This is so legendary tale, that I’m going to describe just a little of Nessie and then try to focus on the latest information about it. Here is the description of Nessie:
The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid, reputedly a large unknown animal that is said to inhabit Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. It is similar to other supposed lake monsters in Scotland and elsewhere, though its description varies from one account to the next. Popular interest and belief in the animal’s existence has varied since it was first brought to the world’s attention in 1933. Evidence of its existence is anecdotal, with minimal and much-disputed photographic material and sonar readings.
The most common speculation among believers is that the creature represents a line of long-surviving plesiosaurs.The scientific community regards the Loch Ness Monster as a modern-day myth, and explains sightings as including misidentifications of more mundane objects, outright hoaxes, and wishful thinking.Despite this, it remains one of the most famous examples of cryptozoology. The legendary monster has been affectionately referred to by the nickname Nessie (Scottish Gaelic: Niseag)since the 1950s.
The term “monster” was reportedly applied for the first time to the creature on 2 May 1933 by Alex Campbell, the water bailiff for Loch Ness and a part-time journalist, in a report in the Inverness Courier.On 4 August 1933, the Courier published as a full news item the assertion of a London man, George Spicer, that a few weeks earlier while motoring around the Loch, he and his wife had seen “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 carrying “an animal” in its mouth.Other letters began appearing in the Courier, often anonymously, with claims of land or water sightings, either on the writer’s part or on the parts of family, acquaintances or stories they remembered being told.These stories soon reached the national (and later the international) press, which described a “monster fish”, “sea serpent”, or “dragon”,eventually settling on “Loch Ness Monster”.On 6 December 1933 the first purported photograph of the monster, taken by Hugh Gray, was published in the Daily Express,and shortly after the creature received official notice when the Secretary of State for Scotland ordered the police to prevent any attacks on it.In 1934, interest was further sparked by what is known as The Surgeon’s Photograph. In the same year R. T. Gould published a book,the first of many that describe the author’s personal investigation and collected record of additional reports pre-dating 1933. Other authors have claimed that sightings of the monster go as far back as the 6th century (see below).
Saint Columba (6th century)
The earliest report of a monster associated with the vicinity of Loch Ness appears in the Life of St. Columba by Adomnán, written in the 7th century.According to Adomnán, writing about a century after the events he described, the Irish monk Saint Columba was staying in the land of the Picts with his companions when he came across the locals burying a man by the River Ness. They explained that the man had been swimming the river when he was attacked by a “water beast” that had mauled him and dragged him under. They tried to rescue him in a boat, but were able only to drag up his corpse. Hearing this, Columba stunned the Picts by sending his follower Luigne moccu Min to swim across the river. The beast came after him, but Columba made the sign of the cross and commanded: “Go no further. Do not touch the man. Go back at once.”The beast immediately halted as if it had been “pulled back with ropes” and fled in terror, and both Columba’s men and the pagan Picts praised God for the miracle.
The oldest manuscript relating to this story was put online in 2012.Believers in the Loch Ness Monster often point to this story, which takes place on the River Ness rather than the loch itself, as evidence for the creature’s existence as early as the 6th century.However, sceptics question the narrative’s reliability, noting that water-beast stories were extremely common in medieval saints’ Lives; as such, Adomnán’s tale is likely a recycling of a common motif attached to a local landmark.According to the sceptics, Adomnán’s story may be independent of the modern Loch Ness Monster legend entirely, only becoming attached to it in retrospect by believers seeking to bolster their claims.In an article for Cryptozoology, A. C. Thomas notes that even if there were some truth to the story, it could be explained rationally as an encounter with a walrus or similar creature that had swum up the river.R. Binns acknowledges that this account is the most serious of various alleged early sightings of the monster, but argues that all other claims of monster sightings prior to 1933 are highly dubious and do not prove that there was a tradition of the monster before this date.
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.They described the creature as having a large body (about 4 feet (1.2 m) high and 25 feet (7.6 m) long), and long, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant’s trunk and as long as the 10–12-foot (3–4 m) width of the road; the neck had undulations in it. They saw no limbs, possibly because of a dip in the road obscuring the animal’s lower portion.It lurched across the road towards the loch 20 yards (20 m) away, leaving only a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake.
In August 1933 a motorcyclist named Arthur Grant claimed to have nearly hit the creature while approaching Abriachan on the north-eastern shore, at about 1 a.m. on a moonlit night. Grant claimed that he saw a small head attached to a long neck, and that the creature saw him and crossed the road back into the loch. A veterinary student, he described it as a hybrid between a seal and a plesiosaur. Grant said he dismounted and followed it to the loch, but only saw ripples.Some believe this story was intended as a humorous explanation of a motorcycle accident.
Sightings of the monster increased following the building of a road along the loch in early 1933, bringing both workmen and tourists to the formerly isolated area Sporadic land sightings continued until 1963, when film of the creature was shot in the loch from a distance of 4 kilometres. Because of the distance at which it was shot, it has been described as poor quality.
Chief Constable William Fraser (1938)
In 1938, Inverness Shire Chief Constable William Fraser wrote a letter stating that it was beyond doubt the monster existed. His letter expressed concern regarding a hunting party that had arrived armed with a specially-made harpoon gun and were 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.
C. B. Farrel (1943)
In May 1943, C. B. Farrel of the Royal Observer Corps was supposedly distracted from his duties by a Nessie sighting. He claimed to have been about 250 yards (230 m) away from a large-eyed, ‘finned’ creature, which had a 20-to-30-foot (6 to 9 m) long body, and a neck that protruded about 4–5 feet (1.2–1.5 m) out of the water.
Sonar contact (1954)
In December 1954 a strange sonar contact was made by the fishing boat Rival III. The vessel’s crew observed sonar readings of a large object keeping pace with the boat at a depth of 480 feet (146 m). It was detected travelling for half a mile (800 m) in this manner, before contact was lost, but then found again later.Many sonar attempts had been made previously, but most were either inconclusive or negative.
Sonar image (2011)
On 24 August 2011, Marcus Atkinson, a local Loch Ness boat skipper, photographed a sonar image of a long 5 ft wide unidentified object which was apparently following his boat for two minutes at a depth of 75 ft. Atkinson ruled out the possibility of any small fish or seal being what he believed to be the Loch Ness Monster. In April 2012, a scientist from the National Oceanography Centre said that this image is a bloom of algae and zooplankton.However, Roland Watson, a cryptozoologist and Loch Ness Monster researcher, has criticized this analysis, stating that the object in the image is very unlikely to be a bloom of algae and zooplankton, since algae needs sunlight to grow, and the waters of Loch Ness are very dark, and nearly devoid of sunlight, 75 feet down.
George Edwards’ photograph (2011)
On 3 August 2012, skipper George Edwards published a photograph he claims to be “The most convincing Nessie photograph ever”, which he claimed to have taken on 2 November 2011. Edwards’ photograph consists in a hump out of the water which, according to him, remained so for five to ten minutes. The Daily Mail reports that Edward had the photograph independently verified by specialists such as a Loch Ness Monster sighting devotee and a group of US military monster experts. Edwards spends 60 hours per week on the loch aboard his boat, Nessie Hunter IV, in which he takes tourists for a ride on the lake, and claims to have searched for the Loch Ness monster for 26 years.Said Edwards, “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.”
However, other researchers of the Loch Ness phenomena have questioned the authenticity of the photograph. A subsequent investigation by Loch Ness researcher, Steve Feltham, suggests that the object in the water is in fact a fibreglass hump used previously in a National Geographic documentary which Edwards had participated in. Researcher Dick Raynor has also questioned Edward’s claims about finding a deeper bottom to Loch Ness, which he refers to as “Edwards Deep”. He also found inconsistencies between Edwards’ claims of the location and conditions of the photograph and the actual location and weather conditions of that day. Additionally, Raynor also stated that Edwards had previously told him he had faked a photograph in 1986, which he had promoted as genuine in the National Geographic documentary.
Next video is from series “Stuff They don’t want You To Know”:
Here’s the Cryptozoologist Fredrick William Holiday who dedicated his life to investigate The Nessie:
Motivated by the early 1930s media reports, Holiday would dedicate the rest of his life to investigating the Loch Ness monster. In the 1960s, Holiday became a member of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau. After several hundred hours of watching the Loch, Holiday claims that he reported four unidentified sightings. In his 1968 book, The Great Orm of Loch Ness, Holiday postulated that the creature in the Loch was an invertebrate creature similar in form to the extinct Tullimonstrum gregarium, but vastly larger.
Holiday also claimed that he noticed several unusual coincidences, including camera malfunction during certain Nessie sightings. For example, in August 1968, even though there were several witnesses along the shore, “Nessie” chose to appear in one of the very few places that were obscured from the various cameras. Holiday reported, “The observers were watchful and keen but they had seen nothing. The phenomenon had concealed itself so there was nothing for them to see.”
By 1972, Holiday modified his initial hypothesis that the Loch Ness monster was a literal physical animal. In his second book, The Dragon and the Disc, Holiday postulates that there are certain commonalities between paranormal phenomena and certain reported sightings on the Loch. Holiday also believed that there is a relationship between ancient dragon legends and contemporary UFO phenomena. Though he maintained in the book that he still believed that the monster was an invertebrate animal, there was a paranormal aspect to it reminiscent of ancient Water Horse legends which he could not fully explain.
His final work, The Goblin Universe, was published posthumously and includes an introduction by Colin Wilson.
Here is on of Fredrick’s book called “The great Orm of Loch Ness: A practical inquiry into the nature and habits of watermonsters”:
So that’s Nessie… difficult subject to investigate because of hoaxed photographs, videos, computer graphics etc. That’s why I didn’t post them here. You can check them up and make your own conclusions. I think that major part of The Nessie legend is based on tourism and making money. If you want my wildest guess about it… it could be a hologram to fright people, maybe there is a military base somewhere they want to protect… gotcha 😆 Stay tuned for more CREATURES FROM BEYOND!