, as my friend Bruce, 20, and I stood at the top of Urquhart Castle in Inverness, gazing out at the water below. It was April 1969, and we'd come in search of the famous Loch Ness Monster. I'd been determined to catch a glimpse of Nessie since reading about her in a book when I was 14. Most people didn't believe she existed, but I knew there had to be some truth to the dozens of reported sightings.

However, despite taking numerous trips to the loch to look for her over the years, my search had been in vain. Just then, I spotted what looked like a grey hump breaking the surface of the water about three quarters of a mile away. 'Can you see that?' I gasped, looking through my binoculars as a second hump appeared.

'I don't believe it!' Bruce gasped, peering through the camera lens. We began snapping away furiously, until it disappeared a minute later. I was buzzing with excitement. Had we caught Nessie on film? We had the pictures developed the following day, but all they showed was a lens flare from where we'd shot towards the sun. 'Maybe next time,' I sighed. But we had no more luck on any further trips.

Still, I didn't give up hope, even though my wife, Joan, now 58, thought I was nuts. I persuaded her to take yearly trips to the loch with me, where I'd spend hours gazing out at the water, armed with two digital cameras - a small one for taking close-ups and a bigger one for snapping long-distance pictures. Then, on the morning of 23 May 2011, I was on my usual Nessie stake-out when I decided to pop into the nearby village of Fort Augustus for a break.

Dropping off my bigger camera at the holiday cottage where Joan was watching telly, I headed off. On my way back along the water's edge, I heard splashing and turned to see a head poking out of the water about 300 yards away. As it turned towards me, I stared in disbelief. There, looking back at me, was the strangest creature I'd ever seen. It had a protruding snout, like a horse, a sheep-like head, and brown feathery hair, which glistened in the sunlight.

The creature stared right at me with its black bulging eyes the size of apples. Shaking, I fumbled round for my smaller camera and took a snap just as the creature dipped back into the water. I checked my camera. 'Damn!' I cried. The lens was just for close-ups, and I'd only caught the tip of the creature's body. But I was certain of what I'd seen. Grabbing my phone, I rang Joan. 'I saw its head and neck!' I spluttered.

'That's amazing,' she said, although she didn't sound too impressed. No doubt she thought I was imagining things! But now I didn't just believe Nessie existed... I knew she did. The next day, I got up at the crack of dawn and kept watch from the side of the loch. Hours passed, and the sky began to turn dark. I was about to give up and head back to the cottage when I heard a splashing sound and turned to see a huge hump-like shape, 500 yards away.

I was astonished - it looked as if it was over 20ft long! With my heart racing, I fired off some shots as the hump slid in and out of the water before disappearing a minute later. Afterwards, I checked my camera Had my 45-year search finally paid off? I frantically flicked through my pictures. And there, in the middle of the choppy loch, was a clear image of the creature's body and tail sticking out of the water. I'd caught it! I was over the moon as I raced back to show Joan, who was very impressed. That's not to say my monster-hunting days are over. I won't rest until I've captured a photo of Nessie's face and proven to the sceptics that the Loch Ness Monster really does exist. Watch this space!

William is shown below in a photograph taken at the time. Now the issue with the debate over these pictures at that time was the presumption that William had seen the same "object" over two days. This led to the assumption that since the creatures are not going to appear to anyone two days in a row, then it must be something inanimate floating around which had come in from one of the rivers at Fort Augustus.

However, it is clear from William's own words that the media at the time had mangled his words somewhat and got some things wrong (such as stating his wife was with him at the time). The idea that this was just a piece of garbage floating by does no credit to someone who has made multiple visits to the loch and has accumulated observational experience of the loch over that time.

As he said himself, he thinks he has grasped the ability to tell the difference between a piece of wood and a particular animal. Unfortunately, sceptics do not seem to take an eyewitness' observational abilities into account, which is a most odd omission. William pointed out to me what he thought were ridges on the animal's back and I can certainly see what he is referring to in the photo at the top of the article. I also include these two further back photos taken on the 23rd May 2011 for your consideration which William estimated to be 4-5 feet long.

The final picture below was taken the following day and was estimated to be 20-25 feet long.

Doubtless, the uneven nature of the back was also something that prompted ideas of irregularly shaped garbage floating into Loch Ness. But the natural question to ask is whether anyone else photographed this "garbage" in the loch? The answer appears to be a big "No" and when you consider that people at the loch have been quick to publish their own pictures of logs and debris allegedly linked to other sightings in recent years, one wonders how they did not manage to repeat the feat for this object?

But, now we move onto the controversial part of this account and that is William's sketch of the head and neck he observed on that day. You may say what could be more controversial than what has already been published, but you will understand when you see the drawing below and realise what William has sketched is decidedly un-Nessie like.

However, when one says un-Nessie like, we are of course referring to the "received wisdom" as to what Loch Ness Monsters should look like. Plesiosaur like with that smooth reptilian skin and barely perceptible eyes. The creature depicted in this sketch is nothing like that and has more of the "water horse" about it.

Now if William was making this all up and trying to convince us of the reality of his fake news, he has gone about in entirely the wrong manner! If you want to fool people, you stick to plesiosaurs and antediluvian monsters. So, I have no doubt that William claimed what he claimed to have seen. But what he saw breaks the Nessie mould. Or does it?

A look at the overall sightings database has eleven eyewitness accounts describing the head as like that of a horse. That may not sound a lot out of over 1500 reports, but head-neck reports constitute a minority of all reports. Indeed, only 76 of those reports describe the head, making "horse-like"  about 15% of such reports. One could also argue that heads described as like a goat, giraffe or deer could be close to "horse-like". As for hair, less than 10 reports mention hair or matted like features while about 17 reports mention a mane or mane-like frill or growth.

No report mentions mane/hair alongside a horse head description, but it could be that the witness implied hair when describing such a head. However, when I was considering William's drawing, I was reminded of another sketch from over fifty years before found in Bernard Heuvelman's book, "In the Wake of the Sea Serpents" which is reproduced below.

This was one of Heuvelman's seven archetypal sea serpents and went by the name of a merhorse. People have since argued for their own classifications and what species such a creature could occupy. But did William Jobes see a merhorse in Loch Ness on that day six years ago?

William has no problem accepting that there may be more than one unknown species of large animal in Loch Ness, be they permanent or visitors. I can see his point of view, but only from a rare visitor point of view. Which begs the question as to what the permanent resident of Loch Ness may be?


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com