Loch Ness Monster

Loch Ness Monster
"Nessie" redirects here. For other uses, see Loch Ness Monster (disambiguation) and Nessie (disambiguation).

The Loch Ness Monster, or Nessie, is an aquatic being which reputedly inhabits Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. It is similar to other supposed lake monsters in Scotland and elsewhere, and is often described as being large in size, with a long neck and one or more humps protruding from the water. Popular interest and belief in the creature has varied since it was brought to worldwide attention in 1933. Evidence of its existence is anecdotal, with a few disputed photographs and sonar readings.

The word "monster" was reportedly applied for the first time to the creature on 2 May 1933 by Alex Campbell, water bailiff for Loch Ness and a part-time journalist, in an Inverness Courier report.[5][6][7] On 4 August 1933 the Courier published a report by Londoner George Spicer that several weeks earlier, while they were driving around the loch, he and his wife saw "the nearest approach to a dragon or pre-historic animal that I have ever seen in my life" trundling across the road toward the loch with "an animal" in its mouth.[8] Letters began appearing in the Courier, often anonymously, claiming land or water sightings by the writer, their family or acquaintances or remembered stories.[9] The accounts reached the media, which described a "monster fish", "sea serpent", or "dragon"[10] and eventually settled on "Loch Ness monster".[11]

On 6 December 1933 the first purported photograph of the monster, taken by Hugh Gray, was published in the Daily Express;[12] the Secretary of State for Scotland soon ordered police to prevent any attacks on it.[13] In 1934, interest was further piqued by the "surgeon's photograph". That year, R. T. Gould published an account[14] of the author's investigation and a record of reports predating 1933. Other authors have claimed sightings of the monster dating to the sixth century AD.

Saint Columba (565)

The earliest report of a monster in the vicinity of Loch Ness appears in the Life of St. Columba by Adomnán, written in the sixth century AD.[15] According to Adomnán, writing about a century after the events described, Irish monk Saint Columba was staying in the land of the Picts with his companions when he encountered local residents burying a man by the River Ness. They explained that the man was swimming in the river when he was attacked by a "water beast" which mauled him and dragged him underwater. Although they tried to rescue him in a boat, he was dead. Columba sent a follower, Luigne moccu Min, to swim across the river. The beast approached him, but Columba made the sign of the cross and said: "Go no further. Do not touch the man. Go back at once."[16] The creature stopped as if it had been "pulled back with ropes" and fled, and Columba's men and the Picts gave thanks for what they perceived as a miracle.[16]

Believers in the monster point to this story, set in the River Ness rather than the loch itself, as evidence for the creature's existence as early as the sixth century.[17] Sceptics question the narrative's reliability, noting that water-beast stories were extremely common in medieval hagiographies and Adomnán's tale probably recycles a common motif attached to a local landmark.[18] According to sceptics, Adomnán's story may be independent of the modern Loch Ness Monster legend and became attached to it by believers seeking to bolster their claims.[17] Ronald Binns considers that this is the most serious of various alleged early sightings of the monster, but all other claimed sightings before 1933 are dubious and do not prove a monster tradition before that date.[6]
D. Mackenzie (1871 or 1872)

In October 1871 (or 1872), D. Mackenzie of Balnain reportedly saw an object resembling a log or an upturned boat "wriggling and churning up the water". The object moved slowly at first, disappearing at a faster speed.[19][20] Mackenzie sent his story in a letter to Rupert Gould in 1934, shortly after popular interest in the monster increased.[20]
George Spicer (1933)

Modern interest in the monster was sparked by a sighting on 22 July 1933, when George Spicer and his wife saw "a most extraordinary form of animal" cross the road in front of their car.[8] They described the creature as having a large body (about 4 feet (1.2 m) high and 25 feet (8 m) long) and a long, wavy, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant's trunk and as long as the 10–12-foot (3–4 m) width of the road. They saw no limbs.[21] It lurched across the road towards the loch 20 yards (20 m) away, leaving a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake.[21]

It has been claimed that sightings of the monster increased after a road was built along the loch in early 1933, bringing workers and tourists to the formerly-isolated area.[22] However, Binns has described this as "the myth of the lonely loch", as it was far from isolated before then, due to the construction of the Caledonian Canal. In the 1930s, the existing road by the side of the loch was given a serious upgrade (just possibly this work could have contributed to the legend, since there could have been tar barrels floating in the loch).[6]
Hugh Gray (1933)

Hugh Gray's photograph taken near Foyers on November 12, 1933 was the first photograph alleged to depict the monster. It was slightly blurred, and it has been noted that if one looks closely the head of a dog can be seen. Gray had taken his Labrador for a walk that day, and it is suspected that the photograph depicts his dog fetching a stick from the loch.[23] Others have suggested the photograph depicts an otter or a swan. The original negative was lost. However, in 1963 Maurice Burton came into "possession of two lantern slides, contact positives from th[e] original negative" and when projected on screen it revealed an "otter rolling at the surface in characteristic fashion."[24]
Arthur Grant (1934)
Sketch of the Arthur Grant sighting.

On January 5, 1934 a motorcyclist, Arthur Grant, claimed to have nearly hit the creature while approaching Abriachan (near the north-eastern end of the loch) at about 1 a.m. on a moonlit night.[25] According to Grant, it had a small head attached to a long neck; the creature saw him, and crossed the road back to the loch. Grant, a veterinary student, described it as a cross between a seal and a plesiosaur. He said he dismounted and followed it to the loch, but only saw ripples.[14][26]

Grant produced a sketch of the creature, it was examined by zoologist Maurice Burton who stated it was consistent with the appearance and behaviour of an otter.[27] Regarding the long size of the creature reported by Grant; it has been suggested that this was a faulty observation due to the poor light conditions.[28] Palaeontologist Darren Naish has suggested that Grant may have seen either an otter or a seal and exaggerated his sighting over time.[29]
"Surgeon's photograph" (1934)

The "surgeon's photograph" is reportedly the first photo of the creature's head and neck.[30] Supposedly taken by Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London gynaecologist, it was published in the Daily Mail on 21 April 1934.[31] Wilson's refusal to have his name associated with it led to it being known as the "surgeon's photograph".[32] According to Wilson, he was looking at the loch when he saw the monster, grabbed his camera and snapped four photos. Only two exposures came out clearly; the first reportedly shows a small head and back, and the second shows a similar head in a diving position. The first photo became well-known, and the second attracted little publicity because of its blurriness.

Although for a number of years the photo was considered evidence of the monster, sceptics dismissed it as driftwood,[20] an elephant,[33] an otter, or a bird. The photo's scale was controversial; it is often shown cropped (making the creature seem large and the ripples like waves), while the uncropped shot shows the other end of the loch and the monster in the centre. The ripples in the photo were found to fit the size and pattern of small ripples, unlike large waves photographed up close. Analysis of the original image fostered further doubt. In 1993, the makers of the Discovery Communications documentary Loch Ness Discovered analysed the uncropped image and found a white object visible in every version of the photo (implying that it was on the negative). It was believed to be the cause of the ripples, as if the object was being towed, although the possibility of a blemish on the negative could not be ruled out. An analysis of the full photograph indicated that the object was small, about 60 to 90 cm (2 to 3 ft) long.[32]

Since 1994, most agree that the photo was an elaborate hoax.[32] It had been accused of being a fake in a 7 December 1975 Sunday Telegraph article which fell into obscurity.[34] Details of how the photo was taken were published in the 1999 book, Nessie – the Surgeon's Photograph Exposed, which contains a facsimile of the 1975 Sunday Telegraph article.[35] The creature was reportedly a toy submarine built by Christian Spurling, the son-in-law of Marmaduke Wetherell. Wetherell had been publicly ridiculed by his employer, the Daily Mail, after he found "Nessie footprints" which turned out to be a hoax. To get revenge on the Mail, Wetherell perpetrated his hoax with co-conspirators Spurling (sculpture specialist), Ian Wetherell (his son, who bought the material for the fake), and Maurice Chambers (an insurance agent).[36] The toy submarine was bought from F. W. Woolworths, and its head and neck were made from wood putty. After testing it in a local pond the group went to Loch Ness, where Ian Wetherell took the photos near the Altsaigh Tea House. When they heard a water bailiff approaching, Duke Wetherell sank the model with his foot and it is "presumably still somewhere in Loch Ness".[20] Chambers gave the photographic plates to Wilson, a friend of his who enjoyed "a good practical joke". Wilson brought the plates to Ogston's, an Inverness chemist, and gave them to George Morrison for development. He sold the first photo to the Daily Mail,[37] who then announced that the monster had been photographed.[20]

Little is known of the second photo; it is often ignored by researchers, who believe its quality too poor and its differences from the first photo too great to warrant analysis. It shows a head similar to the first photo, with a more turbulent wave pattern and possibly taken at a different time and location in the loch. Some believe it to be an earlier, cruder attempt at a hoax,[38] and others (including Roy Mackal and Maurice Burton) consider it a picture of a diving bird or otter which Wilson mistook for the monster.[19] According to Morrison, when the plates were developed Wilson was uninterested in the second photo; he allowed Morrison to keep the negative, and the second photo was rediscovered years later.[39] When asked about the second photo by the Ness Information Service Newsletter, Spurling " ... was vague, thought it might have been a piece of wood they were trying out as a monster, but [was] not sure."[40]
Taylor film (1938)

On 29 May 1938, South African tourist G. E. Taylor filmed something in the loch for three minutes on 16 mm colour film. The film was obtained by popular science writer Maurice Burton, who did not show it to other researchers. A single frame was published in his 1961 book, The Elusive Monster. His analysis concluded it was a floating object, not an animal.[41]
William Fraser (1938)

On 15 August 1938, William Fraser, chief constable of Inverness-shire, wrote a letter that the monster existed beyond doubt and expressed concern about a hunting party which had arrived (with a custom-made harpoon gun) determined to catch the monster "dead or alive". He believed his power to protect the monster from the hunters was "very doubtful". The letter was released by the National Archives of Scotland on 27 April 2010.[42][43]
Sonar readings (1954)

In December 1954, sonar readings were taken by the fishing boat Rival III. Its crew noted a large object keeping pace with the vessel at a depth of 146 metres (479 ft). It was detected for 800 m (2,600 ft) before contact was lost and regained.[44] Previous sonar attempts were inconclusive or negative.
Peter MacNab (1955)

Peter MacNab at Urquhart Castle on July 29, 1955 took a photograph that depicted two long black humps in the water. The photograph was not made public until it appeared in Constance Whyte's 1957 book on the subject. On 23 October 1958 it was published by the Weekly Scotsman. Author Ronald Binns wrote that the "phenomenon which MacNab photographed could easily be a wave effect resulting from three trawlers travelling closely together up the loch."[45]

Other researchers consider the photograph a hoax.[46] Roy Mackal requested to use the photograph in his 1976 book. He received the original negative from MacNab, but discovered it differed from the photograph that appeared in Whyte's book. The tree at the bottom left in Whyte's was missing from the negative. It is suspected that the photograph was doctored by re-photographing a print.[47]
Dinsdale film (1960)

Aeronautical engineer Tim Dinsdale filmed a hump which left a wake crossing Loch Ness in 1960.[48] Dinsdale, who reportedly had the sighting on his final day of search, described it as reddish with a blotch on its side. He said that when he mounted his camera the object began to move, and he shot 40 feet of film. According to JARIC, the object was "probably animate".[49][third-party source needed] Others were sceptical, saying that the "hump" cannot be ruled out as being a boat[50] and when the contrast is increased, a man in a boat can be seen.[49]

In 1993 Discovery Communications produced a documentary, Loch Ness Discovered, with a digital enhancement of the Dinsdale film. A person who enhanced the film noticed a shadow in the negative which was not obvious in the developed film. By enhancing and overlaying frames, he found what appeared to be the rear body of a creature underwater: "Before I saw the film, I thought the Loch Ness Monster was a load of rubbish. Having done the enhancement, I'm not so sure".[51]
"Loch Ness Muppet" (1977)

On 21 May 1977 Anthony "Doc" Shiels, camping next to Urquhart Castle, took "some of the clearest pictures of the monster until this day".[citation needed] Shiels, a magician and psychic, claimed to have summoned the animal out of the water. He later described it as an "elephant squid", claiming the long neck shown in the photograph is actually the squid's "trunk" and that a white spot at the base of the neck is its eye. Due to the lack of ripples, it has been declared a hoax by a number of people and received its name because of its staged look.[52][53]
Holmes video (2007)

On 26 May 2007, 55-year-old laboratory technician Gordon Holmes videotaped what he said was "this jet black thing, about 14 metres (46 ft) long, moving fairly fast in the water."[54] Adrian Shine, a marine biologist at the Loch Ness 2000 Centre in Drumnadrochit, described the footage as among "the best footage [he had] ever seen."[54] BBC Scotland broadcast the video on 29 May 2007.[55] STV News North Tonight aired the footage on 28 May 2007 and interviewed Holmes. Shine was also interviewed, and suggested that the footage was an otter, seal or water bird.[56]
Sonar image (2011)

On 24 August 2011 Loch Ness boat captain Marcus Atkinson photographed a sonar image of a 1.5-metre-wide (4.9 ft), unidentified object which seemed to follow his boat for two minutes at a depth of 23 m (75 ft), and ruled out the possibility of a small fish or seal. In April 2012, a scientist from the National Oceanography Centre said that the image is a bloom of algae and zooplankton.[57]
George Edwards photograph (2011)

On 3 August 2012, skipper George Edwards published what he claimed to be "the most convincing Nessie photograph ever", which he said he took on 2 November 2011. Edwards' photograph shows a hump above the water which, he said, remained there for five to ten minutes. According to Edwards, the photograph was independently verified by a Nessie sighting specialist and a group of US military monster experts. Edwards reportedly spent 60 hours per week on the loch aboard his boat, Nessie Hunter IV, on which he takes tourists for rides on the lake and claimed to have searched for the monster for 26 years.[58][59] Edwards said, "In my opinion, it probably looks kind of like a manatee, but not a mammal. When people see three humps, they're probably just seeing three separate monsters."[60]

Other researchers have questioned the photograph's authenticity, and Loch Ness researcher Steve Feltham suggested that the object in the water is a fibreglass hump used in a National Geographic Channel documentary in which Edwards had participated.[61] Researcher Dick Raynor has questioned Edwards' claim of discovering a deeper bottom of Loch Ness, which Raynor calls "Edwards Deep". He found inconsistencies between Edwards' claims for the location and conditions of the photograph and the actual location and weather conditions that day. According to Raynor, Edwards told him he had faked a photograph in 1986 which he claimed was genuine in the Nat Geo documentary.[62] Although Edwards admitted in October 2013 that his 2011 photograph was a hoax,[63] he insisted that the 1986 photograph was genuine.[64]
David Elder video (2013)

On 27 August 2013, tourist David Elder presented a five-minute video of a "mysterious wave" in the loch. According to Elder, the wave was produced by a 4.5 m (15 ft) "solid black object" just under the surface of the water.[65] Elder, 50, from East Kilbride, South Lanarkshire, was taking a picture of a swan at the Fort Augustus pier on the south-western end of the loch,[66] when he captured the movement.[67] He said, "The water was very still at the time and there were no ripples coming off the wave and no other activity on the water."[67] Sceptics suggested that the wave may have been caused by a wind gust.[68]
Apple Maps photograph (2014)

On 19 April 2014, it was reported[69] that a satellite image on Apple Maps showed what appeared to be a large creature (thought by some to be the Loch Ness Monster) just below the surface of Loch Ness. At the loch's far north, the image appeared about 30 metres (98 ft) long. Possible explanations were the wake of a boat (with the boat itself lost in image stitching or low contrast), seal-caused ripples, or floating wood.[70][71]
Google Street View (2015)

Google commemorated the 81st anniversary of the "surgeon's photograph" with a Google Doodle,[72] and added a new feature to Google Street View with which users can explore the loch above and below the water.[73][74] Google reportedly spent a week at Loch Ness collecting imagery with a street-view "trekker" camera, attaching it to a boat to photograph above the surface and collaborating with members of the Catlin Seaview Survey to photograph underwater.[75]