Early precursors 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 7th century CE. 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" that mauled him and dragged him underwater despite their attempts to rescue him by boat. 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." 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. Skeptics 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. According to skeptics, Adomnán's story may be independent of the modern Loch Ness Monster legend and became attached to it by proximity and by believers seeking to bolster their claims. Christopher Cairney uses a specific historical and cultural analysis of Adomnán to separate Adomnán's story about St. Columba from the modern myth of the Loch Ness Monster, but finds an earlier and culturally significant use of Celtic "water beast" folklore along the way. In doing so he also discredits any strong connection between
kelpies or water-horses and the modern "media-augmented" creation of the Loch Ness Monster. He also concludes that the story of Saint Columba may have been impacted by earlier Irish myths about the Caoránach and an
Oilliphéist.
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," moving slowly at first before disappearing at a faster speed.
Alexander Macdonald (1888) In 1888, mason Alexander Macdonald of
Abriachan Macdonald reported his sighting to Loch Ness
water bailiff Alex Campbell, and described the creature as looking like a
salamander. discussed a sighting by Aldie Mackay of an enormous creature with the body of a whale rolling in the water in the loch while she and her husband John were driving on the A82 on 15 April 1933. The word "monster" was reportedly applied for the first time in Campbell's article, although some reports claim that it was coined by editor Evan Barron.
The Courier in 2017 published excerpts from the Campbell article, which had been titled "Strange Spectacle in Loch Ness". "The creature disported itself, rolling and plunging for fully a minute, its body resembling that of a whale, and the water cascading and churning like a simmering cauldron. Soon, however, it disappeared in a boiling mass of foam. Both onlookers confessed that there was something uncanny about the whole thing, for they realised that here was no ordinary denizen of the depths, because, apart from its enormous size, the beast, in taking the final plunge, sent out waves that were big enough to have been caused by a passing steamer." According to a 2013 article,
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. They described the creature as having a large body (about high and long) and a long, wavy, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant's trunk and as long as the width of the road. They saw no limbs. It lurched across the road toward the loch away, leaving a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake. It had "an animal" in its mouth Loxton and
Donald Prothero later cited
King Kong as evidently an influence on the Loch Ness Monster myth. On 4 August 1933 the
Courier published a report of Spicer's sighting. This sighting triggered a massive amount of public interest and an uptick in alleged sightings, leading to the solidification of the actual name "Loch Ness Monster." 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. Others have suggested that 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 onto a screen they revealed an "otter rolling at the surface in characteristic fashion."
Arthur Grant (1934) On 5 January 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. 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 saw only ripples. Grant produced a sketch of the creature that was examined by zoologist
Maurice Burton, who stated it was consistent with the appearance and behavior of an otter. 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. Paleontologist
Darren Naish has suggested that Grant may have seen either an otter or a
seal and exaggerated his sighting over time.
"Surgeon's photograph" (1934) The "surgeon's photograph" is perhaps the most famous alleged photo of the creature, and the first to portray its head and neck. It is attributed to
Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London
gynaecologist. On 20 April 1934, multiple British newspapers reported Wilson's claim to have seen the monster while driving near Loch Ness the day before, but the stories do not mention the existence of a photograph. "Dr. Wilson described the monster as having a small head and a swan-like neck protruding three feet above the surface of the water," the
Western Morning News reported. For 60 years, the photo was considered evidence of the monster's existence, although skeptics dismissed it as driftwood, It had been described as fake in a 7 December 1975
Sunday Telegraph article that fell into obscurity. 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. The creature was reportedly a toy submarine built by Christian Spurling, the stepson of actor, screenwriter, director, producer, and -- perhaps most saliently -- big-game hunter M. A. Wetherell. Spurling admitted the photograph was a hoax in January 1991. Wetherell had been publicly ridiculed by his employer, the Daily Mail
, after he found "Nessie footprints" that turned out to be a hoax. To get revenge on the Mail'', Wetherell perpetrated his hoax with co-conspirators Spurling (sculpture specialist),
Ian Colin Marmaduke Wetherell (his son, himself a future actor, who bought the material for the fake), and Maurice Chambers (an insurance agent). The toy submarine was bought from
F. W. Woolworth, 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 Marmaduke Wetherell took the photos near the Altsaigh Tea House. When they heard a
water bailiff approaching, Wetherell sank the model with his foot and it is "presumably still somewhere in Loch Ness". 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, who then announced that the monster had been photographed. and others (including
Roy Mackal and Maurice Burton) consider it a picture of a diving bird or otter that Wilson mistook for the monster. According to Morrison, when the plates were developed, Wilson was uninterested in the second photo; he allowed Morrison to keep the negative, and the photo was rediscovered years later. 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."
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.
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 that 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.
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 . It was detected for before contact was lost and regained. Previous sonar attempts were inconclusive or negative.
Peter MacNab (1955) Peter MacNab at
Urquhart Castle on 29 July 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." Other researchers consider the photograph a hoax. 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.
Dinsdale film (1960) Aeronautical engineer
Tim Dinsdale filmed what he believed to be a dark hump that left a wake crossing Loch Ness on 23 April 1960. Dinsdale, who reportedly had the sighting on his final day of search, described it as mahogany red with a blotch on its side when viewed through binoculars. He said that when he mounted his camera the object began to move, and he shot of film. According to the
Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) who published a 1966 report analyzing the film, the object was "probably animate". After the film, Dinsdale continued to pursue finding the Loch Ness Monster but while he claimed to have had additional sightings he was unable to produce more photographic evidence. 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 that 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." However, additional analyses of the Dinsdale film have indicated that his sighting was a case of mistaken identity and that he likely filmed a boat under poor lighting conditions. Although Dinsdale attempted to rule this out by organizing for a fishing boat to sail a similar route later that morning, this comparison was filmed under different lighting conditions, with a white boat. JARIC's estimates of the size and speed of the object are now believed to be overestimates, due to miscalculations of the angle of the camera and cuts in the film, and overlaying multiple frames seems to show a pale blob towards the rear end of the object, which appears in multiple frames and matches with the position of the helmsman of a boat as demonstrated in Dinsdale's boat comparison. It has also been noted that the object in his film does not actually submerge as often perceived but blends into the greyer reflections on the water. Additionally, Dick Raynor has noted that Dinsdale's binoculars were actually a wider field of view than his telephoto camera. Additionally, critics consider the dark shape noticed by the Discovery documentary analysis unlikely to be the shadow or a body underwater due to the low angle of view, and it is more likely to be reflections of the shore behind the object. Although most researchers do not believe Dinsdale to be a hoaxer, his susceptibility to
confirmation bias and trusting dubious sources as evidence has been criticized.
"Loch Ness Muppet" (1977) On 21 May 1977,
Anthony "Doc" Shiels, camping next to Urquhart Castle, took what were alleged to be the clearest picture of the monster then available. Shiels, a magician, 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 the squid's "trunk" and that a white spot at the base of the neck is its eye. Due to the lack of ripples and translucent look, it has been declared a hoax by many people and received its name because of its staged look.
Holmes video (2007) On 26 May 2007, 55-year-old laboratory technician Gordon Holmes videotaped what he said was "this jet black thing, about long, moving fairly fast in the water.",
BBC Scotland broadcast the video on 29 May 2007.
STV News North Tonight aired it on 28 May 2007 and interviewed Holmes. Adrian Shine, a
marine biologist at the Loch Ness 2000 Centre in
Drumnadrochit, suggested that the footage was an otter, seal or water bird.
Sonar image (2011) On 24 August 2011, Loch Ness boat captain Marcus Atkinson photographed a
sonar image of a , unidentified object that seemed to follow his boat for two minutes at a depth of 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.
George Edwards photograph (2011) On 3 August 2012, skipper George Edwards claimed that a photo he took on 2 November 2011 shows "Nessie". Edwards claims to have searched for the monster for 26 years, and reportedly spent 60 hours per week on the loch aboard his boat,
Nessie Hunter IV, taking tourists for rides. 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." 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. 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 that he claimed was genuine in the National Geographic documentary. Although Edwards admitted in October 2013 that his 2011 photograph was a hoax, he insisted that the 1986 photograph was genuine. A survey of the literature about other supposed sightings, including photographs, published in
The Scientific American blog network on 10 July 2013, indicates none of them are actual sightings. 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, when he captured the movement. 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."
Apple Maps photograph (2014) On 19 April 2014, it was reported 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 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.
Drone footage (2021) In September 2021, it was reported that a creature was captured on a live-stream near the loch, though it was quickly described as a digitally altered video by skepticists due to the lack of natural movement, an unlikely degree of illumination, and its resemblance to a stock image of a 'toy plesiosaurus'. ==Searches==