The Loch Ness Chimera: an article and two reviews by GF Willmetts.
Originally, I planned to review these two books independently, but, donning my geek hat and adopting a scientific perspective on the Loch Ness kelpie, I decided to present them in an article format instead. Upon examining Roland Watson’s bibliography, I noticed a scarcity of modern books on the Loch Ness Monster. Surprisingly, I had read many of the older titles during my youth. Exploring his website, I discovered a plethora of books written more recently. I chose to focus on Watson’s two books because they are both up-to-date and analytical.
My approach involved examining the photographs and any analyses pertaining to their uncropped versions, as well as revisiting the same locations at later dates. Watson’s book accomplished this, presenting some recent photographs that I had not seen before. I would have preferred to view these photos in a glossy format, as standard black-and-white book reproductions can be grainy. However, I understand Watson’s rationale; opting for glossies would have increased the book’s production costs. He mentioned that he chose to self-publish because he doubted a larger publisher’s interest in his work. Hopefully, a bigger publisher will take notice and potentially offer a reprint, addressing the issue of photo quality.
I would appreciate a similar book that examines various film footage related to the Loch Ness Monster. However, this would likely require the inclusion of a DVD for comprehensive examination. Not all photos or footage are available online, and the internet, unfortunately, is flooded with fake images. Although the internet does not discriminate, it should.
My initial plan was to focus solely on one book, but Watson’s commentary on Nessie’s physical presence on land intrigued me. He has written a separate book on this topic, prompting me to expand my scope to include that work as well.
Photographs Of The Loch Ness Monster by Roland Watson
(pub: self-published, 2019. 302 page illustrated indexed enlarged paperback. Price: around £12.00 (UK). ISBN: 978-1-79325-684-3)
I only realized that this was Roland Watson’s third book on the Loch Ness Monster when I read the introduction. A quick online search revealed that there is now a fourth book, which focuses on how to handle sightings. Although I might consider picking up his book on land sightings, it seems somewhat incongruous with the current belief that Nessie is a giant eel. The most widely acknowledged instance of a land sighting occurred in the 1930s, amid extensive blasting for road construction around Loch Ness, primarily by the Spicers in 1933, and by other individuals later on. However, the descriptions from this period do not match any recognized species of eel. More information can be found at www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/Loch-Ness-Monster-Sightings-On-Land/
This book, ‘Photographs Of The Loch Ness Monster,’ analyzes various Nessie photographs to determine their authenticity. Similar to my recent review of a book on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), I am approaching this topic with a robust scientific mindset. I have read some of the earlier books on the Loch Ness Monster, though not with an explicit intention to review them. Like many before me, I initially assumed that most people took honest photographs rather than creating hoaxes, until the surgeon’s photograph was revealed to be a fake, pulling the rug out from under our collective feet. This book includes most of those infamous photographs.
A significant issue with photographing Loch Ness, which is a mile wide and 23 miles long, is that obtaining reference points for scale is challenging. I recommend that anyone lucky enough to encounter Nessie should take subsequent photos of the surrounding area to provide context and help estimate the creature’s distance and size.
When viewed in its entirety, the surgeon’s photograph reveals that the object is much smaller than the cropped version presented by newspapers led us to believe. The cropping distorted the image’s proportions, making the object appear larger and more credible than it actually was. Even the measurement of waves around an object in water doesn’t reliably indicate size. Please keep these factors in mind while going through the book and consider obtaining a copy for a thorough examination.
Watson mentioned that the book’s price, approximately £15.00, would have doubled if he had included color photos. Nevertheless, I believe that a section of glossy pages, whether in color or black and white, wouldn’t have significantly increased the cost and would have allowed readers to see the color photographs in their original form. The book appears to be self-published through Amazon, which might explain its limited availability. Watson should seriously consider approaching a larger publisher for a potential reprint.
While I won’t evaluate every photo in this brief article, I will offer comments on specific images that I believe warrant further discussion, encouraging readers to explore the book for a comprehensive understanding.
The first photo we examine is Hugh Gray’s 1933 snapshot. I recall delving into F.W. Holiday’s book, ‘The Great Orm Of Loch Ness,’ in the early 1970s. Holiday suggested that the image might be a double exposure. Importantly, he did not accuse Gray of deception, but rather pointed to a potential mishap during the negative processing. Watson challenges this perspective, proposing that two distinct versions of the photo circulated; one was cropped and darkened by a newspaper, leading to misrepresentation.
He suggests that, in the original version, we may be experiencing pareidolia, a phenomenon where the brain perceives familiar shapes in unrelated stimuli, akin to seeing animals in clouds. Eliminating this psychological aspect, Watson posits, leaves us with an image of an eel just beneath the water’s surface. I might raise a counterargument here, noting that it’s challenging to discern which end of the creature is the head or tail. Nevertheless, Watson’s analysis sets the tone for the examination of subsequent photographs.
A lingering question I’ve had over the years concerns the necessity of a creature colony for breeding purposes. Why do we typically observe just one entity near the surface? A few photos in this collection imply the presence of more than one creature, with multiple backs visible above the water. Further investigation led me to discover that some eel species exhibit communal behavior, which could potentially identify the species present. However, the Cockrell photo introduces a conundrum, depicting a head estimated to be five feet in length, indicative of a substantial species. The photo’s quality in this book does not do it justice; I’ve seen more impressive glossy renditions elsewhere. I concur with Watson’s assessment that the image is not fabricated. Recent photographs, particularly those capturing varying head descriptions, hint at the possibility of two distinct ‘monsters’ residing in Loch Ness. This revelation adds complexity to the narrative, potentially pointing to different eel species unless we revisit the 1930s land sightings. The hypothesis of a bulbous-bodied species, now possibly extinct or residing in one of the other 13 lochs (or even in Ireland), opens a new line of inquiry. Their means of dispersion raises questions about potential overland movement or an intricate cave system within the granite rocks. The recent discovery of a cave system at Loch Ness’s edge leaves much to be explored.
In drawing conclusions, I am reminded of the tale of three blindfolded individuals, each touching a different part of an elephant, unable to perceive the whole. This book leaves me with a similar feeling of fragmentation; we see parts, mostly the back, without forming a complete image. As a presumed eel, one would expect to see a lengthy dorsal fin along the back. The absence of this feature, whether due to the creature’s position or another factor, is perplexing.
Watson’s suggestion that some of the photographed humps may belong to more than one creature, and the potential existence of two different species, introduces new questions and complexity. Yet, it is plausible that a fish-like species could thrive on the Loch’s salmon population.
Watson wisely advises readers to convert JPG photos into BMP format to prevent pixel loss during repeated analysis.
He deliberately avoids comparisons with wave formations and other natural explanations, though he notes that many of these photographs were taken on relatively calm days. By highlighting issues with fraudulent photos, Watson equips us to discern authentic images, leaving us better informed overall.
GF Willmetts
October 2023
Despite the extensive analysis of which photos are genuine or fabricated, little consideration has been given to understanding why a water-breathing creature would surface, albeit briefly. The aforementioned book notes that brown eels, measuring around 18 inches in length, inhabit Loch Ness. If the Loch Ness Monster is indeed a member of the eel family, estimates of its size range from 15 to 40 feet in length. Given that water temperatures in Loch Ness do not exceed 20°C, and typically range from 5°C to 10°C, coupled with the lack of foliage to generate oxygen, it is reasonable to surmise that air saturation levels are relatively low. Consequently, a large creature, or multiple creatures, might need to surface occasionally to breathe, particularly when pursuing a diet rich in salmon. However, this does not necessarily mean that they would surface in areas frequented by onlookers with cameras. Additionally, the question of whether these creatures ever come ashore remains unresolved. It is also possible that we are dealing with more than one species.
A Google search reveals some intriguing information: some eel species can live up to 150 years. However, this does not explain how this particular species could achieve such extraordinary lengths without further DNA analysis.
Turning our attention to land sightings, we begin with the Spicers in the 1930s. It seems unlikely that they could have mistaken what they saw for an elephant, as the presence of a nearby circus would have been a clear giveaway. Over the years, one would expect more evidence to emerge, if not in the form of photographs, then certainly in terms of tracks or resting spots. It is conceivable that this particular species has since become extinct. Proposals that the creature could be a long-necked seal are also untenable, as this species is extinct as well. Seals, being mammals, would need to surface regularly to breathe. Watson notes that any cetaceans in a freshwater loch would not survive for long, as they are adapted to seawater. Additionally, when dead in water, internal body gases would cause them to float to the surface, had they been present. Watson suggests that the depth of the loch and its peaty soil may prevent this from happening, implying that any remains of creatures consumed would also sink. The beaching of a dead whale at Loch Fleet is cited as evidence supporting this theory. However, cetacean sightings in Loch Ness have been quickly and accurately identified.
The possibility of two distinct types of creatures residing in the loch complicates matters further. Recent evidence suggesting the presence of two large and two smaller creatures did make me consider the possibility of a colony. However, if there are indeed two different species, this doubles the complexity of identifying each.
When Monsters Come Ashore by Roland Watson
(pub: self-published, 2018. 267 page illustrated indexed enlarged paperback. Price: varies. ISBN: 978-1-981527-900-5)
Upon acquiring ‘When Monsters Come Ashore,’ the first thing I noticed was that it predates the previously discussed book. This is likely due to the fewer reports available for analysis – 36 sightings, to be exact, according to author Roland Watson. My personal criteria for this analysis focus on understanding why a massive water-breathing creature would come ashore and any associated behavior patterns.
Watson’s approach is meticulous. He visits the locations of these sightings, taking measurements and assessing distances. Unlike other authors who have speculated about Nessie, Watson is diligent in verifying these details.
He begins his exploration in modern times with the Spicers, who in July 1933, witnessed a gigantic creature crossing the road a few hundred feet ahead of them, disappearing into the loch. While they were unaware of what they had seen, the incident made headlines. Even though the Spicers did not linger long after observing the trampled path to the loch, verified by a local resident, one must wonder about the creature’s origins and whether it followed the same route both ways. If so, there would need to be a turnaround point.
Watson also explores reports from local inhabitants that predate the Spicers’ sighting, although he does not mention the infamous fake Surgeon’s photo from April 1934. Nonetheless, it raises the question of what inspired the photo and sustained the image over the years, given that previous reports mentioned a long-necked animal. Unlike the Spicers, other land-sighting witnesses did report seeing a head.
Interestingly, most land sightings are reported by individuals with no prior interest in the creature, and who were not actively seeking it out. This begs the question of why there haven’t been more land sightings. For those interested in exploring the reports further, Watson’s website (www.lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk) is an excellent resource.
I will instead focus on aspects of the reports that struck me personally. All accounts describe the creature returning to the loch, where Watson has noted the water is deep enough for it to quickly dive. This raises the question of whether the creature consistently comes ashore at the same point. Future sightings could potentially track how far the creature travels on land and its points of entry and exit. One report notes that the creature’s weight compressed shingle on the beach, indicating that it is not lightweight.
The reports consistently describe a creature with a long tail, a neck with a small head, a large undulating body, and strong flippers capable of supporting its weight – characteristics not in line with descriptions of a giant eel. I have pondered the undulating motion, a characteristic of Otariidae (seals, sea-lions, etc.). This compressing and uncompressing of the spine is a practical form of locomotion for species more accustomed to water. However, the presence of back flippers, as Watson notes, rules out this family. The creature must also have a thick layer of blubber, as no reports mention visible spine bones, unlike in elephants where the spine is prominent. This layer of blubber would also help insulate the creature in the cold temperatures of Loch Ness. However, this leads to speculation: Are we potentially dealing with two species? The eel-like creature and this one appear unrelated.
The patterns observed suggest that Nessie is a nocturnal predator. Watson addresses this, using the blind man allegory to tackle the issue of the creature’s appearance. With 85,000 meters of beach around Loch Ness, there is a vast area to cover, though most sightings occur on one side, possibly indicating the presence of caves. Most water sightings occur in summer, and the creature appears to feed most in February, suggesting a possible hibernation period over winter for at least one of the two species. The discovery of caves at least provides a potential habitat or means of accessing land. Upon inquiry, Watson explained that granite in the area could cause fissures and caves, though the extent of this cave system remains unknown.
Watson also discusses the likelihood of Nessie’s feces being liquid rather than solid, with no samples found to date. While this could potentially be revealed in water samples, it raises questions about the creature’s digestive habits in relation to its diet, predominantly fish with the occasional deer.
In concluding my analysis, the main creature appears to be a chimera, exhibiting traits from various species, making it difficult to assign a specific genus.
The book is certainly worth exploring, especially for its online sighting reports. Given the prevalence of infrared equipment in wildlife TV shows, I am surprised that no one has thought to place IR cameras in likely areas during peak seasons, particularly at night, to see what might be recorded.
GF Willmetts
October 2023
Drawing conclusions from all this data requires extensive contemplation. I can formulate an argument suggesting that the creatures are not permanent residents of the Loch, though this depends on the extent of the granite-based cave systems underground. The sightings on land and at the surface suggest that the creature may not be entirely aquatic and could possibly be amphibious. However, the challenges related to its size and any similarities to known species make identification particularly tricky. The development of a species in isolation is not unprecedented, provided there are sufficient numbers for a viable population. Over at least five centuries, it’s possible that an offshoot of an extinct species could evolve. Nevertheless, I doubt that it’s a type of extinct long-necked seal, given that it does not appear to have four flippers.
Interestingly, the latest Loch Ness survey conducted this year yielded results similar to a previous one, detecting four large underwater objects. However, no boats were dispatched to track them, which is becoming increasingly perplexing. It’s possible that the tourist board fears a loss of visitors if Nessie is conclusively identified. On the contrary, I suspect that a confirmed sighting would initially attract more visitors, eager for a glimpse before the creature potentially retreats into hiding once more.
Furthermore, a definitive identification of such a cryptobeast would likely encourage exploration and potential discovery of other elusive, predominantly land-dwelling creatures. Each case should, of course, be evaluated on its own merits. It’s worth noting that killing any of these creatures is prohibited by law, though this might not deter everyone. Given their elusive nature, attempting such a feat would likely prove challenging.
The existence of potentially two large species in one loch, supported only by fleeting photographic evidence, leaves much to speculation. The discovery of eel DNA in the water creates a conundrum for the land-sighted creature unless it confines its spores to the cave network. Its appearance certainly does not resemble that of an eel.
In a conversation with author Roland Watson, he expressed the difficulty in convincing people of the existence of even one type of creature in Loch Ness, let alone two. Some behaviors, particularly those observed on land, are distinctly un-eel-like. If we are indeed observing an eel, it would have to be capable of inflating its body, or we are dealing with an entirely different species.
There are certain constraints to consider. The creature must either be amphibious or fully aquatic. The loch’s low temperatures do not rule out the possibility of it being a mammal, as several species are known to have a layer of blubber for insulation.
Reflecting on this draft, I had a final thought. Although the books under review do not address this, and my memories are drawn from earlier readings, there were reports of a mane on the creature’s neck. Witnesses did not capture this detail in photographs, leading to the creature’s occasional description as a ‘water-horse.’ While current blurry neck photos show little evidence of this, it did make me wonder if this feature could be an external gill structure, similar to those found in some salamander species. Of course, it’s unlikely to be a salamander, given their small size and lack of known species with long necks.
Despite my skepticism regarding dinosaur-origin theories for one of the creatures, I don’t deny the possibility of a similar shape. We’ve observed parallels between marsupials and placental mammals adapting to similar environments. A long-necked creature in Loch Ness would only need to float near the surface, extending its neck to catch passing salmon – a behavior that would account for back sightings and require significantly less energy. A creature resembling a tanystropheus, but with a shorter neck, small head, bulbous body, and four flippers, could potentially fit the description. I emphasize ‘resembling,’ not ‘being,’ as there is a crucial distinction. The genus of the main creature remains undetermined, but this shape appears frequently enough to warrant consideration.
Given the recordings from two different sonar sweeps of Loch Ness conducted in different decades, both of which detected large swimming creatures, one would think there is sufficient evidence to bring us closer to identifying the elusive Nessie. My hope is that this discovery happens within my lifetime.
GF Willmetts
October 2023
My thanks to Roland Watson for commenting on a draft of this article and I’ve incorporated some of his comments in this draft up-date.
