From Abracadabra to Zombies
reader
comments:
Loch Ness "monster"
12 Nov 2003
I carry a passing interest in the paranormal and just plain strange
myself, and your site has often been a point of reference for the more
rational explanations for things. I must say, however, that I don't agree
with everything you say, but I suppose that's to be expected.
Regarding Loch Ness, I wish to refer you to two sources which I found interesting. I'm a Nessie agnostic, so to speak, but I found this page compelling:
It details "Operation Deepscan," wherein a whole flotilla of boats scoured the loch for any sign of Nessie. They did, in fact, report three contacts, at a depth of 78 meters. The contacts were "larger than a shark, but smaller than a whale," according to the site. If it's a fish, that's one huge fish. If it's not a fish, it might be...well, something else. I'll leave that to you.
A list of all the known instances in which Nessie (or something) has been caught on film, including as recently as 1992. I have read a report that someone photographed or videotaped Nessie (or something) in 2002, but cannot locate that source at the moment.
Additionally, I once had (but am kicking myself that I cannot now find) a link to a set of three photographs taken of Nessie, within seconds of each other. One photograph is easy to take, granted, but three of the same object is a little harder, especially if there is motion between the pictures (e.g., Nessie [or something] was in a different pose and position each time). Admittedly, it doesn't prove a thing, but it does raise the possibility that there might be some wiggle room. During the sonar scan operation, one of the boat operators logged a sonar depth of 812 feet, despite the known fact that the loch is only 748 feet deep. This means that he found an underground cave, which could conceivably be the place Nessie (or something) is hiding. In my book, absence of proof is not proof of absence, and I have to ask myself (especially in the instances in which multiple hundreds of people reported seeing the creature) if it wasn't Nessie, what was it? The existence of two or three plesiosaurs beneath the lake seems a far more plausible explanation to me than that thousands of people, over fifteen hundred years, have all been delusional.
I doubt you have the time to visit those links, but if you can take the time, thank you in advance.
Jim
reply: You don't have to be delusional to misperceive or draw erroneous conclusions from murky data. But, if I had to bet on either 2 or 3 plesiosaurs in the lake or thousands of people being delusional, I'd go with the sure thing.
Below is Julie Atkinson's response to Jim.
25 Dec 2003
Jim,
Let's get a few things clear about the Nessie legend:
1) It is NOT ancient. Please see my previous letter for more information about the Columba "sighting", a garbled version of which appeared in a Scottish newspaper in 1933 and has been misleading the public ever since. The letter's author, D. Murray Rose, also claimed that Nessie was seen in 1520,1771 and 1885 but provided no evidence for this - and his own theory was that Nessie was probably a shark! Claims that a number of books written between the second and nineteenth centuries mention a large unknown animal in Loch Ness are equally worthless; the passages have either been wrenched out of context or simply don't exist. Finally, the folk culture of the Highlands has been studied extensively and there is not a trace of Nessie in song or story.
2) Where is the evidence that Nessie has been seen by "thousands of people over fifteen hundred years"? No-one saw monsters in Loch Ness before the early 30s! When Nicholas Witchell wrote "The Loch Ness Story" in 1974 he claimed that there were 4000 eyewitness accounts; when Ronald Binns investigated ten years later he found fewer than 400 recorded between 1933 and 1984, most of them extremely ambiguous. Believers often overlook the fact that most "eyewitnesses" are visitors who are familiar with the legend and would dearly love to see Nessie, not local people who are familiar with local wildlife, boat wake patterns and weather conditions.
3) There have been many reports of large mysterious objects in the Loch showing up on sonar - who can forget "Dr" Robert Rines and his sonar-triggered photographs of Nessie's face and flippers? The fact remains that that the interpretation of such data is as much an art as a science (sonar evidence has been used both to confirm and deny the existence of underwater caves), and the hundreds of sonar-equipped trawlers which have sailed up and down the loch over the years have discovered nothing.
4) Just suppose for the sake of argument that big unknown creatures have been living in Loch Ness for centuries. In order to survive they would need a fairly large breeding population, in which case the animals would have been seen by local residents on a daily basis; they would need an ample supply of food, and there is no reason to suspect the existence of fish predators larger than otters in Loch Ness; and what happens to the dead creatures? Why do we never hear of bones, skin and bits of flesh washing up on the shore or turning up in fishing nets?
I can understand the appeal of Nessie. So can the Scottish Tourist Board. But most visitors to Scotland will have to be content with seeing him/her in the form of a plush toy or cartoon, which in a way is entirely fitting for a character younger than Micky Mouse!
Julia D Atkinson (proud owner of a toy Nessie!), York, England
07 Aug 2003
If only Stephen Lyons ("Birth of a Legend" link) had bothered to do his
homework!
Eighteen years ago Robert Binns, in his meticulously-researched book "The Loch Ness Mystery Solved", pointed out that the St Columba story is a typical "saint-overcomes-monster" tale which owes more to Irish folklore than Scottish history. The encounter took place not in Loch Ness but in the shallow River Ness, and only a very petite monster would have been able to make its way into the Loch. Adamnan's "Life of Saint Columba" is full of descriptions of the saint's miraculous power over animals, such as a giant wild boar.
The Pictish "monster carvings" are found throughout Scotland and have no local connection with Loch Ness. The serpent design is one of the most commonly used of fourteen Pictish symbols, and there is no reason to believe that it represents a real animal.
As for the theory that the construction of the "new road" next to the Loch disturbed the creatures and led to a mass of sightings - this road has existed since the end of the 18th century and is clearly marked on old maps of the region, including the 1906 "Red Guide to Oban, Fort William and the Western Highlands". In 1933 parts of the road were merely repaired and resurfaced, and it has been suggested that floating debris and empty tar barrels dumped by the workers may indeed have been mistaken for large animals. Ironically, the Great Glen Exhibition at Fort Augustus once included an old large-scale Bartholomews map of Loch Ness which clearly shows the "new" north shore road...
The number of sightings seems to be wildly exaggerated, and it is worth pointing out that taken as a whole they do not indicate a plesiosaur-like creature. Nessie has been seen sporting hair, horns and huge sturdy legs.
In short, there is no evidence of an ancient monster tradition at Loch Ness. Contrary to the impression given by pro-monster authors, the Loch Ness area has been a popular holiday destination since late Victorian times yet not a single tourist, fisherman, or local resident reported seeing large unknown animals before the early 1930's. Without Alex Campbell, the Loch's publicity-loving water bailiff and part-time contributor to the local paper, there would be no Nessie industry today.
Best wishes, and I hope the new book reaches a large audience!
Julia D Atkinson
21 Sep 2000
I have read with interest the discussion on the Loch Ness events. I find
the discussions interesting but believe that there may be a simpler
answer. I live near Lake Ontario in New York state and have had the
pleasure of spending a great deal of time there. ( I have also visited
Loch Ness but I digress) The wind is almost always present in this region
due to the temperature differences between the lake and shore. However at
dusk and dawn the wind has died down and lake is calm. One early fall
evening just before sunset I was observing a wonderfully tranquil and flat
lake surface. To my surprise a torrent "magically appeared" on
the surface of the water about 30m offshore. The Lake churned and foamed
and large ripples about .5m appeared and then turned to move away from
shore. Ah the sea monster, you say! No I say a school of Salmon or Lake
Trout following a smaller school of fish feeding on surface insects. As
fall approaches the big fish come in closer and closer to shore, with the
dropping water temperature they are able to do so with better feeding
opportunities. They are also preparing to spawn. I believe the big fish
followed the smaller in and all the fish scattered as the realized how
close they came to the shore line. I have never seen the event again, but
it easy to see how someone could have mistaken that for a humped creature
who arose and then turned quickly out to sea.
Jim Baker
reply: There's just one problem. Loch Ness is not full of nutrients and as far as I know there are no large schools of fish in the lake, nor is it known as a great breeding ground.
15 Jul 2000
I think the mystery of the Loch Ness monster has been clearly solved:
sightings tend to take place some years after there has been mass
tree-felling. The theory relies on the fact that the trees are mainly pine
and the water is cold. The trees go in the loch, become waterlogged and
sink. The pine resin however seals the logs at a point at which there is
still some microbial decompositional activity within what is now a log.
The microbial gas creates pressure, which is eventually released, under
pressure. The blackened slimy logs are now propelled to the surface and a
monster is seen. Thus also accounting for foaming water and undulating
movement.
Gary Mason
reply: You could be right, Gary. Then again, you could be wrong. How do the surfaced trees go back underwater? Adrian Shine thinks people have been seeing an underwater wave. Maybe the underwater waves are bobbing the underwater trees. Then again, maybe not.
14 Jun 1999
Are you aware of Richard
Carter's simulation and analysis of the Loch Ness film by Tim Dinsdale?
His write-up is on the Legend of Nessie site. It is worth noting that
Richard Carter is a Nessie-believer. The film simulation hopefully lays
Dinsdale's film finally to rest, as it really does show that he merely
filmed a boat under poor lighting conditions. Stills from the simulation
(which involved filming a boat) very closely resemble stills from
Dinsdale's film. I'm sure this comes as no surprise to you, but it is
significant for two reasons: (1) It is surely the end for the one
remaining piece of "evidence" the believers have been clinging
onto for the last 39 years; and (2) This is the most important thing: It
tells us a huge amount about false perceptions of objects on the loch.
Tim Dinsdale was a well-respected figure, with a scientific background. However, he filmed a boat, and subsequently recalled: "Unhurriedly I stopped the car and raising my binoculars, focused them carefully upon it. The object was perfectly clear and now quite large.........It lay motionless on the water, a long oval shape, a distinct mahogany colour and on the left flank a huge dark blotch could be seen, like the dapple on a cow. For some reason it reminded me of the back of an American buffalo - it had fullness of girth and stood well above the water...." [this is a quote from Dinsdale's book 'Loch Ness Monster' - the quote is featured in Witchell's 'The Loch Ness Story'.
Dinsdale's experience when making this film in 1960, led him to dedicate much of his life to searching for the monster until he died in 1987. He inspired many other people to search too. For me, this is very significant. It shows the extent to which expecting to see a monster distorts perception when people visit the loch. It also says something about the reliability of recollections of events. The text in the above quote cannot be true in the light of the fact that it clearly was only a boat in the film, yet it is detailed and stated with absolute conviction - which no doubt strengthened over time [if he hadn't at first at least slightly doubted what he'd seen, it's unlikely he'd have sent out a boat and filmed it for comparison later on in the day].
The whole saga says so much about unsubstantiated eyewitness
accounts. Here was an intelligent man, utterly convinced he'd seen a hump
in great detail, with a film which he thought backed this belief up.
However, due to the fact that we can see that he was wrong, we can
discount his "sighting". If we hadn't seen the film, he would've
been recorded as one of the very many convincing eyewitnesses - who are
very convincing because they have successfully and completely convinced
themselves!
Mark Fox
8 Jan 1999
Your web site is wonderful! I had to write after recently viewing (and
sleeping through parts) of the Nova Loch
Ness Monster gush-a-thon. Although
Nova usually does a good job of not
suffering fools lightly, they really missed the ball on this one. My wife and I (when I
wasn't sleeping) were just rolling on the floor over some of the drivel they were trying
to pass off as serious.
reply: I, too, thought the Nova piece was poorly done. I would have focused on how there is obviously no connection between intelligence and the ability to think critically. What a waste of brainpower on the part of the big brains featured as the centerpiece of the show:
"Robert Rines, a lawyer trained in physics....Harold "Doc" Edgerton, the legendary MIT scientist who had invented side scan sonar and strobe photography; and Sir Peter Scott, one of Britain's most respected naturalists." The show reminded me of one of Francis Bacon's sayings: "the lame man who keeps the right road outstrips the runner who takes the wrong one. Nay it is obvious that when a man runs the wrong way, the more active and swift he is the further he will go astray."Another thing I would have focused on is sense perception. Nova spent a good bit of time focusing on whether the Wilson fake photo was really a fake. Recreating the fake monster and trying to recreate the same background in a photo was insignificant, I think, compared to what might have been done by exploring the question as to how so many sightings could all be of a non-existent creature. Nova could have explored pareidolia, misinterpretation of sense data, the power of suggestion, the role of desire in perception, etc.
Having been to Loch Ness myself, I observed a couple of phenomena that you might be interested in. My wife and I rode bicycles along the Caledonia Canal in 1984 from Inverness to Fort William. Because we were traveling at a much slower speed than most tourist we were able to observe the amount of optical equipment that people had set up in each pull-out along the Loch. Curiously from Inverness to Urqhart Castle every pull-out had several people with high power binoculars, telescopes, telephoto lenses, etc. all pointed out over the Loch.
However once you passed the Castle the amount of viewing dropped to zero. From the Castle to Fort William, we did not see anyone looking over the Loch. Another phenomenon we observed was at Urqhart Castle itself. While touring the castle ruins we both happened to notice a boat go by a few tens of meters from the shore line, an event which was unremarkable except for what followed. Several minutes later after the boat had gone down the Loch and was no longer in sight, we observed a wave building to the northeast of the castle, about 30m to 40m off shore. The wave swirled around and around in a circle, drawing ever tighter and building up until it had reached a few centimeters in height (maybe as high as 30 cm) with a loud rushing sound until it abruptly disappeared, exactly like the description in the Nova piece from the head investigator.
I think that Urqhart Bay has a curious structure that allows waves to be reflected back on themselves. To the northeast of the castle is a curved bay which allows boat wakes to be reflected on focused to a certain spot long after the boat has passed. Along with the legend and an active imagination, anyone could build monsters out of these waves. In fact one of the famous Nessie pictures showing Urqhart Castle in the background and Nessie in the foreground has Nessie almost perfectly positioned in the focus of the bay.
Keep up the good work! Your site is a barrel of laughs!
Stuart Black
17 Nov 1996
I have just read your piece on the Loch ness monster in the Skeptic's Dictionary, and although I am a Ness investigator and on the "other side" as it were, I think your work was well-written and logically thought out.
However there is one piece of info you divulge that is a bit off the mark. You refer to the Nessie business as providing full employment to cryptozoologists like Alastair Boyd. I thought you ought to be aware that Mr Boyd does not profit from full employment in this field. I have spent many months this year in his company and can assure you he makes nothing out of cryptozoology. In fact he makes nothing out of anything, simply because he has been the victim for quite a few years of Myoencephalic Emeylitis or M.E. as it is more commonly known.
Alastair is unable to work and it is nothing short of superhuman that he found the strength in his condition to track down Spurling and obtain the story on the surgeon's photo hoax. It would be good of you if you were to alter the offending paragraph in the interests of complete accuracy in your otherwise splendid article.
As a skeptic you surely must believe that accuracy is the best policy.
John Kirk.
When you purchase something from Amazon.com through one of our links we earn a commission, which helps pay for the maintenance of this site.
* AmeriCares *
