It is quite uncontroversial that the majority of eyewitness reports of the Loch Ness Monster are misidentifications of mundane or prosaic phenomena, for example, floating logs, boat wakes, swimming deer, otters, leaping fish and diving birds (Nickell, 2007). Some are also of common meteorological phenomena such as mirages – in which refracted rays of light produce a displaced image of a distant object (Dick Raynor has captured a mirage effect on camera) – and wind-slicks (Shine, 2017). The biologist Roy Mackal estimated 90% of Loch Ness Monster reports are mistakes, errors, or misinterpretations by observers, leaving 10% unexplained (Mackal, 1976, p. 200).
There are currently 1,148 recorded observations on the Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register. In other words, 1,033 reports of the Loch Ness Monster can be readily dismissed. Mackal, however, almost certainly overcounted the number of unexplained reports. A more rigorous analysis of the same reports Mackal investigated reduces this number to ~3% (Akins, 1977, p. 43). In other words, only a few dozen eyewitness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster are difficult or impossible to explain by mundanities. These unexplained reports tend to include sightings made at close distance, as well as reports corroborated by independent eyewitnesses on opposite sides of the loch.
The residue reports that are seemingly not explainable by ordinary phenomena have led some to believe the Loch Ness Monster is an unknown animal species (a list of unidentified animal hypotheses has been compiled by Charles Paxton and Adrian Shine). In 1960, the zoologist Maurice Burton concluded a small minority of Loch Ness Monster reports require an extraordinary explanation, and later went on to argue the putative monster is an elusive ‘long-necked otter’ (Burton, 1961, pp. 165-170).
There are problems facing unidentified animal hypotheses, whether they be long-necked otters, giant sea-turtles (Bauer, 2020) or an unknown species of pinniped (Costello, 1975). Aside from the sheer lack of physical evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, there are ecological arguments against the existence of large unidentified creatures in the loch. Even Mackal realised the difficulty of explaining how a food source could viably sustain a population of large aquatic animals. His suggestion that the migratory habits of salmon might explain the food source was shown to have been based on a flawed calculation (Anon, 1975). As noted by palaeoanthropologist Darren Naish:
Indeed, the organic productivity of Loch Ness is so low that even the most optimistic calculations show that a population of large aquatic animals could not survive here, and certainly not for generations.
If the Loch Ness Monster as an unidentified animal is extremely improbable, does this mean the residue reports will always be left unexplained? Some argue the Loch Ness Monster is a paranormal entity (Redfern, 2016), but these supernatural hypotheses are even less credible than so-called ‘flesh and blood’ cryptozoological explanations. In an overlooked article in Journal of Meteorology, Terance Meaden once tried to solve the issue by proposing a rare meteorological phenomenon (Meaden, 1976). In his book A Monstrous Commotion: The Mysteries of Loch Ness, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at Bristol University, Gareth Williams, mentions Meaden’s hypothesis:
Wind can incite water to behave in a monstrous fashion. The mini tornadoes known as dust devils have an aquatic counterpart, which can spring up, move across a stretch of water then collapse. ‘Water devils’ can appear solid, especially when seaweed or floating debris are dragged up into the rotating column of water, and might explain reports of ‘sea serpents’ seen like rising like pillars out of the ocean. The editor of the Journal of Meteorology, writing to Peter Scott in 1978 believed that water devils could account for some monster sightings.
Small whirlwinds (so-called ‘water devils’) have been observed over the surface of Loch Ness (and other lochs) but they are seen very rarely, which explains why inexperienced observers mistook them at a distance for the Loch Ness Monster. There are perhaps other meteorological explanations for Loch Ness Monster sightings which plausibly explain a few residue reports. Reflections of tropospheric clouds have long been suggested; however, they are a poor explanation since they appear flat on the surface of the loch (most Loch Ness Monster reports instead describe a monster hump or multiple undulating humps above the water surface). This rules out ordinary cloud reflections.
As a teenager, I once travelled on holiday to Loch Ness and observed an unusual meteorological phenomenon during summer of 2007. This was of noctilucent clouds over the loch. NLCs are luminous clouds in the mesosphere which can only be observed in the summer, during twilight. What amazed me the most was the luminous reflection of these clouds which I had perceived slightly above surface of the water. This is explained by the fact the brightness of objects affects perception of depth cues (brighter objects are perceived to be closer than darker objects). Could reflections of NLCs explain some unexplained Loch Ness Monster reports?
I began two years ago to analyse residue reports of the Loch Ness Monster which might have been reflections of NLCs. I managed to find two or three reports (Smith, 2023). My study passed peer-review and was recently published in Coolabah’s special issue on “On gases, clouds, fogs and mists”.
References
- Anon. “What do Monsters eat?,” New Scientist 68, no. 980 (1975): 739
- Bauer, “Loch Ness Monsters as Cryptid (Presently Unknown) Sea Turtles”, Journal of Scientific Exploration 34, no. 1(2020): 93-104
- Akins, W. The Loch Ness Monster (New York: Signet, 1977).
- Burton, M. “The Loch Ness Monster: A Reappraisal,” New Scientist 8, no. 201 (1960): 773-775
- Burton, M. The Elusive Monster (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1961)
- Costello, P. In Search of Lake Monsters (St. Albans: Panther Books, 1975)
- Mackal, R. P. The Monsters of Loch Ness (London: Futura Publications, 1976)
- Meaden, T. “A Meteorological Explanation for Some of the Mysterious Sightings on Loch Ness and Other Lakes and Rivers,” Journal of Meteorology 1, no. 4 (1976): 119-124
- Naish, D. “How do we Know that the Loch Ness Monster Doesn’t Exist?,” BBC Science Focus, November 25, 2020.
- Nickell, J. “Lake Monster Lookalikes,” Skeptical Briefs 17, no 2 (2007): 6-7.
- Paxton, C. G. M., and Shine, A. “A Checklist of Historical Hypotheses for the Loch Ness Monster,” Journal of Cryptozoology 4 (2016): 21-38
- Redfern, N. Nessie: Exploring the Supernatural Origins of the Loch Ness Monster, Woodbury (MN: Llewellyn Publications, 2016)
- Shine, A. “Adrian Shine on Making Sense of the Loch Ness Legend,” The Scotsman, February 3, 2017
- Smith, O. D. “Nessie and Noctilucent Clouds: A Meteorological Explanation for Some Loch Ness Monster Sightings,” Coolabah 34 (2023): 25-45
- Williams, G. A. Monstrous Commotion: The Mysteries of Loch Ness (London: Orion Books, 2015)
