Thursday 11 August 2011

Is Nessie a Giant Eel?

As part of our continuing "What is the Loch Ness Monster?" series, we come to the idea that Nessie is some kind of giant eel.




Now when biologist and Nessie hunter Roy Mackal wrote "The Monsters of Loch Ness" in 1976, he produced a table of thirty two Loch Ness Monster features and ranked six varieties of possible animals against them in a check list fashion. When the tests were added up, it was found that a variety of eel which he called the "thick bodied eel" came second in the rankings of animals.

Now this theory certainly ticks a lot of boxes but clearly eels as we commonly understand them cannot fulfill the role of the Loch Ness Monster and even a modified "Nessieel" has issues. The largest known eels are the moray eels (pictured above) which have been known to reach up to 4 metres (nearly 12 feet) in length whereas a typical Nessie sighting suggests a creature up to 10 metres (about 30 feet) in length. The girth of eels versus nessies is also problematic as eels tend to be serpentine in appearance whereas Nessie has a bulky middle portion. Nevertheless, some form of giant eel would stand well against competing theories and would not tend towards the ridiculous as the various features of the Loch Ness Monster are reconciled with what is possible in the animal world.

First, by way of background, it is well known that Loch Ness is teeming with eels. No one knows accurately how many eels inhabit the loch because of their behaviour. This is because eels are classed as benthic or "bottom feeders" in that they tend to live on or close to the surface of a sea or lake bottom. Therefore, sonar devices which can be adept at picking up fish in open water cannot easily pick up eels which stay close to the sloping sides of Loch Ness.

In fact, some eels have been observed half buried in the silt which raises the interesting question as to whether a larger Nessie type-eel could hide unobserved under the 20 square miles or so of loose sediment that permeates the bottom of the loch? The ultimate depth of this silt is not known but up to 20 metres deep has been suggested by sonar and a 4 metres depth has been achieved from core samples before the device hit the clay layer below. Apparently, there is plenty of silt for a large eel like creature to lie in beyond the scans of sonar hunters...

What seems apparent however is that there are more eels in Loch Ness than all the other fish combined. Renowned monster hunter Tim Dinsdale suggested the population was in the millions but so far all photographs obtained of eels on the sediment floor of the loch showed only normal sized specimens. The question for this post is whether something larger relies on this population for a good part of its diet or perhaps even sprung from them?

Stories of large eels form part of Highland story telling as well as newspaper reports. Loch Ness researchers recount tales by locals of 10ft plus eels being caught in the loch when eel fishing was more popular. Focusing on written evidence for large eels in that region of Scotland produced some items of interest. These accounts are taken from local papers:

Inverness Advertiser, 11th November 1851: An enormous eel of 7 feet length, 3 feet 4 inches in girth and 70 lbs in weight was found on the beach of Newton in Aird.

Inverness Journal, 29th January 1813: An eel of 5ft 9in was caught at the pier of Clachnaharry. Two eels of similar dimensions had also been caught in the Medway River.

So large eels have been caught in this region but obviously not as big as required for Nessie. Stories such as the giant eel-like creature found in the Corpach lock at the other end of the Caledonian Canal in 1900 and various other apocryphal tales are tantalising but do not really progress us in the hunt for giant eels.

But what would be the pluses of the giant eel interpretation (assuming a thick bodied variety)?

1. Water breathing animal
This would account for the scarcity of sightings over the years. An eel is not predisposed to regularly venture to the surface of the loch.

2. Bottom feeding animal
Again, this would explain why sonar contacts, though they exist, are not numerous. Our giant eel is a bottom dweller by nature.

3. Lower diet requirements
Not being a warm blooded creature, the energy requirements of an eel are smaller than a mammal and hence suits it more to a smaller body of water like Loch Ness. Also, eels tend to be quite varied in their diet and are opportunistic feeders in that they tend to wait for the food to come to them hence requiring less energy hunting on the move.

4. Humps
Eels tend to have an extended dorsal fin running along their back which could give the impression of humps at the surface depending on how the fin folded along its back. It is even possible though not certain that a pliable dorsal fin could account for reports where the number of humps are seen to change. The whole back of this thick bodied variety of eel surfacing could also suffice as a single hump (though it may require some contortions on the part of the entire body invisible to the witness).

5. Land Sightings
Eels have the ability to travel short distances out of the water which is linked to their migratory behaviour. This could account for some claims to have seen Nessie on the land (though not all claimed sightings look particularly eel-like).

6. Eels live a long time
A useful feature if one goes for the single Nessie theory or minimising population numbers. It is claimed that one eel in Sweden has been alive for over 150 years since it was dropped into a well in 1859 by a kid called Samuel Nilsson in Brantevik.

On the downside, practically all Loch Ness authors rejected the idea of Nessie being an eel. The idea was first addressed by Rupert T. Gould in his 1934 book "The Loch Ness Monster" but was dismissed by him on the grounds that it could not explain the upturned boat effect of many single hump sightings and the long arched neck. Constance Whyte briefly considered it in her book but again rejected the idea (though she mentions that Maurice Burton in his earlier days was favourable to it).

Here are some of the minuses:

1. Eels migrate and die
It is a wonder and mystery of the natural world how eels on their 10th year or older leave their European waters to swim the thousands of miles to the Sargasso Sea near the Bahamas where they breed and then die. It is a mystery because no one seems to have actually seen the eels breed. However, if the Loch Ness Monster is an eel then does it make the journey too? One may assume so but it would not return and who can say that its offspring in the Atlantic Ocean even go back to the same place?

There have been purely speculative suggestions that such a large eel may have somehow become an indigenous breeder and indeed by doing so would extend its lifetime and possibly trigger increased growth. This sounds plausible but alas there is no reason to believe it. But a homebound eel would seem to be prerequisite amongst this unusual eel's adaptions.

2. Eels cannot display a long neck and head
Well, they could if they were about 80 feet in length according to Gould. For an eel to protrude its upper body out of the water would help explain a proportion of this class of sighting. How the eel achieves it I am not sure and I could find no image of an eel doing it. Some adaptions to our Nessieel are required to achieve this. Perhaps an enhanced buoyancy mechanism which for some reason raises the eel more efficiently from its normal benthic domain. Apart from these, I would consider this the weakest part of the giant eel theory.

3. The upturned boat effect
As mentioned by Gould above, some hump sightings require a body much thicker than any known eel possesses. In response to this, Mackal suggested the thick-bodied eel which along with its dorsal fin could achieve this effect.

Now on the general theme of a thick-bodied Nessieel a process of thickening is not unreasonable. As we look at the shape of eels as they increase in size, one does notice a progression from the tubular to something less proportioned. The Moray Eel for example has a thicker front part and given the variety of shapes and sizes amongst sharks one should not be surprised if something out of the ordinary should turn up in the eel world. For our discussion that "something out of the ordinary" requires a thicker middle section and a thinning of the front head-neck section to begin to look like witness reports. Roy Mackal himself envisaged an eel looking like the one below (copyright C. S. Wellek):


Is such a scenario possible? Given the plausible stories we often hear about how one species evolves into another given enough time and resources, one would be tempted to say "yes". What the real world in reality produces is another matter entirely. However, I would not discount the giant eel theory on that basis. In this case, another tick box is required which is common to all Nessie theories and that is the "Credible" tick box.

Apart from one theory, all proposed theories fail to tick all the boxes and fall short in at least one area. In that respect, the eel theory is not alone. But proponents of a given theory may tend to stretch things a bit as they try and make their theory accommodate the data (though the more common tactic these days is to discard inconvenient data). There is nothing wrong with that so long as they can make themselves sound reasonable and that is where the "Credible" tick box comes in.

If a particular theory begins to make too many assumptions or even one assumption which is just too big a leap then the "Credible " box should not be ticked. Using the giant eel hypotheses as an example, should we tick that box?

Personally and until something comes in to change that (that is, new data comes in or my lack of understanding of biology) I would tick the credibility box on giant eels though I would not commit myself quite yet to the theory. I was not so disposed to this theory until I saw the eel like head with open mouth in the Hugh Gray photograph which suggested a piscean explanation for the Loch Ness Monster.


I flipped the Mackal eel head to match the Hugh Gray head for comparison. Note also that for a creature that inhabits darkness, smaller eyes would be expected which is what this picture suggests in contradistinction to the Mackal eel eyes.


In summary, Nessie may be a giant eel but modifications are required to the morphology which could be attained given the large variety of morphologies we see in other orders of fish. But whether this is credible is largely down to the opinion of the reader. Comments are welcome!


















Monday 8 August 2011

Follow Up on a Recent Nessie Sighting

In an earlier post I relayed what was then the latest sighting of Nessie by the Hargreaves of Foyers back in June. The link is here.

Subsequently, I have been to Loch Ness and visited their shop to have a chat with them about their experience. Firstly, they said the Inverness Courier article was an accurate enough account of what they had seen. I then asked them if there was a possibility it could have been a boat or some other familiar vessel seen on the loch to which they replied no.

Both witnesses came across as people who thought they had genuinely seen something and were not practical jokers or liars. They also rejected with a sigh the accusations levelled at them by anonymous comments on the Courier website that it was the tourist season and so it was time to put out some lies to boost trade. I quite agree with them, it is a nonsensical and libellous thing to say and unfortunately whenever a sighting is claimed from March onwards, this tired excuse is wheeled out by cynical observers. However, I did buy some stuff in their store and before anyone plays that cynic card, I was intending to buy some food for the drive home and theirs was the most convenient place to stop!

I then left the store and crossed the road to the Fall of Foyers milestone to have a look at the loch. The picture below is from Google StreetView but it underestimates what is visible from there to the unaided human eye.




As stated before, there is plenty of surface area visible for Nessie to put in an appearance. From my vantage point, I could clearly watch one of the white Caley Cruiser boats travelling up the loch and I managed to photograph it as it disappeared into the trees.




Assuming it was one of these boats then it would be 30 to 39 feet in length and 11 to 13 feet high. With those rough dimensions in mind, my own estimate of what I could easily see as a vertical neck like object would be at a minimum four feet. Below that may still be discernable but I do not have 20-20 vision even with glasses on, it depends on how good the observer's eyesight is.

My visit therefore reinforced my view that what the Hargreaves saw back in June was no optical illusion or misperception but a genuine sight of the Loch Ness Monster. Keep up the appearances, Nessie old girl!



Tuesday 2 August 2011

Sea Serpent Carcass Accounts

In the light of the recent carcass washed up in Aberdeen but identified as a juvenile pilot whale (link), two accounts from long ago shows how recurrent this phenomenon is.

They are taken from the London Chronicle, Volume 9 in 1761. The first is on page 350 and there is a short piece there written by a William Fuller Maitland:

"They write from Calais, that a sea monster latterly ran on shore between that place and Boulogne, 48 feet in length, and 12 in thickness. It is not like a whale. When its mouth is open, the distance between the upper and lower jaw is five feet. One of its teeth weighed 17 ounces."

On page 526 comes another account of a similarly sized leviathan in Spain:

"On the 3rd of April ran ashore at Gandia, a little town in the kingdom of Valentia, part of Old Spain, a sea monster, 24 ells round, and only seven long, from head to tail. It had two rows of teeth, and its body was covered with large black scales. It produced 1250 quintals of oil."

The "ell" is an old measurement based on the length of a man's arm and according to Wikipedia varied between countries from 63.5cm to 137cm. Using the lowest measure gives a creature 15 metres long and 4 metres across which is almost identical to the Calais carcass.

A ratio of about 4:1 for the length to thickness is not quite sea serpent dimensions. Indeed, the term "sea serpent" may not even have been invented in 1761 hence the use of "sea monster".

Given the ease with which carcasses wash up these days and are soon identified as decomposed basking sharks, one wonders whether the same applies to these ancient accounts.

No strange carcass has ever been washed up at Loch Ness though one or two hoaxes have been perpetrated. The steep sides of the loch ensure that such an event is not likely. A decomposing carcass presumably may float to the surface but the peaty nature of the loch again makes such an event less likely compared to what goes on in the oceans and seas.

Of course, a dead Nessie grounded ashore would answer all questions but if the alleged old saying that "Loch Ness never gives up its dead" is true then we may be waiting a very long time.

Monday 1 August 2011

RECENT SIGHTINGS LOG

Since this blog began about a year ago, two things were uppermost. The first was to provide a platform where classic sightings are not dismissed so easily and given a more thorough analysis from the point of view of a "believer".

Second was to highlight the latest news from Loch Ness and there is nothing more important in this respect than sighting reports. So, with that in mind, this posting will be updated whenever a new claim to have seen Nessie appears in the media. It will be a permanent link below our picture of Nessie on the right hand side of the page.

I do not claim that every sighting logged is actually of the Loch Ness Monster, I will give my opinion when there is enough data to merit it but I leave the reader to form their own opinion.

There is also a second section which logs sightings from years past which I think have not appeared in the general literature before.

If any reader has further information to add to the log, add a comment to this post and it will automatically be sent to my email account (lochnesskelpie@gmail.com).

Alternatively, email me at the above address if you want to keep it private.


SIGHTINGS SINCE APRIL 2010

Sighting #1
Witnesses: Richard Preston
Date: 24th November 2010
Location: Aldourie Castle
Recording: Photograph
Time: 1500
Analysis: here.

Sighting #2
Witnesses: Joan and William Jobes
Date: 24th May 2011
Location: Former Fort Augustus Abbey
Recording: Photograph
Time: 1110
Analysis: here.

Sighting #3
Witnesses: Simon and Jan Hargreaves, Graham Baine and Ala MacGruer
Date: 15th June 2011
Location: Foyers Post Office
Recording: None
Time: 1430-1500
Analysis: here, here and here.

Sighting #4
Witnesses: Jon Rowe
Date: 7th September 2011
Location: Dores Bay
Recording: Photograph
Time: 1230
Analysis: here and here and here.

Sighting #5
Witnesses: Marcus Atkinson
Date: early September 2011
Location: Urquhart Castle
Recording: Sonar
Time: morning?
Analysis: here and here.

Sighting #6
Witnesses: Diane Blackmore
Date: 28th August 2011
Location: Lochend
Recording: None
Time: 1000
Analysis: here.

Sighting #7
Witnesses: Adam Bird
Date: 18th September 2010
Location: Urquhart Bay
Recording: Webcam
Time: 1220
Analysis: here.

Sighting #8
Witnesses: Anonymous (local man)
Date: 4th April 2012
Location: Urquhart Bay
Recording: None
Time: 1715
Analysis: here.

Sighting #9
Witnesses: Anonymous (Glasgow man)
Date: 11th April 2010
Location: Urquhart Bay
Recording: Video
Time: Afternoon
Analysis: here.

Sighting #10
Witnesses: "Ed" (Loch Ness webcam user)
Date: 5th April 2012
Location: Just north of Urquhart Bay
Recording: Webcam
Time: 1020
Analysis: here.

Sighting #11
Witnesses: Names withheld
Date: 14th June 2010
Location: Just south of Urquhart Bay
Recording: None
Time: 0720
Analysis: here.

Sighting #12
Witnesses: Daniel Parker and other
Date: 26th June 2013
Location: Just north of Inverfarigaig
Recording: Photograph
Time: 1500
Analysis: here.


LOCATION OF SIGHTINGS




OLDER SIGHTINGS

Witnesses: Margaret Aitken
Date: July 1933
Location: Dores Road opposite Castle
Time: afternoon
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: "James" from Lewes
Date: About 1979
Location: Shallow water off Urquhart Castle
Time: dusk
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Chris Sharratt
Date: 1990
Location: Inverfarigaig
Time: daytime
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Fort Augustus Abbey Monk
Date: 1930s?
Location: Fort Augustus Abbey
Time: daytime
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Gordon Powell
Date: 21st June 1936
Location: Urquhart Bay
Time: 1730
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Sean O' Donovan
Date: August 1962
Location: Urquhart Bay
Time: daytime
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Tim Richardson
Date: February 2002
Location: Urquhart Bay
Time: morning
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Anonymous
Date:May 2009
Location: near Fort Augustus
Time: late afternoon
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Mr. Candlish
Date:1980s?
Location: Urquhart Bay
Time:not known
Analysis: here.

Witnesses: Unknown (told by William MacKenzie)
Date:Spring 1880
Location: Unknown
Time:not known
Analysis: here

Witnesses: Stanley Roberts
Date:1978
Location: Urquhart Castle
Time:not known
Analysis: here

Witnesses: W. Fletcher Stiell
Date:August 1909
Location: Unknown
Time:not known
Analysis: here

Wednesday 27 July 2011

Trail Cameras at Loch Ness

I am back from the Highlands and managed to stop by Loch Ness on two occasions. Apart from a general family holiday in the region, from a cryptozoological point of view, four objectives were achieved. First was to visit the Nessie exhibition at Inverness, second was to talk to the Hargreaves who had a recent sighting at Foyers and thirdly to visit the area of the Hugh Gray photo/sighting.

I will address these in later posts but the fourth and perhaps most important aspect of the visit for me was the use of trail cameras at Loch Ness. Now I doubt I am the first to use these consumer devices at Loch Ness, but in terms of my own personal longer term Nessie hunt, they may prove a valuable tool.

Trail cameras (or game cameras, trail cams, scouting cameras, hunting cameras) have been around for years and are primarily used by hunters, gamekeepers and estate managers to keep track of deer, vermin and other creatures. The reason they are so useful is that they are totally automated and can be mounted, primed and left to scan the area without any human presence which would deter wary animals. The devices work using motion detection hardware which triggers the camera to take one or more pictures. The device may also have infrared capability which allows night time pictures to be taken (which makes sense since animals tend to be more active at night).

These devices have been popular with Bigfoot hunters and are regularly featured on such shows as MonsterQuest. But for me, it was trail cameras hunting Nessie and therefore I headed north a couple of weeks back to install the camera shoreside. The plan was to place the camera in a prime spot, drive on for the rest of the holiday and return 10 days later to collect it.

There are certain parameters that have to be considered in this plan. First is the type of camera.

There is an obvious risk in leaving a trail camera in a public place - it could be stolen. So three things have to be considered - location, camera and fixing. In terms of location, I spend some days looking over Google Streetview to decide on a piece of shoreline which was not visited much but offered a hiding place for the camera yet also an uninterrupted view of the loch. A spot between Foyers and Dores on the quieter southern road was selected which fulfilled these requirements.

Second was the type of camera. I wanted a camera that offered decent motion detection, pixel quality, SD card memory, battery life and night time IR photography but at the same time would not be a hit on finances if stolen. This meant a compromise between risk and reward and I went for the Wildgame Innovations IR2 2mp model which I got off eBay for $50 (£30) and free shipping (if you live in the USA!). Now the best trail cameras will cost more than ten times this but I was not prepared to leave such an expensive camera for 10 days (I do have a better model but that will be for another day). The spec of the IR2 is stated as 2 megapixel camera, IR LED flash out to 25 feet, motion detect out to 40 feet, up to 2Gb SD card picture storage, 4 C-type batteries for long life and 1 minute delay between image captures.




Clearly it has its limitations. Anything beyond 40 feet by day or 25 feet by night will not register but that is the price of not having to sit on the shore yourself all day. But on the other hand, a close up shot from 40 feet would go a lot further in solving the mystery than a blob at 200 yards!

In terms of fixing and securing the camera, here is the in situ photograph. I painted the originally black camera a fetching garden green to blend in better with its environment! I merely strapped the camera to the tree with bungee cords and made sure the camera was primed and aligned with the loch surface (this would usually involve taking a test picture and checking the SD card on a normal camera).



So I drove off and returned ten days later wondering what may have transpired. I was first of all pleased that the camera was still there and had not been nicked! I waved my hand in front of the camera and it dutifully snapped a shot to prove it was alive and kicking and had survived whatever rigours it had been subjected to. In all, it had taken eighteen pictures while I was away and I must say I was impressed with the camera's performance. On the first picture I was immediately rewarded with a picture of a long necked creature. However, it was of the avian type as the picture below shows. The camera usefully added a timestamp to the picture as well as the temperature in Fahrenheit. The bird can be seen flapping its wings to the left and demonstrated that the camera could work in the dark (though since this was more twilight, I don't think the camera triggered its IR flash).




Five more pictures were triggered by strong sunlight and show only a calm loch. Three pictures show nothing and may have been triggered by the branch moving above or a bird flying quickly past. One shows the IR capability and was triggered at 2:43 AM (see below). What triggered this is not known as it is pitch black beyond the rock and branch (possibly the branch again though I would have expected a branch to trigger more often in that case).



Six pictures captured people passing by in their boats as one example further below shows.

The final picture (chronologically) is the most interesting and is shown below. Is it Nessie swimming past or just a log being washed ashore? I would suspect it was a long branch being washed ashore in the wake from a large ship which was mid loch and hence out of range of the motion detection. By the time the log hit the shore, the boat had moved beyond the left of the camera field of view. It is a big branch though, I estimate over six feet long. I also would have expected to have seen more turbulence on the loch surface and some propeller wash. However, it doesn't look very Nessie like either so I won't push this one! This is where a superior rapid fire model would have helped as the motion of the object could have been tracked in successive pictures to aid its identification.



What did surprise me was how the level of the loch surface changed over a short period of time. Compare these two pictures.



In the space of less that two days the rocks visible in the first picture have completely submerged in the second. It looks like the loch surface level had dropped and risen by a good couple of feet! I can only infer this is due to inundation of water from streams due to heavy rainfall.

So no Nessie but a successful trial run of the camera. I hope to be back up in the months ahead to run the camera again and continue to hold out for that conclusive picture!

Friday 22 July 2011

Yet another Nessie sighting?

Nice to see some sightings rolling in. First the Hargreaves a few weeks back and now William Jobes on May 24th. But what could it be? These pictures give an initial feel for the sighted object but apparently there are more shots which would help progress this case. At a distance of 200-300 yards, an estimate of size can be made from the second photo.

Clearly this does not look like typical debris that flows into the loch like logs, the symmetry of the object looks too well defined and frankly looks like a living creature. The witness says the object rose out of the water but the Daily Mail report does not say how long the sighting lasted or how it ended. In other words, did the object submerge for good? These are important facts that need to be established since not many possible explanations just disappear from view.

As for living things, I don't think otters venture out that far plus the back looks too big. We can discount deer as well.

No dorsal fin is visible unless the "head" can be taken as such. The sei whale recently sighted off Scotland had a dorsal fin set well back but then again a whale would not go long unnoticed in Loch Ness.

Mr. Jobes did not think it was a seal and certainly the distance between hump and head looks too disparate for a seal. Again, we need to see the other pictures and ask some more questions.





Original link here.

"At first glance it looks like another dark ripple on the water.

But study the photograph more closely and a dark hump and tail can be seen poking through the water's surface, or so a life-long hunter of the Loch Ness monster hunter claims.

William Jobes, 62, believes that he may have at last captured the elusive creature on camera after 45 years of trying.

Mr Jobes was walking along the Abbey footpath in Fort Augustus with his wife Joan in May this year when he spotted what appeared to be a head bobbing above the water 200 to 300 yards from the shore.

'I had a wonderful shock,' Mr Jobes said.'I have actually been coming up to Inverness for the past 45 years and I have never seen anything like this before.'

Quickly grasping his camera, Mr Jobes from Irvine in Ayrshire, managed to take a single picture before the 'head' disappeared under the surface.

However, to his delight a dark, hump-like shape broke the waves and he was able to take more photographs of the apparent sighting on May 24 at just after 11.10am.

Mr Jobes is convinced it was not a seal or piece of wood.

'To be honest I know the difference between a piece of wood or a particular animal,' he said.

'I immediately did think it was a seal but it's head was like a sheep.'

However, veteran Nessie hunter Steve Feltham, remains sceptical, although he admits the hump photograph cannot be immediately explained and is worth further investigation.

'The river comes out there and something large could have come down the river and flowed out there,' he suggested."

Wednesday 6 July 2011

Book Images

The images accompanying "Photographs of the Loch Ness Monster" can be viewed by downloading the Word file at this link. The animated sequence mentioned in the Roy Johnston chapter is shown below and can be clicked on for an enlargement.