Forthcoming talk on the Loch Ness Monster

January 18, 2014, 2:12 pm

≫ Next: A Photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

I will be giving a talk on the Loch Ness Monster to the Edinburgh Fortean Society on Tuesday 11th February at 7:30pm. The venue is the Counting House pub on West Nicolson Street in Edinburgh. The Society's website can be found here.

The talk will look back on the year past from the point of view of the Monster as well as the Loch Ness area. That will include excerpts on my own work as well as some stories from the area (some of which have not reached this blog!).

Entry is £1 only and the talk will have a Q&A session at the end. Finish time will be about 10pm. Hope to see you there.

↧

A Photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

January 22, 2014, 1:19 pm

≫ Next: The Dornoch Dragon and Nessie

≪ Previous: Forthcoming talk on the Loch Ness Monster

Trawling around the Internet as I do for Nessie information, I came across this photograph on a website compilation of holiday snaps. The owner of the picture had been to Scotland and elsewhere in Europe from the USA and had decided to put up a montage of her experiences. However, one of the pictures shows something a bit more than normal.

Here is a zoom in on the object of interest. It would appear the the picture was taken on the 15th July 2006 but the camera time is set at 0421. The location is given as a point off the Clansman Harbour at the north end of the loch but closer to the opposite shore, so the photographer was probably on a cruise boat (see map below).

Now I have tried several times to contact the owner of this photograph (who I believe is called Nancy) but without success and this basically leaves me in a bit of no-man's land. The reason I say that is because if I did establish contact the day after this article posted, several replies may be forthcoming.

For example, the owner may say "It's a Photoshop job, I was just fooling around.". In that case, there is not much more to say and we move on.

Or she may say that is a genuine picture and we can take it from there.

Or she may come up with some other reply such as "The cruise boat had a Nessie sticker on the window for tourist Nessie snaps."

Of course, it may be the photographer is unable or unwilling to make contact.

But despite these unknowns, perhaps this is an opportunity to explore an area of Loch Ness Monster images that provokes debate. I am referring to digital images of the creatures and the argument over whether they are digitally manipulated images.

Of course, manipulated images of the Loch Ness Monster go hand in hand with the mystery itself. The 1977 Shiels picture is perhaps the best example, but the MacNab picture from 1955 has also been put under the scrutiny of sceptical enquirers. However, such alleged images form a small part of the overall set of images. Others have been accused of being staged props or misidentification, the rest are genuine images of the creature.

PHOTOSHOPPING

Now one question levelled by sceptics today is why the clarity of the classic black and white pictures is not repeated today with superior cameras. However, when a photograph such as this turns up, it is automatically dismissed as a fake. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The "too good to be true" syndrome kicks in almost by instinct.

Now it may not have escaped your attention that the lake cryptid world has no lack of digitally faked images. A search for images of "loch ness monster" on google will throw up a good number of such "photoshopped" images (to quote the vernacular for such images). How can you distinguish the real from the fake? For me, this photograph is the catalyst to explore this more modern aspect of cryptid forensics more closely.

At the "lowest" level of analysis, the aforementioned snap judgements are oft to the fore. A picture appears on a cryptid website and not long after we get the photoshopping comments. People will look at such images and get a "feel" for whether it looks right or not. Of course, this involves a mixture of objective and subjective assessments, but we need something that eliminates the subjective.

At this point, I would have to point out that there are two types of photoshopped images, those that are intended to deceive and those that are intended as an obvious joke. The latter are not that difficult to spot. Those that intend to deceive put a bit more effort into their creation.

IMAGE ANALYSIS

One website I consulted gave five rules for detecting a Photoshop event:

1. "Software" metadata in image file is "Photoshop"
2. Image is compressed to JPEG file by Photoshop (which has some unique pattern)
3. Image is compressed to JPEG file twice (which has some other unique pattern)
4. Part of image has been cloned from another part of it
5. Image color or brightness is deemed abnormal which should be manipulated

I can't say I will exhaustively apply all these principles today - I am no expert on digital manipulation - but the need to "ramp up" on this aspect of Loch Ness Monster investigation has become more apparent to me.

On the first point of the metadata, this is part of the Exif (Exchangeable image file format) data that makes up JPEG, TIF and WAV image files. This data contains information on the circumstances of the image such as camera make and model, date and time, exposure time and focal length. Since the data does not actually describe the image, it is called metadata. You can see this for yourself on a Windows system by right clicking on a picture file and selecting "Properties".

However, on trying some images, finding the clue of subterfuge via the metadata was not as clean cut as one may think. One website that seems to be popular in looking for anomalies is imageedited.com. This will run some basic tests on an uploaded image file and hazard a guess as to whether the image has been changed.

When I ran this photograph through it, the decision as to whether image editing had occurred was "Probably" though it did not list any image editing software as a culprit. Is this a decisive conclusion? I do not think so. When I ran another of the owner's photographs from Loch Ness which was no more than an ordinary snap of the castle, it gave the same result!

It seemed apparent to me that both images had undergone some changes in preparation for web site hosting. One possible explanation being the downsizing of the image to a smaller size. I also wondered if an editing software program could be masked by running it through a subsequent, less suspicious program?

MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Seeking to take this further, I came upon the website fotoforensics.com. On top of the metadata analysis I just mentioned, two further tools are employed to ascertain the originality of a photographic image. The first is called Error Level Analysis ("ELA" hereafter). This works on the principle that a JPEG image should uniformly and roughly have the same level of data compression (JPEG is a process which compresses the original image to a smaller file size but usually with the loss of information). Any differences in compression rate in an image is suggestive of digital modification.

The website allows you to upload a file for ELA conversion which outputs an image. The guidelines given for that new image are summarised as follows:

Edges. Similar edges should have similar brightness in the ELA result. All high-contrast edges should look similar to each other, and all low-contrast edges should look similar. With an original photo, low-contrast edges should be almost as bright as high-contrast edges.

Textures. Similar textures should have similar coloring under ELA. Areas with more surface detail, such as a close-up of a basketball, will likely have a higher ELA result that a smooth surface.

Surfaces. Regardless of the actual color of the surface, all flat surfaces should have about the same coloring under ELA.

With that in mind, I looked around for some faked Nessie pictures to analyze. In each pair, the first picture is the original and the one below is the ELA image. The first one presents an immediate problem as this white Nessie has an ELA which is higher (i.e. more complex) than the sky of a similar hue.

The next picture is taken from Claudio Diaz's Lake Monster Facebook page. Claudio has produced various Photoshop reproductions and these provide an interesting comparison (indeed, Claudio's opinion on this matter is solicited). Here we see that the brightness of the edges around the "monster" are not consistent with other low/high contrast edges indicating a problem.

Another image from the Lake Monsters Facebook page shows a more indistinct hump image nestling within the reflection of Urquhart Castle. This fuzziness is mirrored in the indistinct lack of edge in the ELA image. A harder image to judge, but perhaps others have an opinion.

Now I bring in the same process for the main photograph of our interest. The result is that, unlike the other pictures, the object here is barely visible in the ELA image. Is this significant and is it an indication of no digital manipulation? Perhaps, but there is no foolproof technique here and it would have helped to have the original and larger image.

JPEG QUALITY

The second analysis tool is JPEG Quality. Each time an image file is opened in a graphics editor and resaved, there is a potential loss of image quality (this depends on the quality level selected). The loss of quality can be estimated and compared to other images.

Using our fotoforensics tool, the JPEG quality is estimated to be 85%. When another of the Loch Ness holiday snaps from the owner was put through this filter, its quality level was also estimated to be 85%. This suggests both images went through the same sequence of events. If the Nessie photo had gone through an extra level of processing to add the "monster", then it would be possible for it to have a lower JPEG quality.

CONCLUSIONS

So, some conclusions may be reached, but I suspect an expert digital manipulator could produce an image which only experts could judge at the pixel level. Since the owner of the photograph has not replied to my requests, the jury has to remain out on this one.

But certainly, judging it purely as an image (independent of its source), it is a good one. You can see the precise detail that the object possesses as one observes the glint of the sun reflecting off the head and to a lesser extent off the humps. There is also the reflection of the neck on the water. Moreover, the image has packed more detail into a smaller area than the other images we compared here.

On the opposite side of the coin, the second hump to the left of the main hump looks out of place. What could that mean? Also, the zoomed in pixellated area to the left of the neck reflection looks a bit strange, but how valid is an image judgement when individual pixels are resolved?

So, I am bit new to this and would welcome comments from others who may have more experience of image analysis. I would also like to know when sceptics regard a photo as no longer "too good to be true" and not "photoshopped".

↧

The Dornoch Dragon and Nessie

January 27, 2014, 2:55 pm

≫ Next: Jeremy Wade at Loch Ness

≪ Previous: A Photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

Over at Beachcombing's Bizarre History Blog, I stumbled upon a reference to my book "The Water Horses of Loch Ness". The subject in question was the Dornoch Dragon which was reputed to have terrorised that Highland town in the 13th century.

The point of referencing that story in my book was to highlight the difference but co-existence of dragon and kelpie stories in the folklore of Highland times. The Loch Ness Monster is a Kelpie, but it is no Dragon. You can go over to Beachcombing's website to get the story.

But what interests me is not so much the story but the source. I picked up on the story from a letter to The Scotsman newspaper on the 1st January 1934. The author of the letter was a Mr. David Murray Rose.

Mr. Rose had previously sent a letter to the same newspaper mentioning some pre-1933 references to a strange beast in Loch Ness. These are important references but they have been dismissed by sceptics because he does not state his sources. Now for those who think Nessie is merely a media creation of the 1930s, such pre-1930s references are inconvenient and the sooner they are debunked away the better. Now I admit he does not state his sources, but I accept they exist. This week's article on the Dornoch Dragon has reinforced that view.

The article ends with doubts being cast upon the veracity of Rose's account and again poor old David Murray Rose is in the dock. But then help came along in the shape of Mr. Borky (who I believe also frequents this blog). Borky informed Beachcombing that there is indeed an earlier source for the story and refers us to the Folklore Journal, volume six, published in 1888. You can find a link to it here.

So David Murray Rose is vindicated in this letter to The Scotsman and therefore I would suggest that he is also trustworthy in his other letter on the Loch Ness Monster. Of course, the task is to find these original sources and that is not a simple task if they have not reached the scanners of Google Books yet.

I examined Mr. Rose's research material in Edinburgh when I was researching my book. Suffice to say, my two days there was not enough to cover the vast volume of boxes there. Indeed, trying to read his pencilled handwriting was no easy task either! If I ever retire, I hope to revisit them.

On a side note, I noticed that the 1888 Folklore Journal stated the following:

The dragon killed by St. Gilbert (before-mentioned) must have been a salamander, since it was born from a fire which has lasted seven years. It lived in fire, and its breath burnt all the forests of the Highlands : onlv a man who should see it before it saw him had power to slay it, St. Gilbert dug a hole and hid himself in it, so as to get the first sight of it.

Interestingly, the Loch Ness Monster was also reputedly referred to as "The Salamander" in the 19th century. Is there a connection here between dragon and kelpie? As it turns out, folklore has an interesting view of the salamander. The old Gaelic dictionary of animal names say this:

SALAMANDER. — Corr or corra-chagailte ; Teighiollas ; Urchuil or urcuil.
Fire-form, sometimes fire-bird.

A belief exists, or existed, that one of these nondescript creatures grew in any fire that was kept burning continuously or incessantly for seven years, hence the reason for extinguishing all furnaces periodically within that period ; it need hardly be added that the reason is of a more utilitarian and prosaic nature in cities.

Of Sir Robert Gordon, the Third Baronet of Nova Scotia, it is said of his wizardry:

He is said to have fitted up a forge, and here night after night for seven long years he sat watching the glowing embers, until at length his patience was rewarded by the appearance of a live salamander. From this creature he tortured many an unearthly secret.

Perhaps not the salamander of modern day theories, but I wonder if the two were connected?

And finally, I also stumbled upon this piece from 1907:

The Adder as a swimmer — I do not suppose that the adder which was discovered swimming across Loch-Ness knew what it was attempting. Apart from the doubt whether snakes have long sight, it is obvious that a creature whose eyes are always close to the ground must have a very near horizon, and can, therefore, have no notion of the width of a large piece of water. - (to P. C. Inverness.)

Snakes swimming across Loch Ness? You learn something every day! The sceptics can add that to their list of misidentifications!

↧

Jeremy Wade at Loch Ness

January 28, 2014, 12:23 pm

≫ Next: The Marjory Moir Story Revisited

≪ Previous: The Dornoch Dragon and Nessie

Finally, the two part episode of "River Monsters" at Loch Ness will be televised on British TV on 11th February at 7:30pm. Presumably, part two follows next week. This was first televised in the USA in May last year. More details here.

By some strange coincidence, I will be starting my talk on the Loch Ness Monster on the same day at the same time. Thank goodness for video recorders!

↧

The Marjory Moir Story Revisited

February 2, 2014, 4:25 am

≫ Next: First blank Year since 1925?

≪ Previous: Jeremy Wade at Loch Ness

I showcased this classic sighting from 1936 in a previous article. You may think that would have been it but a comment submitted to that article recently has brought it back to life in more ways than one.

Marjory Moir passed away some years back but before then her account was recorded on audio tape back in the early 1980s by her granddaughter. The transcript of that conversation is given below as Mrs. Moir relives that exciting day fifty years previously.

The other fascinating thing about this new information is that one of the witnesses is still alive today and living in Scotland! Indeed, she had a second sighting of the creature, although it was not as spectacular as this famous account. She was the youngest of the party and is called "Ann" here to respect her anonymity.

The recounting of this story begins with some words from her granddaughter:

I am the granddaughter of Marjory Moir. She was one of the most sensible, down to earth people you could meet. She had a very interesting life, which included living and travelling in America and other far away places. She was intelligent and articulate and was absolutely not the kind of person that needed to invent stories to gain attention. She had many interesting tales to relate about her experiences and travels, of which the monster sighting was just one.

As several members of my family had seen the creature, it was simply common knowledge in our family that it did exist. It was a recurring topic of conversation over the years, and accounts were retold and discussed by all family members, with the details never changing.

A few years before my grandmother died, I asked her to tell me again about the time she saw the Loch Ness monster and recorded the conversation onto cassette. I still have the recording in my possession and it is six and half minutes long.

When this was recorded my grandmother was in her mid-eighties and a little forgetful, but nevertheless able to relate her experience very clearly.

I notice there appears to be some confusion about who was driving the car on the day of the 1936 sighting. As I mentioned, my grandmother was becoming forgetful in her eighties, and although she remembered all of the others who who were there, she forgot to mention Mrs Grant Shewglie on the cassette recording. So who was driving and who had to move the car to make way for the other vehicle is not totally clear, but probably the earlier accounts are more accurate as her memory was obviously fresher then. However the details about the sighting itself remained unchanged, also during the numerous retellings and discussions of the subject within our family over the years.

The four other people in her car that day in October 1936 were:-

1. Her sister Barbara, also referred to as Bab or Baba

2. A girl, nine years old at the time, referred to as "Ann". (edited)

3. Her husband Jack's mother, 'Granny Moir'

4. A friend, Mrs Grant Shewglie who she forgets to name in this account.

Mrs. Moir now recounts her story. The event happened on the road north of Foyers. The picture below from 1951 gives an idea of the background to the story that day. The interviewer is designated as "I" and Mrs. Moir as "M".

I: "Tell me, you saw the Loch Ness monster, didn't you?"

M: "Hmm?"

I: "You saw the Loch Ness monster - haven't you?"

M: "Oh yes I did indeed. I got one of the best views ever got of it. We watched it for fourteen minutes."

I: "Tell me about that. When did it happen?"

M: "Well, oh what year was it? Before we came to Edinburgh. Bab and I were coming back from - we'd gone to Foyers, which is about fifteen miles up towards Loch Ness from Inverness - fifteen miles. We went out for afternoon tea and we had Granny Moir. Jack's mother was with us. There was myself and Barbara, Granny Moir and Ann. How many? How many people's that? Me and Baba and Granny Moir and - and em, Ann. Five of...four of us.

And we were coming - I was driving, and of course there was a part of the road that was very near the loch, and no trees between us and the loch, and - and eh, Baba said; "Oooh!" she said; "There's the Loch Ness monster." and I stopped the car. And sure enough here was this thing on the top of the waves. So I got - stopped the car - pulled the car into a sort of layby, and we went down to the edge of - of the loch, in amongst the pebbles, and we watched it. It would be about a third of the way across the loch.

At that particular place the loch would be about a mile and a half wide, and we went down to watch it, and it would be about a third of a mile from us. And it was a - it had three humps, a little hump and a big hump and a smaller hump, and a long neck with a head, you know. And we went down and we watched it. And it dipped - it kept dipping its head into the water and playing itself, and then all of a sudden it turned and fled - turned round away from us and went straight across the loch, and it made a terrific wave on the shore, and Ann had to get out of the way of the - of the - of the wave. It came up onto the shore.

And then it, it - you could see the top of its head or the top of the middle hump all the way across the loch to Drumnadrochit, and there it turned. It came straight back to where it was before and Ann was standing like this (gestures), scared of it. And it came right back to where it was originally and took up its position, but there were no humps on it this time, the back was straight. Previously the back had been three humps, but this time the back was straight but it still had the curved neck and dipping its head in the water.

And we watched it and watched it. And eventually there was a hoot, hoot, hooting on the road. It's a very narrow road, and somebody a - a baker's van or something was coming and I had to come up and move the car on. So by the time I came back from moving the car to let this other fellow past, it had disappeared. But it was a grand view of it. Three humps: a wee hump, a big hump and a little hump and a neck like that (gestures), and it would be about thirty feet long I should imagine. Nobody's ever discovered what it is."

"Oh yes, that was the Loch Ness monster. And I remember they (her grandparents) lived in a farm away up at the top of Dores. A farm called Urquhart."

I: "Oh yes."

M: "Lovely part of the country and eh, he (her father) used to be annoying the farm workers. It was quite a big farm, and my grandparents were good workers and it was a good farm. And he used to annoy the kids - the - the workmen, and my father said that - that they used to frighten him by saying that if they - if he didn't behave himself the em,...oh... 'something' would get him - the oh, the Gaelic name for the - for the monster - the Gaelic for a water horse, whatever that - I can't remember it unfortunately. But they said that if he didn't behave himself that the water horse would get him, using the Gaelic word which meant the monster. So the monster must have been there many, many years ago.

"Oh yes I've seen it. People don't believe me but I have seen it - watched it, stood on the shores and looked at it and saw it. And it was in television and I was on the radio about it too. They gave me a fiver for talking about it (laughs). Och, it's been a very interesting life you know."

I: "Yes I think so. You've only seen the monster once then?"

M: "Only once I've seen it, yes."

The Gaelic for "Water Horse" is "Each Uisge" and it is not surprising (to me) that old tales of this creature in Loch Ness were known to locals from the nineteenth century. So it is great to read this witness testimony coming back to us over the decades and also exciting to know that one witness still lives today.

You may have your own views on this story but it certainly continues to hold the status of "classic sighting" amongst believers in the Loch Ness Monster.

↧

First blank Year since 1925?

February 8, 2014, 8:10 am

≫ Next: Bigfoot and Nessie

≪ Previous: The Marjory Moir Story Revisited

Gary Campbell, president of the Official Loch Ness Monster Fan Club, has been quoted as claiming that 2013 was the first year in which no there were no sightings of the Loch Ness Monster since 1925. You can read the story here and here amongst others.

He admits that people did come forward on three occasions claiming to have spotted the creature, but these have been dismissed as waves and a duck. I presume one of the reports was the wave-like Nessie or Nessie-like wave filmed by David Elder last August. That one is certainly in the inconclusive category which leads to a problem in deciding what is and what is not a Loch Ness Monster sighting.

In fact, it depends who you ask. Ask any of the leading sceptics whether such and such is a sighting of Nessie and you will get the answer "No" at all times in all places. In other words, no sightings ever since 1925. Ask people such as myself, Gary Campbell, Steve Feltham or other pro-Nessie researchers and you will get a "Yes", "No" or "Don't Know" depending on the case.

The other point is that there is often a delayed reaction in people coming forward with accounts, sometime decades past. The classic example is 1933 when the monster hit the headlines and people started to come forward with stories of sightings going back 40 years!

So I am confident not only that the creature has been spotted in 2013 but that these stories will be forthcoming in due time.

In fact, I have already mentioned a story which has "Nessie" written on it for me. To requote from my review of 2013, it appeared on the Facebook page of the cruise company, Cruise Loch Ness. It goes like this:

Three different people came to the Wheelhouse today to tell me that they had seen something in the Loch on the 2 o clock cruise. They all described a long black thing on the surface behind the 'Royal Scot' it was visible for a few seconds before disappearing. I wish they'd said something when they were watching it, as I was busy looking where we were going and missed it !!

This happened on April 5th just the day before the "Nessie at 80" Edinburgh Symposium. The skipper, Marcus Atkinson, gave me further details:

I was skippering the Royal Scot when this happened, and it was me that posted on Facebook. It is unusual because, over the last few years no-one has ever mentioned seeing anything, then on one trip three different people from different parts of the boat came to the wheelhouse and mentioned seeing something? I remember that it was a flat day with no wind, and everyone pointed to the same spot on the loch.

At the time I didn't think much about it because - they were all pointing to the place on the Loch where the Royal Scot turns around. This off the horseshoe scree and on a windless day the wake from our voyage up will slowly move across the Loch, at times it does look like several humps moving across the water. Because I didn't see it, it's hard to say anything really. Other than I wish someone had pointed it out at the time!

↧

Bigfoot and Nessie

February 13, 2014, 12:54 am

≫ Next: Sandra Mansi's Painting of Champ

≪ Previous: First blank Year since 1925?

The two great cryptozoological mysteries of the age, the hairy hominid stalking through the North American forests and the large creature swimming in the inky blackness of Loch Ness. They have vied for the top cryptid slot for decades.

But, in recent years, Bigfoot has certainly been to the fore of public consciousness thanks to its presence in the United States of America with the resources, zeal and "can do" attitude of ordinary Americans who form an army of hunters and researchers in the subject. Bigfoot websites outnumber Nessie websites and perhaps also the number of people who accept its existence.

However, recent events in the Bigfoot world have got a casual Sasquatch believer such as myself taking more notice. I refer to the controversy over the alleged Bigfoot shot by Rick Dyer over a year ago. This event apparently happened as he took part in the filming of a British made documentary called "Shooting Bigfoot" which will hopefully soon be broadcast on the BBC's BBC4 channel as part of their new "Storyville" season.

Towards the end of that documentary is a claimed scene of Dyer racing out of his tent in underpants to shoot the seven foot creature dead. There is also an alleged scene of another Bigfoot assaulting the film producer, Morgan Matthews, and leaving him with a noticeable black eye and other injuries.

However, Dyer has a serious credibility problem in that he faked another dead Bigfoot back in 2008 and is generally disliked by other Bigfoot researchers for his arrogant manner. In other words, even the majority of the Bigfoot community are lining up with the usual sceptics to condemn him. In a sense, Dyer is the Frank Searle of the Bigfoot world.

Dyer says he has the taxidermied corpse and is beginning a tour with it. So you have a documentary with some kind of footage and a stuffed animal. Whether you believe it or not, this is going to prove very interesting.

Rick Dyer claims there is a forthcoming press conference to announce findings of an unknown university's examination of the corpse. His cause is not helped by the postponement of said conference on Sunday. The longer this drags out, the bigger the doubts.

I can't imagine a "Shooting Nessie" documentary. Firstly, you need a very good reason to own and use a gun in Britain and, secondly, even if you shot one in the water, it would most like sink without trace and without hope of recovery. Mind you, a "Finding Nessie" series has some appeal.

So, is it a mockumentary backed up by a fake Bigfoot body or something else? Either way, it makes for good reading. If he has the real deal, cryptozoology will never be the same again, but don't hold your breath quite yet!

WHALES

On another point, scientists now say they can count whales from space. If they think they can do it with whales, why not Loch Ness Monsters? See this BBC article. Of course, people have attempted to point out strange objects on Loch Ness from satellite images before, but nothing that looks conclusive. Searching the loch from above has been attempted in a minor way in the past, but it is an expensive way of doing it. Maybe one day, we will have a satellite webcam feeding images of Loch Ness every time it passes overhead to a worldwide audience of hunters.

1975

To round things off, this item appeared on eBay bringing back childhood memories of more feverish days. It is the Daily Mail from November 25th 1975 as interest continued to mount about the Rines underwater photos. A mere snip at $198!

↧

Sandra Mansi's Painting of Champ

February 15, 2014, 5:53 am

≫ Next: A New Sighting from 2012

≪ Previous: Bigfoot and Nessie

Cryptid researcher, Paul Cropper, has unearthed another gem with this painting from 2007 of Champ done by the famous Sandra Mansi who took a picture of the creature back in 1977. Compare this painting with the actual photo below. Paul thinks the painting is somewhat Brontosaurian in nature and Sandra may have used some dinosaur painting as guidance.

↧

A New Sighting from 2012

February 15, 2014, 3:41 pm

≫ Next: Review of "River Monsters" Loch Ness Special

≪ Previous: Sandra Mansi's Painting of Champ

The Aberdeen Press and Journal reports today on Gary Campbell's recent comments about the lack of Nessie sightings since 2012. In response to this, a retired Royal Mail worker by the name of Ken Ross, contacted him to recount his sighting and his four photographs from October 25th 2012. His story begins as he was driving from his home in Inverness to Fort William and as they passed the village of Inverfarigaig.

"My wife said she could see something strange in the loch so I stopped in a lay-by and took four photographs. It looked like a boat wake, but it wasn’t wide enough to have come from a boat, was about 200ft long and travelling at a fair speed for a while then stopped – there wasn’t a boat to be seen for miles. I don’t know what caused it and didn’t give it a great deal of thought until I saw Gary’s appeal to get in touch.”

I can't really add much more at this point. The location itself is a highway for cruise boats, but the witness says he saw none and was convinced it behaved in a way different to a wake. Indeed, boat wakes don't just stop, they just dissipate slowly. I have seen a couple of videos like this recently which show some unusual surface activity without anything solid revealing itself.

I refer readers first to a video below from April 2010 which I highlighted some months back by way of comparison. Also, there follows a strange water disturbance filmed from the tower of Urquhart Castle filmed on the 24th August 2010 near the location of the first video. What these could be is a matter of conjecture and may all well be classed as having the same cause (hat tip to jimmy_sher for second video).

↧

Review of "River Monsters" Loch Ness Special

February 19, 2014, 2:23 pm

≫ Next: Concerning Mobile Phone Cameras

≪ Previous: A New Sighting from 2012

Though I suspect most readers have seen Jeremy Wade's "Legend of Loch Ness", the two episode special may be viewed by British viewers for a limited time at ITV's online catch up website. The obvious spoilers will now ensue.

The first episode focused on Loch Ness as Wade attempted to form a picture of what he was looking for by pouring over old reports, speaking to contemporary witnesses (Val Moffat's account from 1990, reproduced below by the show) and local expert, Adrian Shine. However, the analysis began to take a turn in a certain direction as Jeremy discarded all long necked sightings as irrelevant to the investigation.

Now I have spoken in the past about cherry picking the data to suit one's theory. Admittedly, the sightings database is not a perfect representation of the mystery. It includes unrevealed hoaxes and misidentifications; but it also contains real experiences by people of an object unclassified and unknown. Add to that mix, inaccurate descriptions of the creature (as opposed to misidentified birds, waves, etc) and you see the magnitude of the work.

To this we can add the second unmentioned but discarded class of land sightings. With apologies to Oscar Wilde, to lose one class of sightings may be regarded as a misfortune; but to lose two looks like carelessness. But we defer to Jeremy as he develops his argument.

Having decided the Loch Ness Monster has no long neck, it opened possibilities to our renowned fish catcher. But first, he indulged in a spot of fishing at Loch Ness. Casting his line more in hope than realism, he pulled up a few eels. That surprised me somewhat as I was more expecting char, trout or something else. But a sturdier form of rod would appear later as Jeremy moved on.

Seeking a more ancient route, Jeremy looked at the well known but unknown Pictish Elephant of Highland symbol stones (below). What this might represent has always been a matter of debate, but in this program it is linked to the St. Columba story and then to Norse Mythology. Quite how I am not sure, but it provided the stepping stone to the next episode.

In episode two, it was off to Iceland as Mr. Wade linked the Loch Ness Monster to Norse monsterology. He surmised something that lurks in the cold depths of the North Atlantic could be a creature known to the Vikings and somehow made its way to Loch Ness.

That creature is the Greenland Shark, a twenty foot plus, two thousand pound plus brute that wouldn't think twice about snacking on a polar bear. It is a life largely mysterious to science but it is believed to grow at a slow rate due to the cold and who knows how long it lives for. Armed with sonar and a sturdy 2000 foot line, he attempted to catch one over an indeterminate number of days.

The small dorsal fin is seen as an advantage in Loch Ness Monster morphology as it allows a more hump like appearance on the loch surface. However, the picture above suggests a rather flat back on this shark which does not look capable of presenting the classic "upturned boat" presentation.

One interesting aspect of this creature as they fished for it was its invisibility to their sonar systems. The Greenland Shark possesses no swim bladder to register on sonar and it was plumbing depths of up to 2000 feet below. That made me contrast and compare it to our sonar shy quarry in Loch Ness. Does Nessie have lungs or a swim bladder? Perhaps not, though those flexible humps may contain gas of some description at various times.

Eventually, a smaller 400 pound Greenland Shark was pulled up but was too big to land on the boat. After looking it over, they let it go back. Again, because of its lack of a swim bladder, it was a creature that could be pulled up from the depths without suffering the equivalent of the bends and a ruptured swim bladder.

With that the search concluded. A Nessie sized animal from the seas surrounding Scotland had been suggested and in some ways it was not too dissimilar to the Atlantic Sturgeon theory favoured by more sceptical researchers. Apart from issues around long necks, how would such a creature get into Loch Ness?

This was not discussed, but I would presume they may favour a smaller, juvenile creature swimming in the River Ness. Only seals (and perhaps porpoises) have been proven for sure to make it into the loch from the sea, but no evidence for sturgeons or sharks is forthcoming.

Do I think the Greenland Shark is a credible theory? No, I don't, but in terms of size, weight and cold adaptability, it is perhaps the one animal in the region that comes closest to the large creature that occupies the attention of this blog.

↧

Concerning Mobile Phone Cameras

February 26, 2014, 5:05 am

≫ Next: Jonathan Bright on his Loch Ness Monster Photograph

≪ Previous: Review of "River Monsters" Loch Ness Special

I would like to visit a subject that seems to have convinced sceptics that they have a strong argument against the Loch Ness Monster. It concerns the ubiquitous mobile phone camera and the idea that their increased presence should produce more photographs of Nessie and more convincing ones at that. This article addresses both of these issues.

Now it cannot be denied that access to a camera in one’s pocket has increased greatly in the last decade or so. As far as I can ascertain, the camera feature on mobile phones first appeared in 2000 with the Japanese J-Phone. Since then, you could argue that almost everyone carries a camera with them wherever they go. There is one graph I saw which sceptics referred to which shows a steep curve of mobile phone take up in the last 10 years. It is shown below with the dismissive, arrogant tone you sometimes encounter from a small number of sceptics.

So the argument runs that with all these mobile phone cameras jostling around Loch Ness, there should be more pictures of the creature. The sceptics say there are not; therefore the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. But is the argument that simple? Let us take a closer look.

First off, let us try and create a graph of films and photographs taken at Loch Ness over the last 80 years which purport to show Nessie. I include films and videos here because mobile phones now have video recording capability too (though that feature did not come to the fore until about 2007). Of course, the issue here is what constitutes a photograph of the Loch Ness Monster?

As a colleague pointed out to me at my recent Loch Ness Monster talk, there is no such thing as a “confirmed” sighting that satisfies both believers and sceptics. So with that in mind, it is best to include all claimed images and take it from there.

THE FILM AND PHOTO RECORD

Looking around the literature and recent research, there are plenty of images ranging from water disturbances to the more incredible. I have filtered some out on the basis of a few assumptions. Firstly, the photos I consider fakes are left out and also the results of large scale organised searches such as the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau during the 1960s. What I am interested in is the tourist or local with his camera. The graph below is denoted in decades rather than years and film and photographs are combined into a "BOTH" count (thanks to Charles Paxton for help with the database). The right axis denotes the film/photo count.

As an aside, the first thing that will strike you is the drop off in reported sightings since the 1960s and reminds us of the recent "Is Nessie Dead?" flurry of news articles. In reality, the drop will be down to a combination of the factors listed below.

1. People are less easily fooled by natural loch phenomena.

2. People are less motivated to report sightings in a sceptical age.

3. People find it harder to find an "official" centre to report sightings.

4. The media does not report as many sightings as it used to.

5. The creature(s) is surfacing less often either due to population decline.

6. The creature(s) is surfacing less often due to aversion to increased surface activity.
7. Reports from recent years have still to filter through to researchers.

These can be argued about as to validity or priority, but it would seem clear that a decrease in sightings should lead to a decrease in photographic opportunities and hence images. But as you can see, the number of images captured in rising. However, the graph gets more interesting if the images captured are expressed as a percentage of total sightings for that decade.

As you can see, the number of images as a proportion of sightings has been increasing even more rapidly since the 1980s and it is reasonable to deduce that a component of this is due to increasing availability of not only mobile camera phones but also earlier devices such as the camcorder.

So it seems the sceptic's objection is answered, image count is up. It should also be noted that though the use of mobile phone cameras was on a steep rise, this does not necessarily apply to Loch Ness which is not a general population case. It is clear that Loch Ness has always had a higher proportion of lenses on it than your typical statistical scenario and that means the expected rise in images will be less pronounced.

Another factor which eats into the supposed steep curve expectation is group dynamics. As I looked over these cases, it became apparent that in group situations, there only seemed to be one image produced. What appeared to be happening was that in cases where a group is witnessing an event on the loch, one person undertakes the recording whilst the others just keep watching.

I would suggest that even if there are 5 or 6 mobile phones in pockets or bags, there is a "deferring" to the person with the best recording equipment (e.g. a camcorder). Also, since a better view is obtained with the naked eye rather than looking through a viewfinder, people would rather make the most of the situation by just watching and let the other guy do the image capture.

That won't be a hard and fast rule, but I am not aware of cases of multiple, independent images per individual case. Again, we have a Loch Ness specific situation here which dampens the curve. I hope that answers the first case of alleged inadequate image counts.

COMPARING CAMERAS

One point that came to mind when thinking through this issue was camera quality. The quantity of cameras has increased, but what about the quality of cameras? To get a handle on this, I took a series of comparison pictures with a mobile phone camera and an ordinary digital camera.

The mobile phone used was an iPhone 3GS. The specification of its camera is as follows:

3.2 megapixels resolution
5x digital zoom
VGA video at 30fps

In the other corner is my Canon PowerShot A450 with the following spec:

5 megapixels resolution
4x digital zoom
3.2x optical zoom
13x combined zoom
video at VGA/10fps, 320x240/30fps, 160x120/15fps

Note that both the iPhone and the Canon are not top of the range for their class and so can be regarded as a good approximation to the "average camera" at Loch Ness. Here are some of the comparison images with the iPhone displayed first.

The next four pictures were taken at Lochend where boat traffic is more dense.

You can see the advantage that the ordinary digital camera has in terms of light capture due to its larger aperture. The problem is further exacerbated when further detail is sought by zooming into the object of interest. As you can see, the Canon digital camera wins hands down over the iPhone. The iPhone can only do digital zoom which does not add more information to the image. The Canon's optical zoom will always win out here. There may be more cameras focused on Loch Ness, but what do they bring to the table in terms of quality?

As regards videos, it is often a complaint why witnesses do not switch to video mode in order to produce a more convincing set of images. But how true is this? I photographed a rainbow over Urquhart Bay last August and I also switched to video mode to record that too. Though this was taken with the digital camera and not the iPhone, the difference in quality is there for all to see (below).

Indeed, unless the video recording device is mounted on a tripod, I am not sure that running in video mode is a better option. The camera shake can render the footage useless and even if one has a stable hand that can overcome the excitement of seeing the monster, the witness may attempt to zoom in on the object and increase the shake to intolerable levels. Needless to say, tripods are not mandatory items in the tourist's suitcase.

THAT PERFECT PICTURE

The second argument is that all these mobile phone cameras should not only produce more images but also that definitive, close up image. As just stated, the quality of such devices is inferior to the produce of more traditional cameras. But the general rgument is statistical, the greater the distribution of cameras, the higher the probability of a close encounter picture.

However, there are mitigating factors that make no difference to how many cameras are present. For example, on many stretches of the loch, the road is quite far from the loch or obscured by trees. In other words, the creature may appear, but the witness is several hundred yards from it. Clearly, nothing conclusive is going to be pictured in that situation, no matter how many mobile phones are around. In the case of foliage obscuration, you are not going to spot something so easily, and so the camera stays in the pocket or bag.

So the situation demands the witness to be around 100-200 metres from the creature. Perhaps on a road close to the shore (for example, the Dores to Foyers road) or perhaps as a passenger in a boat. After that, it is a matter of waiting for the monster to appear at the right distance over the 24 square miles of the loch surface.

But as we have just noted, sightings are down while camera presence is up. To put it another way, if sightings are down to a quarter of what they were 15 years ago but camera presence has also quadrupled, then they cancel each other out! There is no expectation of more quality pictures. But the image count is up, so there is yet hope for that elusive, quality image.

In fact, good images of the monster are extremely rare. Over the last eighty years, I would count only at most ten as good images in still or movie format. That is one every eight years and based on what I have said about factors cancelling each other, I have no reason to believe that will improve despite the protestation about numerous low grade cameras "flooding" the loch.

But, again, is not the image count up per decennial sightings? Yes it is, but the quality images that rank with MacNab or others still occupy a low percentage of the total image count (about 15%). So, I am optimistic that better pictures than the recent Rowe or Bright ones will come out before the end of this decade.

The caveat is always the same though. A good image will turn up but the sceptics will dismiss it right away. Damned if you, damned if you don't. That is why I don't take these sceptical arguments too seriously as there is a hint of duplicity in them.

THAT GRETA FINLAY MOMENT

On the subject of close up pictures, I had that "Greta Finlay" moment when taking a lunchtime walk on the Fife coast some months back. I glanced into a farmer's field and noted a deer was walking neck high amongst the crops. This was an opportune time to do a test I thought to myself. I whipped out the iPhone and snapped the picture you see below.

After the animal had taken off, I measured out just over thirty paces to the spot it had occupied when photographed. That worked out at about 25 yards compared to Greta Finlay's 20 yards. So you may have wondered how good a picture she would have got if she had a mobile phone camera on her person? Wonder no more, the answer is not that good an image.

However, the zoomed image below is certainly sufficient to identify it as a deer. If it had been something more mysterious, I am not sure we would have got very far in making further identification. So, the argument that good, close up pictures should be more prevalent with all those mobile phones around looks even more rough round the edges.

I didn't think to record a video with the iPhone at the time, but I returned recently to record the same area to compare the quality. Click on the image below to see that. Again, I am not sure what is to be gained by switching to this lower resolution image unless a stable platform can be achieved with a good optical zoom.

CONCLUSIONS

Sceptics supply arguments aimed at destabilising believers, but it is not always the case that they proof read their own theories before they are hurled in this direction. This happens to be one of those cases where a generalisation is framed upon a specific situation (i.e. Loch Ness).

Photographing the Loch Ness Monster is an extremely hard task. The lack of good images speaks of a creature that has no need to break the surface unless it really has to. The wide expanse of the loch plus the starting distance between the witness on the road and the shoreline adds to the difficulty. What is needed is a creature surfacing less than 100 yards from the witness with his good quality camera.

As it turns out, that combination of events is the exception rather than the rule.

↧

Jonathan Bright on his Loch Ness Monster Photograph

March 2, 2014, 3:21 am

≫ Next: Here Be Mermaids!

≪ Previous: Concerning Mobile Phone Cameras

I have already covered Jonathan's picture taken in 2012 in a previous post. But Jonathan now brings his own story and thoughts to the table in this blog posting. He has also put up an accompanying YouTube video (below). Jonathan delves into the paranormal aspects of Nessie theorising, of which I am sure there are plenty of advocates. I used to believe in this theory (since I believe in paranormal phenomena in general), but have since decided to pursue the biological side of things.

Of course, we hear of strange things going on around Loch Ness which are suggestive of such things. We read of the strange events that Tim Dinsdale recorded which were not Nessie related (I would love to see that journal). Also, Ted Holiday's strange goings on surrounding the 1973 exorcism of Loch Ness also raises the eyebrow.

Though Jonathan brings in the magician, Aleister Crowley, it is a fact that monster reports and legends preceded his arrival at Loch Ness in Edwardian times by a long stretch. But paranormalists may argue that what ever "portal" attracted Crowley there, was the same progenitor of Nessie. Indeed, it is a bit unclear why Crowley selected Boleskine House at Loch Ness. The house configuration he demanded could have been fulfilled in any number of areas, but why this particular area?

Interesting questions, but again, just at the edge of reality's peripheral vision. The hunt continues, I hope to be at Loch Ness in about a month's time!

↧

Here Be Mermaids!

March 4, 2014, 1:43 pm

≫ Next: The Folklore of An Niseag

≪ Previous: Jonathan Bright on his Loch Ness Monster Photograph

I am just finishing off a folkloric post and received a link from fellow cryptozoological researcher, Scott Mardis. It concerns the tale of the Cromarty mermaid which was not far from Loch Ness. The 18th Century broadsheet proclaims:

"A strange and wonderful Relation concerning a Mermaid that was seen and spoke with on the Cliff of Cromarry, near Inverness in Scotland, by a young gentleman, a Merchant, named Lauchland Mackintosh, who was tossed on the main Ocean for four Days and Nights. Together with an account of his wonderful Dream, and the strange Conversation he had with the Mermaid, and how he was preserved after his Return to Inverness."

Now I had been aware of this story whilst researching my book on Scottish Water Horses a couple of years back, but ignored it along with the various sea serpent stories as I was more interested in land locked waters and rivers.

However, this blog has put up a couple of pieces on these fair, aquatic females. The first concerned the mermaid like creature of Loch Morar as related by folklorist Carmichael Watson:

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

The second account concerns Loch Duntelchaig which is a satellite loch of Loch Ness:

"The hill side which sloped down to the lake had the name of being haunted, and the waters of the lake itself had their ghostly inhabitant in the shape of what the Highlanders called the water-bull. There was also a story of some strange mermaid-like monster being sometimes seen, having the appearance of a monstrous fish with long hair."

I do not recall coming across any other such stories of loch mermaids, so they are in even shorter supply compared to their companions, the Kelpie, Water Horse and Water Bull. The old Victorian sceptics mused that the long strands of kelp that dotted the Scottish coastline may have reminded natives of the Kelpie mane and I don't doubt some would have speculated likewise concerning the long hair of the mermaid.

The trouble was that Kelpies were freshwater creatures, but why let the facts get in the way of a good theory?

↧

The Folklore of An Niseag

March 8, 2014, 12:08 pm

≫ Next: Fake and Real Photos

≪ Previous: Here Be Mermaids!

Where does folklore end and reality begin? What is the overlap between these two planes of "existence"? This was a question obliquely asked in a recent articleby “Dr. Beachcombing” when he reviewed my book “The Water Horses of Loch Ness”. You may wish to read his article first before proceeding here.

The Doctor (as I will call him) holds the article in tension between two schools of thought. On the one extreme, there is my view that these old tales had a biological basis in truth. That is, An Niseag (the old Gaelic for Nessie pronounced "An Nee-Shack"), was a real creature hidden under the various layers of folkloric accretions. But in opposition, was the dismissive view of Daniel Loxton, co-author of “Abominable Science”, who viewed all folklore as irrelevant to the question of what is the Loch Ness Monster. I reviewed that book from a Nessie perspective back in September.

He ultimately is sceptical of any real creature beneath the folkloric or real waves and sides with Loxton in that respect. However, he sides with this author in regards to Loch Ness folklore and opposes "Abominable Science". There was a tradition of a beast in Loch Ness which people believed to be true.

Delving further though, he had issues with some of the stories I presented. He though I was indulging in "special pleading" regarding the Richard Franck story of the 1658 "Floating Island". He does not say why, but given what I know about Loch Ness, I highly doubt Franck's mass of vegetation has any mileage. I refer him and readers to my article on that subject here.

DAVID MURRAY ROSE

There is also the issue of historian David Murray Rose's letter to The Scotsman on the 1st January 1934 which gives various known and unknown pre-1933 monster stories but (infuriatingly) without the name of the original sources. Another article by the Doctor which I covered here, partly vindicates Mr. Rose on another old story, but sadly progresses us not an inch on finding these particular old sources.

Indeed, I recently found another letter from Mr. Rose to The Scotsman for 30th November 1934 when I was looking for references to crocodiles at Loch Ness. The relevant portion is below and refers to dates around 1828 and 1850 but what quite prompted David Murray Rose to mention those dates, I have no idea (though he refers to his "notes" further in the letter).

Moving on, the Doctor is hesitant to accept stories from witnesses before 1933 but only made public after 1933. He feels there may be some form of Nessie "contagion" introduced into these accounts. I agree the possibility is there in theory but I do not accept that this invalidates all these accounts (though the Doctor does not do this either). Sceptical researchers can either dismiss them as fabrications or as people who genuinely saw something they could not explain years before (to which the usual boat wakes, birds and otter explanations are retro-fitted).

With the introduction of the Nessie genre in the 1930s, those witnesses may well have applied the monster template onto them, but that by no means lessens the degree of mystery they attached to what they saw. Hence, they should be assessed each on its own internal evidence, in the same manner as a more modern report.

THE ROOT

But it is then asked why one should accept the Kelpie tradition as being an indicator of something physically unknown anymore than the equally prevalent tales of fairies in the Highlands? Now, I may not believe in a race of indigenous fairy folk inhabiting the North of Scotland, but does that mean one must dismiss all Highland tales as having no tangible basis in reality? If people, outside of the Highland traditions, had not continued to report strange sights in Loch Ness, perhaps we would have.

Actually, this is where things dovetail into my separate paranormal studies. Since the days of Jacques Vallee's "Passport to Magonia" and John Keel's "Operation Trojan Horse", there has been a growing school of thought that many strange phenomena from centuries past up to this present day are merely different manifestations of the same underlying cause.

From diminutive fairies to Adamski's blond Venusians to today's skeletal grey aliens, none of them cohere together at the surface but they are all the same stuff of folklore both ancient and modern. The underlying cause is a matter of speculation and ranges from Charles Fort's "Cosmic Joker", to the Collective Unconsciousness of mankind to another intelligence. Or one could play it safer and speculate on something that emanates from our deepest psyche. I have no fixed opinion on the matter.

But as to the accretions of folklore, be it green-jacketed fairies or talking kelpies; these can be discounted as man's attempts to reconcile these shady phenomena with man's surroundings. The Doctor correctly points out that Kelpie folklore was important in providing part of the "kindling" that ignited a new level of story telling at Loch Ness, one which changed into a dinosaur (for me the same creature, but a different representation).

PERCEPTIONS AND CYCLES

The way I see it is represented in the diagram below which was part of my Kelpie talk at last year's "Nessie at 80" Symposium. In this we see two parallel but similar worlds. There is the ancient and modern branches which have a common root called "The Reality". From this springs what witnesses claim to have seen moving in the waters of Loch Ness. Here we have the first level of perception.

The next level of perception is the local group perception. Here the accounts of the witnesses are recounted, either to the local community of old or the researchers today who record the stories as faithfully as possible.

The final level of perception are the storytellers or their equivalent in the modern media. They take the recorded accounts and turn them into stories compatible with the culture of the day. So, in the diagram above, that transforms to the Kelpies, Water Horses and Water Bulls of fireside raconteurs. Today, it translates to the various green and fierce monsters of films, books and artists.

Finally, we have the downwards arrows feeding back from media and storytellers to community and researchers and finally to witnesses. These represent the cultural and scientific ideas of the time which shape to varying degrees how future generations will feed back up the loop. That in itself is a controversy as some say this is sufficient to form a positive feedback loop that can disengage from "The Reality" while I say there is no such thing as a free lunch in this matter and has to be sustained by whatever lies beneath the waves to propel it, else the whole cycle collapses after a short time.

Moreover, I would suggest that An Niseag was the "seed" for other Water Horse tales that sprung around ancient Scotland (perhaps Mhorag also helped). One proof of this is the higher than usual concentration of Kelpie lochs around Loch Ness. However, unlike An Niseag, these derived lochs have no underlying reality and hence peter out over time.

There is also a modern parallel to this when other aquatic cryptids gained prominence when Nessie appeared and a lot of modern sea beasts are often referred to as "The Loch Ness Monster of ...".

That much seems certain to me, but the root cause called "The Reality" which has no resolution because it is yet to be unambiguously observed foments controversy. To the skeptics it is simply a collection of unremarkable, everyday events. To others it is a creature of more interesting proportions.

THE GREAT FISH

One of the items from that time proved most interesting to the Doctor (as it does to me). The article in question was printed by the Inverness Courier on the 8^thOctober 1868 and is reproduced below.

A STRANGE FISH IN LOCH NESS

“A few days ago a large fish came ashore on the banks of Loch Ness about two miles to the west of Lochend Inn. Neither the name nor the species of the strange visitor could be satisfactorily explained, and large crowds of country people went to see and examine for themselves, but left without being able to determine whether the monster was aquatic, amphibious, or terrestrial. Some of the most credulous natives averred that a huge fish, similar in size and shape, had been occasionally seen gambolling in the loch for years back, and with equal determination protested that its being cast dead on the shore boded no good to the inhabitants – that, in fact, its presence presaged dire calamities either in pestilence or famine, or perhaps both.

At last, however, an individual better skilled in the science of ichthyology appeared on the scene, and ascertained that the strange visitor was nothing more or less than a bottled nosed whale about six feet long.

How one of the denizens of the ocean came to be cast ashore at Loch Ness was the next question, but, this too, has been set at rest, for it was ascertained that the blubber had been taken off!

The fish had, of course, been caught at sea, and had been cast adrift in the waters of Loch Ness by some waggish crew to surprise the primitive inhabitants of Abriachan and the surrounding districts. The ruse was eminently successful.”

This the story where folklore ends and reality begins. No longer the Kelpie of fireside ceilidhs, but a huge fish seen for years back. A great fish that coexisted with dark tales of aquatic horses was now in the process of decoupling from the legend. Let us take a closer look.

The background is a strange carcass found on the shores of Loch Ness near Abriachan. Being as yet unidentified, some of the local natives presumed it to be the Kelpie of old. We know this because of the supernatural construction they put on it by predicting calamity for the community. If you are familiar with this genre of folklore, it was known that bringing harm or imprisonment to a Kelpie was a sure path to ruin.

However, the correspondent seems to get his local natives mixed up as he also quotes them talking of a great fish. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Kelpies will know they were never likened to fish. Nevertheless, the author of the report assigns the label "credulous" and "primitive" to these people.

These derogatives very much explain the attitude of the Inverness Courier to any talk about strange creatures in Loch Ness and why we rarely heard anything about them. Quite simply, such tales were regarded as nonsense and superstition by the editors of the newspaper. With the Industrial Revolution transforming Scotland and Victorian academics assuring everyone that such tales were mythology, Highland newspapers were jumping on the progressive bandwagon.

So, any story you are likely to meet on this subject is going to be framed in a sarcastic way that not only entertains but very much advertises the modern, dismissive stance of the newspaper. This is corroborated in at least two other Loch Ness newspaper accounts of the time which leave the reader in no doubt about how the newspaper treats such a subject.

The other interesting point is why the Inverness Courier does not simply dismiss the tale of a great fish as yet another sturgeon story? A casual search of digital archives reveals various stories of sturgeons being caught around the Moray Firth and the River Ness. Why not state this as such a case? After all, the carcass was stated as being six foot long, which is a typical sturgeon size (though it is unclear how the locals decided their fish was six foot long - unless they were saying that six foot was visible at the surface). I would suggest the way the "great fish" story was related by locals to the journalist precluded such an explanation.

HOAX

And, finally, the reporter says the carcass was dumped "by some waggish crew to surprise the primitive inhabitants of Abriachan and the surrounding districts". Why did they do this? The phrase "primitive inhabitants" is linked to the previous phrase "credulous natives" and their great fish. I would suggest the crew were aware of the local tales of this beast and decided to pull off a hoax.

But you may say "A monster hoax at Loch Ness in Victorian times?" and I say "Yes". There was a sufficiently strong and contemporary belief in a large creature in Loch Ness to put the "progressive" newspapers in sarcastic mode and those itinerant fishermen into hoaxing mode. Or to put it another way, if there is a monster hoax, it presupposes a monster belief.

CONCLUSION

Did nothing more than waves, logs and birds cause the modern and ancient legends of the Loch Ness Monster? Are even modern stories just a continuation of the folkloric traditions which themselves will be discussed and pored over centuries from now? Or does it take more than the mundane to kick start these strongly held beliefs?

Regular readers will know this blog's answer to that question.

↧

Fake and Real Photos

March 13, 2014, 1:58 am

≫ Next: A Webcam Photo from Loch Ness

≪ Previous: The Folklore of An Niseag

Like me, you may occasionally search around the Internet for items of a cryptid nature. This image below came up and immediately caught my attention as it was a claimed photograph of Nessie. The website attributed it to an Alfred Gescheidt. As it turned out, Mr. Gescheidt was a famous photographer who died in 2012, but was well known for his pre-Photoshop like montages. He admitted to fooling people with a series of UFO photographs, and the raison d'etre behind this photo began to become clear. You can read his Wikipedia entry here.

The San Antonio Express for the 3rd October 1976 summed up the story:

More recently, Gescheidt plunged into the Loch Ness Monster controversy. “I got so far into that one that I came to believe Nessie might really be swimming around Scotland,” he said “After all. I had my own pictures to prove she was real ." Gescheidt became involved in the Loch Ness Monster after various newspapers published pictures from scientific sources, which were supposed to prove that the monster exists. “I looked them over and said to myself, if this is evidence, I can do better myself’ and did I — with a papier mache monster on Lake Michigan,”

One presumes the underwater Rines photographs were being referred to here. Again, we see the problem of taking a convincing photograph of the real Loch Ness Monster which avoids the charge of being faked. Of course, if Mr. Gescheidt had included the backdrop of Lake Michigan's distant shore line, we would have more information.

So chalk this one off next you stumble upon it.

↧

A Webcam Photo from Loch Ness

March 15, 2014, 5:27 pm

≫ Next: The Vagaries of Loch Ness Monster Journalism

≪ Previous: Fake and Real Photos

A reader of this blog called Luke emailed me a few days back with a couple of screen grabs he had taken of Loch Ness. The question concerned the dark shaped object that is there in the first snap but not in the second.

Luke cleaned up the image a bit to produce this clearer view of the object.

The webcam says the first image was taken on the 29th January 2013 at 14:17:22 and the second one ten seconds later. You can see a Caley Cruise type boat progressing down the loch on the top right.

So what is it? In terms of similarities to previous Loch Ness images, it reminded me of the photograph taken during the Edward Mountain expedition of July-August 1934 with that dark line and the blur above it (which I take to be spray thrown upwards).

I agree with Luke in his assessment that it is not something on the lens like the rain drops. The rain drops remain on the second image whilst the object does not. My own initial thought was that it might be an insect flying past the lens. The body is the extended dark line and the wings produce the blurred motion. However, what type of insect that might be I was not certain and I was further unsure whether insects are to be found flying around the cold Highland air in Winter?

However, if it was a large object in the water, then it would have clearly disappeared from view within ten seconds by the time the second webcam shot was taken. This being the case, I would expect some kind of water disturbance to be evident from this disappearing act.

Readers' comments are welcome.

↧

The Vagaries of Loch Ness Monster Journalism

March 19, 2014, 5:52 am

≫ Next: Shooting Bigfoot

≪ Previous: A Webcam Photo from Loch Ness

Paul Cropper sent me an interesting article from 1934 on the Loch Ness Monster as it was covered abroad. Paul himself is focused on more antipodean cryptids such as the Yowie, but he occasionally sends me anything he finds of Nessie interest. So, thanks again, Paul.

The article itself is from the Californian Fresno Bee publication of March 4th 1934 and is a syndicated article from London.

I am not sure if you can read the article (click to enlarge) but the gist of it concerns a monster hunt, the Arthur Grant land sighting and a few more sightings. The man in the kilt is Lord Scone, Member of Parliament and son of the Earl of Mansfield. Since we are told that the Loch Ness Monster was the talk of the Upper Classes and Lord Scone was a Fellow of the Royal Zoological Society, he was the perfect man to cover as he headed north to seek out the monster for himself.

Though he never caught sight of our famous beastie himself, Lord Scone apparently interviewed upwards of fifty locals and tourists who had claimed to have witnessed the monster in its various aspects. We are told about Alexander Ross, the master of Temple Pier, who saw the monster on three occasions the previous August, November and December.

But the piece de resistance was the famous (or infamous) Arthur Grant, who had seen the creature cross the path of his motor cycle earlier in January at the midnight hour. The picture below from the article says "Men examining prehistoric bones on shores of Loch Ness", but this is complete nonsense. The man on the right I would suggest is the now notorious Marmaduke Wetherell who was around during the Arthur Grant event, conducting his own search for the Daily Mail.

Wetherell went to the location of the land sighting and examined some bones found at the site which were no doubt nothing more interesting that those of a sheep or similar. The photo below gives some context to what I am saying. Clearly, the author of this article is being economical with the truth and he further embellishes Grant's account with stories of eyes bigger than street lamps and roaring belligerently.

What was most interesting was the article's talk of the "Society Monster Hunters" and a photograph of them flying over the monster swimming away at "30 miles per hour". We are pointed to the plane with the right arrow and the monster in the loch with the left arrow. Who is this mysterious organisation and what is the provenance of this photograph?

Things get stranger when an enlargement of the creature is provided in the next photograph below. On closer examination this turns out to be the Malcolm Irvine film of December 12th 1933. This is the first ever alleged motion film of the creature, but all we have left now is this still. However, Irvine claimed he took it from a hillside opposite Urquhart Castle on the other side of the loch. Clearly, this one is alleged to have been taken from a road by the Castle.

But when I saw that picture of the plane, beast and castle, I thought "Where have I seen that picture before?" and a look at Nicholas Witchell's "The Loch Ness Story" revealed the photo below (page 73 of the 1974 edition).

It is the same photo, but a close examination of it showed no plane and no monster! Overlaying the two pictures confirmed there is nothing at the same location on the original picture. The photo had been retouched to give the impression of a plane flying over a monster in the loch. It seems the editor of this article was not prepared to wait for the arrival of Photoshop. Note the monster hunter in the car is not even looking in the direction of the "monster"!

What are we to say to these things? Shoddy journalism in search of a bit of sensationalism is nothing new. I doubt this particular article had any big effect on the overall scheme of things, after all, who today knows about this alleged photograph?

But in the light of my recent modern folklore article, here we see the modern storytellers adding their cultural layers of "interpretation". Eyes like street lamps, roaring monsters and the mysterious band of "Society Monster Hunters" all were added to the mix and copied across various countries to present a picture of the monster which lacked the realism of what the witnesses claimed to have seen.

Fortunately, not all recorders of cryptid history are so fast and loose with the facts. But it is to be recognised that one has to sift and assess to a certain degree, though certainly not to the degree that everything is tossed into the bins of hoax or misidentification. The Loch Ness Mystery is much more subtle than that simplistic approach.

↧

Shooting Bigfoot

March 21, 2014, 2:14 pm

≫ Next: The Carcass Problem (Part 1)

≪ Previous: The Vagaries of Loch Ness Monster Journalism

A Sasquatch parenthetic here. The documentary "Shooting Bigfoot" will televise on British channel BBC4 this Monday (24th March) at 9pm.

"Shooting Bigfoot looks into the religiously obsessive, competitive and bitterly divided cult of Bigfoot hunting, as filmmaker Morgan Matthews accompanies three American Bigfoot search parties trying to capture proof of the elusive ape-like creature. Tom Biscardi has been hunting down Bigfoot for 37 years and adopts a military approach with his 'A team' of guys armed with thermal imagers and tasers in increasingly far-out attempts to capture the beast. Unemployed Dallas and Wayne in Ohio use more basic techniques, utilising cans of mackerel and Native American chants to lure the creature in. Only renowned 'master tracker' Rick Dyer is intent on shooting and killing the mysterious beast as he stakes out a stretch of woods in Texas populated by homeless people, many of whom claim to have seen Bigfoot. As truth and fact tip into malarkey, night-time hunts devolve into farcical displays of voodoo and comic stretches of the human imagination. What starts as a humorous look at perception gone off the rails, descends into a dark mystery as things get out of control during a close encounter in the woods."

This should shed some light on the Rick Dyer controversy ... I hope. YouTube trailer is here.

↧

The Carcass Problem (Part 1)

March 25, 2014, 2:34 pm

≫ Next: Why More Nessie Photos Are Not Taken

≪ Previous: Shooting Bigfoot

Is there a Loch Ness Monster? Does anything swim in the dark depths of that Scottish lake? The proofs offered range from controversial photographs and films to close up sightings by various people of varying observational skills. However, the gold standard that will finally convince the majority is a piece of the monster itself.

Once you deliver that pound of flesh to the laboratory of science, it is no longer a case of "if" but "what". To be fair to scientists, that has been pretty much the stance of zoologists since this mystery came to the public's attention 80 years ago. Admittedly though, some have departed from this strict methodology. Dr. Maurice Burton, who worked at the Natural History Museum, was one of the early advocates of some large creature in Loch Ness. As we know, he eventually retracted such views.

There was also Dr. George Zug, curator of Reptiles and Amphibians at the renowned Smithsonian Institute in Washington. Having examined the 1975 underwater photographs of the Academy of Applied Sciences, he said: "I believe these data indicate the presence of large animals in Loch Ness, but are insufficient to identify them."

But, in general, zoological scientists demand a live specimen or a verifiable sample of a dead animal. From these, morphological and genetic analysis leads to the creature being classified and taking its place in the "official" tree of life. Clearly, the Loch Ness Monster still swims outside of that system, despite premature names such as Nessiteras Rhomboteryx.

Visit a few cryptozoological forums and it won't take long to find skeptics deriding any talk of large, unknown creatures in lakes, forests or mountains which do not provide the body. The Loch Ness Monster is no different and the question has to be asked, why has no physical evidence for this creature turned up after eighty years of searching?

The critics say it is because there is no Loch Ness Monster. This blog takes a different answer to that question. But for part one of this subject, I look back at some claimed carcass finds in decades past. To this end, I recommend Glen Vaudrey's "Sea Serpent Carcasses: Scotland: from the Stronsa Monster to Loch Ness".

Glen's focus is on the various bodies that have washed ashore on Scotland's coasts over centuries past such as the Stronsay Monster of 1808 and the strange Gourock beast of 1942. Most of these have or will turn out to be the ubiquitous Basking Shark carcass, others may live on in mystery.

Firstly, in terms of folklore, we have a few tales of Kelpies being killed or captured. Those captured were press ganged into forced labour and one tale of a dead one describes it as assuming a jelly like form by the morning. None of these tales centre on Loch Ness.

But carcass stories from around Loch Ness take up about a tenth of the book and range from whole bodies to bits and pieces. The oldest one is surprisingly from 1868 when a strange looking body was found washed up at the top end of the loch. I covered this one in a previous article and it may surprise people that such a stunt was pulled 65 years before the Nessie story began in 1933. But monster tales have been around longer than that and evidently some waggish boat crew took advantage of this.

So a monster hoax presumes a monster tradition, and that carried on through to 1933 when Marmaduke Wetherell found his fabricated tracks on the loch side. This is not strictly carcass material, but residual traces of monsters such as tracks or faeces could, in theory, provide DNA material. I mused on this subject in this article.

The most well known Nessie "carcass" is the one which was supposedly found at Loch Ness on April 1st 1972 and was apprehended by the police by the Forth Road Bridge as its owners headed south. An examination proved it to be nothing more than a dead elephant bull seal with some cosmetic alterations. The date also gave away the motives of the perpetrators.

There are other stories you can consult in the book such as the dead conger eels found in 2001, the plesiosaur fossil vertebrae of 2003 and the alleged tooth of 2005. But there are two stories not mentioned in Dale's book which I cover here.

The first is the alleged carcass spotted by Robert Rines' team in 2001 as they sent a ROV down into the mouth of Urquhart Bay (below). It was found at a depth of about 330 feet. Now it has been speculated that it has a morphological resemblance to the Loch Ness Monster and that is conceded.

I myself think it is nothing more than tree debris. A lot of logs and branches make their way down from the rivers Enrick and Coiltie into the bay. Moreover, the size of the object is not stated and as far as I know, no attempt has been made to recover it.

The second concerns the object in the postcard below.

Now the story of this foot was certainly doing the rounds in the late 1950s and into the 1960s and was presented as proof of the Loch Ness Monster. Tim Dinsdale recounts looking at it during his second expedition to the loch in July 1960. You can read his fuller account in his book "Loch Ness Monster". However, he found it at a house in Drumnadrochit and the owner allowed him to examine it. The foot was well preserved and measured thirteen by seven inches.

It was apparently found by Urquhart Castle, but Tim was in little doubt it was the foot of an alligator or crocodile. He speculated it may have been from the Gharial species, of which we have a picture below to compare feet. Also note the long snout which Tim speculated could be mistaken for a long necked monster!

But Tim (like myself) speculated this may actually have been a genuine carcass find at Loch Ness. Dinsdale refers to the story related by Rupert T. Gould in his 1934 book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others" (page 140). Gould tells of a story from a Mrs. J. S. Fraser who was told to watch out for the crocodile by the shore of Dores in 1888. This was apparently due to a South African who had settled in a house between Dores and Foyers and had brought three young crocodiles. When they became too big to look after, he arranged for them to go to a zoo, only for one to escape into the loch.

A different slant on this story is given in a letter by David Murray Rose to The Scotsman newspaper of 30th November 1934. He tells of how three young crocodiles were presented to the Scientific Institute at Inverness by a John Fraser of Charlestown, Carolina in 1827. Two of them died and the other was placed in Loch Ness at some unspecified time. Rose speculates whether the longevity of crocodiles saw this one survive to that present day.

In fact, one crocodile was definitely seen in Loch Ness in 1938 as this article from the Scotsman shows!

Gould also makes mention of a crocodile like skull that was found in the waters of the River Shiel in Loch Moidart some years before 1933. This is a long way from Loch Ness but interestingly feeds into that other Water Horse body of water - Loch Shiel. Perhaps one loch monster has a carcass to speak of?

Such is the story, but one must wonder how long a crocodile would survive in Loch Ness? The aforementioned foot seems to have been found in 1937 in the waters of Urquhart Bay, according to an article I found from the Aberdeen Press and Journal of May 8th 1958 (below). Could this have been the foot of this escaped crocodile? Perhaps, perhaps not. I leave it to the reader to form their own opinion. It may yet turn out to be nothing more than a trophy foot brought in from a foreign trader.

In conclusion, Loch Ness has its fair share of carcass stories, but all are hoaxes with the possible exception of our crocodile foot. I am not suggesting Nessie is a crocodile, but two independent sources suggest a crocodile may have once inhabited Loch Ness for some period of time. One wonders where this foot is now? It makes for a great story and a nice exhibit for one of the exhibition centres at Loch Ness!

Part two of this article gets down to the nitty gritty question. Why has no Loch Ness Monster carcass been found? There are three possible answers to this, I concentrate on one of them next time.

↧

Why More Nessie Photos Are Not Taken

March 28, 2014, 6:06 am

≫ Next: The Carcass Problem (Part 1 Appendix)

≪ Previous: The Carcass Problem (Part 1)

Simple really.

↧