Nessie – can scientific investigation ever deny cryptid?

The iconic long-necked Nessie from the ‘30s:

The Loch Ness, believe it or not, only gained such worldwide attention within this century. The first publication that generated a wide audience was the testimonial of a local hotel-owner, the Mackay couple, on April 15, 1933. It described the sighting of a rolling “beast” or whale-like fish.  Soon after, in August, another report was published describing a sighting of a beast by George Spicer while driving by the Loch. This description was more vivid: the monstrous creature, resembling a prehistoric dinosaur, crawled back into the water. While the myth of the monster in the Loch has existed from ancient times (as far back as the 500s, where some versions of the tale include St. Columba combating a monster from this loch), a lot of the oral tradition included a more vague concept of a monster. However, the articles from the ’30s (and the widely popular movie at the time, King Kong (1933), which featured a long-necked dinosaur-like character, “possibly inspiring” these early sightings) started to capture the audience’s imagination on what this monster may look like. However, arguably what semented this monster’s visual is the most well-known photograph of the said cryptid: “the Surgeon’s photograph”. The iconic image that probably most of you imagine (a long neck, shadowy figure in clear waves of water) was published on April 20th, 1934, in a British newspaper as a submission of Robert Kenneth Wilson, a gynaecologist in London. When I popped into a souvenir shop, I found very few items with this re-print. While I got myself a shortbread pack with the closest resembling photo (who could resist!), THE photo was nowhere to be found. Was this just because of a copyright issue? …or is that photo, say, already known, to be NOT an actual Nessie?

Debunking and scientific investigations (?) of Nessie

For some reason, the lack of the iconic photo-merch bugged me more than the Nessie-less views of the Loch. Truth be told, I had zero expectations to see the cryptid itself, but I was hoping to indulge in historical pop-culture references that enchanted the world for nearly a century! Maybe I should have gone straight to the Loch Ness museum, but the drive this north from the hotel left us with limited time. So, I did some extra reading (online) and found out that my suspicion was right: that famous photo was, in fact, (alongside many pieces of evidence) debunked. “The Surgeon’s photograph”, in fact, was not taken by a surgeon at all. Instead, it was created by M. A. Wetherell, who had previously submitted and was denied the evidence of “Nessie’s footprint” by his employer, the Daily Mail. He planned a revenge in which he crafted the cryptid’s head and neck with wood putty and attached it to a toy submarine. This photo was then taken, which later investigation also revealed to have been cropped to manipulate the impression of size. The picture was then handed to his friend doctor, who then later sold the image to the Daily Mail, resulting in the publication. This (Wetherrell’s) Nessie was apparently sunken and is still possibly somewhere deep in the Loch today.

Many other pieces of evidence were also later debunked upon reinvestigation. The Taylor film from 1938 was found to be a floating object instead of an animal in 1961. Similarly, Perter MacNab’s photograph was analyzed either to be a misinterpreation of two consecutive waves forming a hump like shadow, or an intentional hoax. While much of the investigative efforts seem to have been going to primary dissect each and every notable sighting image, footage, etc (and mostly refuting them), there has also been some genuine “scientific exploration” that took place. The first one, being within a year after the notable siting in 1934,  Edward Mountain commissioned the first large-scale search with 20 men. With binoculars and cameras spread across the Loch, the investigation continued for 5 weeks, and yet no conclusive images were taken, with one film (now lost) may have possibly shown what appeared as a grey seal. By the 60s, the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau (LNPIB; later shortened to LNIB), a UK-based society, was fully established to investigate the Loch to identify the Loch Ness Monster or determine the causes of its sighting reports. They launched their first expedition with a whopping $20,000 grant from World Book Encyclopedia to fund a 2-year investigation during the days of May to October, resulting in area coverage of about 80% of the loch surface. Despite their search effort consisting of 1000s of members, including self-funded enthusiasts and successive sonar investigations, once again, nothing conclusive turned up. However, the sonar apparently picked up an “unidentified object” moving at 10 knots per hour, too fast for a typical fish. Such “possible leads from scientific investigation” definitely fueled the enthusiasm, but the advanced technology soon stacked more evidence against the existence of a prehistoric cryptid. In 2018, believe it or not, there was a DNA survey to search for any “unusual species” that could be indicative of an undiscovered cryptid. Surprisingly, no large fish or animal (like a seal) DNA was also found, with the biggest fish being mostly of an eel. This suggests two plausible (?) ideas that 1) there’s a mega eel (somehow never caught) or 2) a large amount of eel DNA traces accumulated from many small eels. Nevertheless, the researcher commented that “we can be fairly sure that there is probably not a giant scaly reptile swimming around in Loch Ness”.

Can Nessie invite you… to Biology?

These examples, while perhaps a killjoy for prehistoric cryptid seekers, are still a fascinating and illustrative example of biology and the science of ecosystems. Another of my favorite estimates suggests that for one of the most popular theories of the Loch Ness monster being an (ancient) humongous reptile to be true, at least 25+ individuals are needed to sustain its species. This “scientifically fleshed out” theory poses several problems where 1) it is estimated that the Loch can only sustain about 17-24 tons of fish (due to the low plankton count we talked about!) which would limit any large carnevours animal over 200-300kg to be up to 10 and 2) If it was a raptilian specie, they will need to breath which should result in much more frequent sighting as the cryptid. Overall, it appears that most scientific consensus of our knowledge of reptiles, ancient dinosaur species, and the Loch’s ecosystem conflicts with the presence of such a cryptid. In fact, the more seriously you consider it, the science says “highly unlikely”.

However, highly unlikely (the best denial science can provide against things that…doesn’t exist) according to peer-reviewed, consensus-driven scientific conclusion, does not stop enthusiasts from asking “what if”. Which I suppose is understandable, and ultimately, they have the freedom to think so. Some hobbyist investigator has claimed that he was able to find more plankton than what people typically assume, claiming that this would equate to the possibility of larger life! (But did he account for the waves/wind that could cause uneven distribution of planktons?)  Falsification spirit in itself is perhaps scientific, but ignoring all the other evidence that points against it is not so much. Personally, I find a lot of these science-based theoretical calculations of how many large cryptids we would need to sustain a species, or the possibility of large eels and waves from the unique geography much more fascinating.  However, then I started to wonder: why do we keep searching for THE THING that the evidence continues to be stacked against its existence? Ultimately, perhaps we (or some of us anyway) want to believe. And this want is so large that we are driven to go back to the drawing board again and again. Or perhaps it’s the romanticism of the unknown itself – to find the thing the elite academics have been saying wrong all this time and proving the underdog right. Or maybe it’s goodwill, and we don’t want to believe that people are lying intentionally. …Or maybe… it’s too expensive to let this story be completely banned at this point.

Either way, it is safe to say that there is no scientific consensus backed reasoning to suspect that a large, prehistoric-looking creature is in Loch Ness. However, I also started to come to terms with the fact that a lot of us are just enjoying the story of it all, and perhaps even the back-and-forth effort of proving and disproving.  Ultimately, this cryptid is arguably loved and needed by the town. Science, unfortunately, is often an expensive affair (especially the more resource-intensive conclusive approach like emptying out the Loch, for example), and a strong public interest is always a key to funding. If I were tasked to investigate when there is no scientific “reason to suspect” it exists, I personally can’t justify myself for putting my money and labor into it. However, while this might be wishful thinking, such tales can be leveraged to spark a more general scientific intrigue, perhaps enticing the cryptid hunters into other biodiversity citizen science projects even before they know it!  Furthermore, science doesn’t always have to be the killjoy denying fun, by encouraging people to challenge the convention (especially if it’s getting outdated). In that spirit, perhaps the High-Tech 2023 90th Anniversary Search is justified (albeit with willing participants). I think I’ll wait to pull out my bionoculars until National Geographic approves a photograph of Nessie (with a bounty of a million pounds) and entrusts the enthusiast to keep a watch for us.  Ultimately, while unintuitive for non-cryptid believers like me, Nessie investigations might just prove itself valuable as a great science public-engagement opportunity to fascinate a wider audience with the latest science investigation methods (often otherwise too technical and niche). Who knows, the kid walking out of the souvenir shop with the Nessie plushy might just gain enough intrigue in investigating the Loch under the lenses, and one day be the next scientist to find a much cooler Nessie in the water of Loch Ness under the microscope 🙂