After Dark: Myths, Misdeeds & the Paranormal - Is the Loch Ness Monster real?

Episode Date: December 30, 2024

What lurks beneath the dark waters of Loch Ness? The legendary monster? A piece of Celtic folklore? A warning of the Nazis' rise to power? A fraudster?Today Anthony and Maddy are examining grainy photographs, picking over descriptions of monsters and trying to work out what it all means.Written by Anthony Delaney. Edited by Tom Delargy. Produced by Freddy Chick. Senior Producer is Charlotte Long.This episode contains sound effects from Zapsplat.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.After Dark: Myths, Misdeeds & the Paranormal is a History Hit podcast.

Hi, we're your hosts, Anthony Delaney and Maddie Pelling. And if you would like After Dark myths, misdeeds and the paranormal ad free and get early access, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries with top history presenters and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello and welcome to After Dark, I'm Maddie. And I'm Anthony. And while the Christmas holidays are still ongoing, the snow is falling, here's hoping,

we're taking a break and we're bringing you some of our favourite episodes from the first ever full year of After Dark. It has been completely magical, a complete whirlwind. It has been a roller coaster. What other cliches can I say? It's been wild, hasn't it, Anthony? It has been wild. But listen, it's nothing compared to the year we have in store for you. 2025 is just around the corner and my book is also coming out. Anyway, coming up in January, we've got episodes about the final days of Rasputin, about Mary, Queen of Scots, about the great fire of London.

I've forgotten about all of these. These are good episodes, actually, and lots more. LW – We have to do an end of year review every time because Anthony cannot remember a single topic we've done. We record, it is over, and he forgets it. So this is what we'll be doing at the end of our Christmas holidays, sitting down and looking at the list of things we've done during the year that Anthony has forgotten about. But what Maddie Pelling are we listening to today? Well, Anthony P. Delaney, I don't know what the P is for. Patrick. I was going to take an educated guess, but then I thought that might be problematic to do that. Were you going to guess Patrick? I was, funnily enough. And now I know today's episode is number 11.

It was quite an early one that we did. And we are heading up to the highlands of Scotland in search of none other than the Loch Ness Monster. There was loads to the, I was like, God, I don't want to do this episode. I don't care about the Loch Ness Monster. But actually, what was really interesting was some of the history, the broader history that came about as a result of it. So the history of newspaper reporting, amateur photography, for instance, and the history of monsters too. And Maddie knows so much more about that than I do,

but really came through in this episode. And it was quite interesting, dating the whole way back to St. Columba. And, you know, we even got into talking about fascism across Europe. so it really was a proper history episode. It really was, and we did have to fight to do it. And you know, episode 11 pretty early on, me and Anthony almost parted ways over his complete resistance to do this. But no, it's a great episode. It's really exciting. But for now, sit back with a glass of mulled wine and enjoy. glass of mulled wine and enjoy. The year is 1933. America is in the grips of one of the worst years in the Great Depression. A Japanese scientist demonstrated one of the most

significant advancements in the development of weaponry, unveiling a machine gun that could fire 1000 shots per minute. And Albert Einstein renounced his German citizenship owing to the rise of the Nazi party. On the 15th of April of that same year, the Inverness Courier tells us Aldi Mackay, a local businessman and his wife, who remained nameless in the article, though they do point out that she had a university education, were motoring along the north shore of the Great Loch Ness. As Mr. and Mrs. Mackay passed close to Abreacan Pier, they noticed a significant disturbance in the water. The article, which reported their encounter, recorded it as a tremendous upheaval

of water. It was Mrs. Mackay who saw it first, three quarters of a mile from the shore. She screamed then, horror etched on her face. In concern, Mr. Mackay pulled over, trying to ascertain the cause of his wife's distress. She did not speak, however, only pointed out across the lock. He followed the direction of her shaking finger, and then, as if emerging into their very reality from the darkest depths of a nightmare, he saw, he was sure, the monster. Hello and welcome to After Dark, Myths, Misteeds and the Paranormal. I'm Dr. Maddie Pelling.

And I'm Dr. Anthony Delaney. And today we're talking about the origins of the Loch Ness Monster. We are and I had to have my fingers broken in order to enter into this dialogue slightly. I mean, I'm joking. But in a few weeks back, we had a planning meeting with our lovely producer, Charlotte and Freddie, and they suggested possibly looking at an episode on either the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot. And I was like, not Bigfoot. I'm not doing an episode on a big hairy Teddy. It's just not happening. But I have to admit, even with Loch Ness, I wasn't so keen.

I had always kind of found the monster side of things to be more difficult to pin down. Usually when we look at topics on this podcast, or for particular murder cases in the past on After Dark, we examine the events or the supposed events in some cases in the context of their time, which is key. But monsters defy that type of scrutiny. They persist across thousands of years, iterations and stories. And they become, I said this to Maddie before, they become almost ahistorical in this way. So I was reluctant, but I'm actually really glad that I was persuaded because what you find when you look at the different contexts of some of these sightings is really valuable in telling us what's happening in Britain and in the world at this time too.

It is really interesting. And for me, I saw, and I think we're going to, today's episode might sort of change our perception a little bit, but I always thought of the Lot Lest Monster as a sort of conspiracy theory. As you say, a historical, not necessarily associated with a particular time period or a particular person even. And I've been reading a lot about conspiracy theories recently for a new book project. And one thing that's becoming clear to me is that they have their own social political implications. And I suspect the Loch Ness monster will not be different in that regard. Will Barron You and I are both big fans of the Highlands and Loch Ness and their surrounding

areas. For those listeners who potentially haven't been, can you give us an idea of what it looks like, what it feels like up when you're in and around Loch Ness? Sure. So yeah, for anyone who has been to the Highlands, it's the most remarkable landscape. And I've been there a couple of times. And for me, it doesn't really feel like anywhere else in Britain. It's quite unique. And I think that's probably part of the appeal of the story of the lotness monster and of lotness more generally.

You know, it's the, I think it's the biggest of the locks in the Highlands. It has more water in it than all of the English and Welsh lakes put together, which when you stop and think about that, it's pretty mind blowing. I'd never really understood it like that, but it's actually really important, even geographically, let alone with all of this story and folklore that's built up around it. Yeah. And with the lot nests monster in particular, I think this issue of a lack of extended archive, and we will talk about some of the archival material that is associated with this story,

but it's difficult to get to grips with it because of the scale of the archival material that is associated with this story, but it's difficult to get to grips with it because of the scale of the landscape and the invisibility of the monster within that. It feels a little bit abstract. The evidence that we do have is often sort of blurry mid-20th century photographs and finding this beast historically in this very large, very this beast historically in this very large, very intimidating, completely vast landscape is something of an intellectual challenge, I think. It feels almost immaterial or difficult to excavate from the reality of the place. For anyone who hasn't been, the lock is surrounded by these huge mountainous hills and it's incredibly long and thin. There's a sense when you're there, I think, of possibility. You think about how deep that water is and it's no

surprise that people do imagine things there. It's very evocative, this idea of this almost black water that is vast and deep and then these trees that are surrounding the lake that are then framed by the hills in the background. It actually reminds you that this is an ancient landscape, and as a result, I was surprised to find that the story of a monster in the area is actually quite ancient too. So the first time that there is a report of a monster in and around this area is not actually in Loch Ness itself.

It's in the River Ness, which obviously is close by and adjoins, but it was in 565 and it was St. Columba. So this is linked to religious ideas and religious growth and the growth of Christianity in Scotland. But it was a monster and it was in that very close proximity to Loch Ness nonetheless. Now this particular monster was known in the area and it had attacked swimmers and they were apparently out trying to spread the word as they did, as the early Christians did. And this one particular swimmer, don't ask me why he was in the river, but he was under the instructions of St. Columba. And a monster emerged and tried to, as a monster will do, eat the swimmer. And it was Columba, St. Columba, to give him his full title. He entered the river and made the sign of the cross and dared the monster to go no further and the monster fled. See, to me, Anthony, that story absolutely speaks to this idea of the wilderness beyond the civilized

space that human beings occupy. This is a land that St. Columba and others are trying to Christianize. They're trying to colonize it with their religious beliefs. And the likelihood that this event actually happened is incredibly slim, right? Oh, yes, sure. That's what I was going to say. You're really investing in this, right? Yeah, yes, sure. That's what I was going to say. Okay, you're really investing in the troika. I believe now. So, you know, for me, at least. Yes, it's a story about the triumph of early Christianity over absolutely the untamed landscape and the peoples of the highlands. Yeah, it's metaphorically saying, forget about your folklore, forget about the mythology, forget about the stories that have populated this landscape. We're here now and we've got these crosses and we're

going to make a difference. Yeah. And you know, that's so interesting to me that it's Columba making the sign of the cross that banishes this monster. And it's a sort of, you know, if the cross is the powerful emblem, a powerful symbol of Christianity, then the monster in that story is a symbol of this folkloric ancient ancient, pagan world. But this isn't the only historic sighting that we have of the monster, is it? So when's the next one? Well, actually, there's quite a big gap. The next one doesn't appear until the late 19th century, 1871, I believe, and it was seen by a Mr. Mackenzie. We don't have much details about

this particular sighting. It wasn't taken particularly seriously at the time, but Mr. Mackenzie. We don't have much details about this particular sighting. It wasn't taken particularly seriously at the time, but Mr. Mackenzie apparently saw something wriggling and churning up the water. Now, I mean, that could be a multitude of things, I guess. I guess it was noteworthy enough for people to record it, but it didn't cause a flurry, which is actually surprising in the Victorian era. Actually, I'm surprised more people didn't flock. It's also a bit random if you think about it because Columbus citing is doing a job, it's fulfilling a function, it's talking about that Christianization that's spreading across Europe and particularly across Scotland in this instance. The later sightings, which we'll talk about in just a moment, also fulfill a function, I think. Mackenzie's in 1871, it's hard for me to decipher exactly what the function of that sighting is. Potentially

something got to do with tourism, because we know people are travelling at this time, they are spending time by locks, they are heading to the Lake District, heading to the Highlands. This is a tourist destination, as it was in the 18th century. I suppose we can look at it then as part of that romanticisation of Scotland that happens. I'm thinking about Queen Victoria bringing back tart and everything that goes with that and this culture of the Scottish Highlands that's reborn in British and specifically in English culture. Tourism being a part of that. I wonder if what Mackenzie's doing actually is piquing people's interest, drawing them into the landscape and saying, hey, look, there are things to be discovered here

that are not yet properly understood. It's a way of bringing a bit of ambiguity or magic to a place that people are visiting with more regularity. I think that's definitely a possibility. I think the other possibility is we have retrospectively put Mackenzie's account into a line of sightings that it doesn't actually fit into. All he says or all the words that we have available to us is that he saw something wriggling and churning up the water. I mean, if somebody said that to me, I wouldn't be like, well, you know what that is. That's a prehistoric monster that's lasted the ages and it's now living in Loch Ness. It's like, oh, okay, you saw. It's a block drain.

Yeah, yeah. Or you saw like a collection of eels or something. But nonetheless, it has now been conscripted into this larger story of sightings. But things change because in 1933, which is significant in its own right, and we'll come to that, in 1933, things really, really ramp up. And so as we said in that opening part of the account by the Courier, the Mackayes had seen this monster in similar-ish language rolling and plunging in Loch Ness. So, you know, if we think about what Mackenzie apparently saw wriggling and churning, now the Mackayes are seeing something rolling and plunging. So it's this disturbance on the water.

LW – And when we think about what that might actually look like in the water, it's helpfully ambiguous isn't it? What are you actually seeing there moving in the water? I mean, if you look out across any body of water, it's really difficult when the light's hitting it and there's movement to make out anything in the water. If you were standing on the edge of Windermere or something, it's hard to see a duck a few meters away. So this doesn't necessarily ring true. This seems maybe like wishful thinking. But go on, tell me a little bit more about Mackay's claim. Well, and that's interesting, because Mackenzie's claim, just to go back to 1871 briefly, Mackenzie's claim kind of stops there more or less, but the Mackay's then elaborate slightly.

And they say that this monster had the body, which they're now claiming was a monster, had the body of a whale. And as it turned in the water, the water was cascading and churning like a shimmering or a simmering cauldron. So, you know, we're adding this drama to it. But I think the key element there is the body of the whale. So we have more descriptions of the water, but the body of the whale is new. And that is not something that Mackenzie saw in 1871, but it that some of the huge sea monsters that people imagine, you know, from the prehistoric world may have survived in some way and endured in the

lake today, right? So they're kind of tapping into that idea. Yeah, I wonder if they were aware of that idea. But certainly that has grown up around the mythology now. They were aware of that idea, but certainly that has grown up around the mythology now. And of course, you know, the late, we're talking here early 20th century, but thinking about Mackenzie's vision in the late 19th century, of course, is tied as well into the age of fossil hunting. We've got Mary Anning on the South Coast, you know, the Jurassic coastline, where people are literally finding the remains, the fossilised remains of real monsters, essentially, real things that lived in the sea. And they're being put on display in London. People are

flocking to see these incredible creatures. And I wonder as well if by 1933, there's still that interest in fossil hunting and in potentially one day finding a living specimen. I think certainly the fossils hold some interest and intrigue. And particularly in 1933, because we know this even in our own lifetimes, experts, scientists will come out and say, actually, we got the look of that monster wrong. We've now managed with modern technology to put a far more accurate picture together of what it might have looked like. But think about the situation in 1933, where they're putting flesh and bones on these skeletons and on these fossils.

Actually what they're coming up with is in some cases not particularly as accurate as we have an image for it now, which means there's a gap between the fossil and the former reality. Human imagination is maybe stepping in to fill that gap, particularly in this case. And that could be potentially lucrative as well. And that's something we need to bear in mind, I think, with these 20th century sightings in particular. So we have the Mackay's with the water cascading off this huge whale like form that's moving through the lake. But this isn't the only sighting in 1933. It's quite a year for Loch Ness, isn't it?

It's a busy, busy time. Let's get on to the 31st of July. On the 31st of July, one Mr. G Spicer of 10 Temple Gardens, Goulders Green, NW 11, perhaps having been aware of the coverage of the Mackay sightings three months earlier, wrote to the Inverness courier with his own startling tale. Dear Sir, he began, I have just returned from a motoring holiday in Scotland and am writing

to inform you that on Saturday afternoon, the 22nd of July last, I saw the nearest approach to a dragon or prehistoric animal that I have ever seen in my life. It crossed my road about 50 yards ahead and appeared to be carrying a small lamb or animal of some kind. It seemed to have a long neck, which moved up and down. And the body was fairly big, with a high back. When we got to the spot, it had probably disappeared into the lock. Length from 6 feet to 8 feet and very ugly. I am wondering if you can give me any information about it and am enclosing a stamped addressed envelope, anticipating your kind reply. Whatever it is, and it may be a land and water animal, I think it should be destroyed, as I am not sure whether I had been quite close to it

I should have cared to have tackled it. It is difficult to give a better description as it moves so swiftly, and the whole thing was so sudden. There is no doubt that it exists. Yours, etc. G Spicer I'm Professor Susanne Lipscomb and on Not Just the Tudors from History Hit, we do admittedly cover quite a lot of Tudors, from the rise of Henry VII to the death of Henry VIII, from Anne Boleyn to her daughter Elizabeth I. But we also do lots that's not Tudors, murderers, mistresses, pirates and witches. Clues in the title really. So follow Not Just the Tudors from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. So we've now escalated from a whale to a dragon carrying its prey down into the log. How was

this sighting received at the time, Anthony? I mean, it seems it's certainly a more thorough sighting. There's an account of the anatomy of this creature and it's crossing a road. So it's leaving the lock and walking around the highlands. Is G Spicer, is he taken seriously in the newspaper? He is not really. I mean, I think it's really important for us to remember that although some of these claims might be authentic in that they believe they have seen them, we are talking about 1933 and there was a healthy dose of skepticism around even that this is not something that people were opening the Inverness Courier and going, well, this solves it guys. We now have to accept that

this is true. You know, like people were tuned in. They were very skeptical about this at the time. And they also become more and more skeptical, I think, when the likes of Mr. Spicer starts to do the newspaper rounds and gives quite a few interviews because there's an element of fame that goes along with this sighting, you know? MS. It strikes me as well that the newspapers themselves are playing an absolute key role in disseminating these stories, these sightings. You can sell your story to the papers, you know you're going to get attention, you know

it might be lucrative. Does this encourage more people to come forward? MS. It does, because I think, we'll talk about that in just a second. What also happens is you see that Spicer ends up in the Times. So that's a reputable newspaper. He's also on the front cover of the Daily Express, I think it is, with the headline Loch Ness Horror Seen On Land.

So this is also kind of a new element to the myth that the Loch Ness monster can potentially come onto land. And actually, that's more frightening, right? Because it can follow you, it can come after you. It's this amphibious prehistoric thing. And there's a picture of Mr. Spicer on the front page of the newspaper. So, you know, this is calling attention. People are now becoming more and more aware of these sightings and the people who are claiming the sightings. I wonder as well, if we think about the context of 1933, and there's obviously a feeling of unease growing across Europe, there's the rapid rise of nationalism and

fascism that's going on. There's something about Spice's account, the fact that this is now more of a threatening monster, this isn't something that's just lurking in the shadows of this one very deep lake in the Highlands, but it's coming onto the land. He actually calls for it to be killed. He calls it very ugly and he thinks it should be executed or shot. It's not something that's just lurking in the shadows of this very deep, isolated lock in the highlands, but it's actually coming onto the land. Part of me sees that as maybe part of the culture of hunting in Scotland. Hunting it can become a sport, but also there's something deeply unsettling and

uncanny about the fact that it now is being apparently reported as coming onto the land. now is being apparently reported as coming onto the land. I wonder if that taps into the political, the social moment happening in Britain. There's something about the 30s that it feels like impending doom is coming, and there's nothing quite like the feeling of impending doom as a harbinger of that crawling, slithering out of the water in Scotland, and potentially coming, making its way down to England. Yes, I absolutely agree. I think there is something about threat and however conscious that link might have been, it was what was going through my mind as I was reading all

of this. It's impossible to divorce what's happening across Europe, in Germany in particular, from these ideas of threat, monstrous incursions and frightening nightmare type scenarios. It's also interesting, I mean, just on a very superficial level, the things that Mr. Spicer did and didn't see. So for instance, he wasn't quite sure of some details, but he knew there was a lamb on its back. This idea of lamb sacrifice and the innocent. And it's the same religious imagery that is associated with St. Columba as well. It's fascinating to me that once again the lotness monster is being portrayed as sort of the enemy of morality, the enemy of civilised society, of Christianity. It's many centuries after this initial story is born and is tied into Christianity that

once again we're seeing that imagery come up. ALICE And what tends to happen now, if we are in Scotland, if we are in the media industry at the time, is we have, okay, there's some anecdotal things about some monsters that might be in Loch Ness. Then we start to hear some sightings that are covered in the media. So we have the Mackays and Mr. Spicer, and we're linking that to some maybe historical anecdotal things that have gone on in the past. But I think what really starts to push this forward is photographic evidence, shall we use that

word quite loosely. But that also appears for the first time in 1933. And I have provided, because I'm so generous, I've provided us with a picture taken by a man called Hugh Gray, which was taken, as I say, in 1933 on the 12th of November, to be precise. I know listeners will have a specific image in their head. It is not that image of the head poking up out of the water. That's a different photo. It's referred to as the surgeon's photo. This is a far less specific image. I had never seen it before. Maddie, I am going to give you the glorious task of trying to describe

this blurry, grainy black and white image that I see in front of me. I mean, where to start? Okay, it is a close up of a body of water. It's black and white. It is, as Anthony says, it's very blurry. It's very grainy. In the centre of the image, there is something upsetting the water. It image, there is something upsetting the water. It looks like there's something in the water. The water is moving in a strange way. To me, it almost looks like someone's thrown a heavy object into the water and the water is sort of splashing up around it. Would you ever look at this and go, oh my God, it's a monster?

It looks to me like a small wave created by throwing an object into the water. Oh my god, yeah, it does a bit. I hadn't seen that. Yeah, I don't think that people would have taken this particularly seriously. I mean, it doesn't even give a sense of the anatomy of the Loch Ness monster potentially. I mean, I guess on the left hand side, there's there's maybe the hint of some kind of fin. I don't buy it. But what I do think is interesting is, as you say, this, the bringing in a photography as evidence. Yeah. And therefore the lotness monster, you know, we sort of tie it in to the history of photography, people, and not just the history of photography, but the history of people taking their own private personal photographs that are then used in the news. And of course, for us today, it's

incredibly easy if we attend any kind of event or see anything that's newsworthy, we just whip our phones out of our pocket and start recording. And we can maybe sell or give that to a news distributor to be used on the TV to be used on social media. But when we think of 1933, it's fairly unusual that people are taking their own photographs that end up in the papers. And I think the lotness monster is really leading the way in terms of that kind of journalism that's being done by ordinary people. I think that's really astute, actually. I hadn't looked at it like that. It is very

groundbreaking in that sense. And again, this is why I'm glad we're talking about this topic, because there is something to be mined out of this, despite my earlier skepticism. I mean, by the way, I still don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but something to be mined historically from this. And this continues into the following year in 1934. It's so concentrated really, when you think about it, these events that are happening around the 1930s. It almost becomes a sort of hysteria, doesn't it? That people, once the initial sighting by the Mackaisers happened, people are flocking to Lotnes to try and get a glimpse of it because it's going to bring them fame. It's going to get the photographs they're taking in the

papers. And it's the opportunity to identify the truth, the so-called truth behind an ancient mystery. And people can't resist that. Then in 1934, we have Arthur Grant, who sees a monster. And I think listeners might identify some of the features that he describes. He sees a monster with a long neck, small head and a monstrous body, but not in the lake. It's crossing the road in front of him around the lake on the 5th of January at 1 a.m. in the morning. So again, it's dark.

There is this. But it's just interesting to hear some of those identifiable features coming forward now in this description. There was also a veterinary student who saw the Loch Ness Monster and described it as a cross between a seal and a plesiosaur, which I don't even really know what a plesiosaur is, but I'm going to Google it. And again, to have this kind of veterinary student stamp of approval is quite interesting for people, I'm guessing, at the time. It's fascinating the way that people build up their evidence and how they make themselves seem viable to seem

reliable. The fact that they describe the anatomy in detail, we have interestingly here another sighting of the monster crossing the road. And again, it's this strange juxtaposition of the ancientness of the monster itself and the modernity of the roads, the modernity of the photographs, this very much feels like something that's stepping out of a much earlier time and colliding with the modern world and causing all these kind of cultural dissonances that people are finding this incredibly compelling, but also incredibly disconcerting that this monster is revealing

itself now at this moment in the 30s. And of course, yeah, of course, the veterinary student, I mean, I'd love to know their motivation, why they felt the need to report a sighting, whether they really believed that they'd seen something, or whether they were very much on this bandwagon, hoping to make a little bit of money selling their story to the newspaper. But it absolutely does lend the story, at least in the media's eyes, some level of legitimacy, I think. And don't forget the crack element, as in like, of course, a veterinary student is going to be up around Loch Ness and be like, here lads wouldn't be great crack if I said that there was this thing that I saw. How hilarious would that be? And then they talk about it for the next 20 years. And here we are talking about it on a podcast in 2023.

But it then it gets to a point. There's so many of these sightings that it gets to a point that somebody goes, right, lads, we need to actually measure this and we need to try and record something that's going on. We need to get a handle on some of these sightings that are happening up in the highlands. So this brings us to the next part of the story. Sir Edward Mortimer Mountain, 1st Baronet, had made his name and fortune as the founder of the Eagle Star Insurance Company. A marine insurance specialist, he had first come to prominence by refusing to ensure the Titanic's maiden voyage. However, by 1934 he was willing to take a risk on his reputation and launched the

first ever substantial investigation into the Loch Ness Monster. Mountain employed 20 men to sit beside Loch Ness with box cameras. The men were given binoculars and assumed strategic positions across the Loch from 9am to 6pm each day for five weeks, beginning on the 13th of July 1934. Mountain paid them each £2 per week, only equal to an average wage for one day's labour for a skilled tradesman. As an extra incentive, however, an additional £10.50 was offered for a successful picture. Over 21 pictures were obtained. One typical example is a blurred, shadowy image of a lonesome lock.

Not far from the shore, there is a regular line of black marks that could be the backbone of an enormous monster. Or if you can imagine it, a tiny, grainy photograph of an irregular series of ripples across a lake. I think there are two things to say here. First is that mountain to me represents one of those incredibly wealthy men in the 19th, 20th century who is able to push all of his money into monster hunting. I love it.

Just like me, that's exactly what I do with all my money. It's what you do on the weekends, absolutely. The second thing is, do you think that Mountain and the men that he hires, are they really expecting to take a photograph of a real animal? Or are they planning to fake it? Okay, that's I think it's a really good question. I don't think they're planning to fake it because the quality of the 21 pictures that were obtained are absolutely abysmal. It's just blurriness. It's just water. It's just disturbances on the lake. I also think it's really interesting that they chose between 9am and 6pm to be there when actually the other sightings are

taking place at night. So that doesn't really add up. But you know, that was a planning flaw as far as I can see. More money than sense, I might say. Yeah, I mean, I also think it's really interesting that he probably exploited some of the local people by paying them so little, two pounds a week, which was equal to one day's work. And they were there, you know, every day for five weeks. But it also I mean, that also talks to the fact that they are willing to do that because the prestige that was promised if you manage to take one of these photos, presumably it would make your fortune. If you manage to actually get a legitimate looking photograph of the lotnest monster, you're going to be set for life. So it was, I guess he's exploiting them, but he's offering

them an opportunity that they really believe is possible, therefore. I wonder, only because these are local people, and in my experience, local people are the most adept at buying into and opting out of these types of legends and myths and folklore. It's useful to them when it's useful, and it's not useful when it's not. I have a feeling, again, this is just an instinct based on some of these records, that actually the local men are entering into it for, yes, money, yes, the possibility of earning £10.50 as an additional boon, which by the way, nobody earns, nobody gets the £10.50 because it has to be a successful photo. That was the criteria. So I think, you know, maybe these are local men who are up for a bit of a punt and they might be able to get 10 quid by getting a decent photo.

They're like, well, I know at this time the local otters come out or whatever. I'm talking about sea life now or pond life or lock life. Like I know what I'm talking about. I don't even know if there's otters there, but you know what I mean? You know, they may have used their local knowledge to capture some of these things and try and fob it off as an image. But later, well, same year, but a few months later, there does emerge something which I think lasts until this day as the most convincing, shall we say, and the most certainly iconic photo of the Loch Ness Monster, supposedly of the

Loch Ness Monster, again taken in 1934. And it's known as the surgeon's photo. And we have all seen this photo. It is the photo where it seems that there is that long thin neck with the small head as described by some of the people who are seeing this monster in 1933, emerging from the waters. And it very much looks like there is something coming out of the water. The water is rippling all around us. And this was on the front page of the Daily Mail. And I think it was so arresting and has captured our imaginations. It has lasted to this day. This is a real explosion at this moment, isn't it? This brings huge amounts of tourism, huge global attention. It's called the surgeon's photo because the taker, Robert Kenneth Wilson,

is a surgeon, is that right? Yeah, yeah. So again, we have the stamp, the seal in terms of social status. He's seen as a legitimate witness. He's someone to be trusted and someone who would recognize anatomy and be able to identify something accurately, I guess, as well. Yeah. What's incredible is the power it's had to endure. I mean, if you say to me, proof or evidence of the Loch Ness Monster, it is the first thing that comes into my mind. I'm not saying I necessarily count it as definitive proof or evidence. I don't, but it certainly

is the first piece, the first image that pops into my mind. So go and have a look at that if you're not 100% familiar with what we're talking about, you will recognise it as soon as you as soon as you see it. Sarah It's really iconic and something that always strikes me about this image and about some of the accounts actually is that the monster starts off as being this dragon, it's whale sized, it's colossal. And then later on it's compared to a seal, and when we see the photograph, supposedly, of it, I mean, it could be a duck. It's tiny. Yeah. Or it could be a person's arm coming out of the water. It could be a multitude of things. But

this was the thing, because A, it's very clearly coming out of the water. And again, it's that encroaching thing emerging from the depths that's quite captivating. And it also matches some of the descriptions that have gone before. And I think just because it's a photograph does not mean it's a reliable account of an event or of a sighting of something. And it's so fascinating. But let's go back to monsters. What is it about monsters that keep people coming back? Even today, people go to Lotnes, hoping to see the Lotnes monster. There are people who believe it's real. There are people still looking for it. Why? Why?

It's a good question. I mean, the etymology of the word monster etymology. Here we go. Here's the PhD is coming to use. Yeah. This is the start of any academic paper. We have the definition of the word. Give it to me.

From Latin, it's monstrarre meaning to demonstrate or monere, to warn. I think that's really interesting, right? Like to demonstrate or to warn. That's what a monster is supposed to do. And that ties into what we were discussing earlier about this huge increase in sightings in the 1930s at a moment when Europe is on tenterhooks, when there's huge social tension, political tension, there's a feeling of uneasiness growing in Britain, everyone that here is watching what's

happening in Germany with increasing anxiety. The Lotnes Monster to me feels like a harbinger of doom, essentially. It is, it does appear to be a warning. It's coming out of the water to shine a light, I guess, to point towards the danger that is fast approaching. Monsters become a social tool, don't they? In that way, they are fulfilling a function that kind of embodies the cultural or psychological characteristics that societies maybe find it hard to articulate or acknowledge. It becomes the shadow over one's shoulder slightly.

I think that's true. And I think as well, the relationship that the Loch Ness Monster has to Christianity in particular, and that it's used as a visual and symbolic opposition to good Christian morals. And there's something so ancient and deep about the fear of the water that these locks are incredibly deep. They're incredibly wide, incredibly long. They're huge bodies of water that are incredibly dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. Again, this idea of monsters is a warning as a literal signpost to say, do not go here. Here there be monsters. It's a classic trope.

KM And yet, the irony is, and you're absolutely right, do not go here, but actually do come here and stay in our boarding house and go to our cafes and get some sandwiches. And there's some Nessie Teddies over there. And you want to have this t-shirt that says I saw the Loch Ness Monster. It brings tourism to the area. It has given a whole industry to this area in the Highlands, which is incredible. Yeah, absolutely. It is an industry. And in 2014, there were businesses in the Highlands that were actually being offered free advice on how they could cash in on the Loch Ness Monster and other kind of monstrous myths. And if you walk even in Edinburgh, in the safety of Lowland, Edinburgh, away from the Highlands, if you go up Royal Mile, you'll see endless

Loch Ness Monster merchandise. So this is absolutely something that people continue to make money out of in all sorts of ways. Yeah, that actual course that you're talking about was called Monster Marketing. I mean, it says it says exactly what we're talking about right there. It's you need to grab onto this, it's going to help your business. And therefore we need to not so much perpetuate the myth, but make sure that the myth lives on. I guess that's perpetuating the myth. But it is lucrative.

It fulfills a very tangible function in the lives of many people in the Highlands, and as you say, in Edinburgh generally, and in Scottish tourism generally, right up until this day. I think for me, the lotness monster is very much a symbol. It's very much an idea, a concept that has different usefulness at different points. Do you see any value in it today, Anthony? Beyond the commercial value, I guess. Yeah, yeah. No, well, that's what I was going to say.

Beyond those people who are benefiting from it financially and commercially, which I think is really worthwhile. Everyone needs to make a living. And I think they're doing that with as much integrity and fun because bear in mind tongue in cheek, as I've said previously, there's nobody better placed to call upon and then push away a myth as the local people. And they deserve to be able to harness that monster for their own needs if they need to. Any other functions beyond that? I don't think so. I mean, it fits into, that's me personally, it fits into this idea of a conspiracy theory, which we spoke about at the start of this episode, and I was asking myself as I researched this episode, why? Why is it important for some people

that there is a prehistoric or a version of a prehistoric monster at the bottom of this lake in Scotland. And the only reason I could come up with is that if people who believe in this monster are correct, then there are so many other things in the world, the received knowledge that we've been given, that's also incorrect. So if Nessie is down there, prehistoric monsters aren't just with us as fossils or as a collection of bones. They're with us in flesh and blood and scale and fire breathing and all of these kind of things. So what else have we been misinformed about? And I think that's where the conspiracy comes in. For me, there ain't nothing down there but fish and other sea creatures that we know about. But for some people, this is a real thing, and they find it really necessary

to try to destabilize the information that we are being, as they see it, being fed and being misled with. And I think that tells us something about our own time, too, where conspiracy theories are growing, as far as I can tell, politically, socially, culturally, historically and zoologically as it seems here. LW – Absolutely. And I think there is something tantalising and deliciously so about the lotness monster, but there is a wider conversation here about conspiracy theories. And I think it will be interesting to see in the next generation or so how Nessie is

used in those conversations if as an imagined creature it's something that stays with us or drifts back down to those depths. It will be very interesting. Well, thank you very much for listening to this episode of After Dark. We have got some amazing episodes coming up in the new year year kicking things off with the final days of Rasputin and Mary Queen of Scots. 2025 is going to be pretty exciting. See you next year!