04x01 - The Loch Ness Monster

[bunniefuu]

Tonight, the world's

most enduring

deep-sea monster mystery.

I saw the head,

the neck, and the huge body

which I'd say was about

30 feet long.

We are talking

about thousands of sightings,

and that's a conservative

estimate.

It could be tens of thousands

over the course of 1,500 years.

Despite so many sightings,

the beast remains unidentified.

There are millions of species

that we haven't found

or classified yet.

There's stuff out there that

we don't know anything about.

As far as we can tell,

nobody has ever captured

a Loch Ness Monster.

Now, we'll explore

the top theories

surrounding

this elusive creature.

Hey, maybe it's a plesiosaur.

What about

the thing that washed up

in Stronsay, or the similar

lake monster in Sweden?

There are tons

of eels in Loch Ness.

Is it possible that

there is a gigantic eel?

Many people

still believe it's real.

Does the Loch Ness Monster

exist?

And if so, what is it?

Northern Scotland,

August, 564 A.D.

According to legend,

an Irish monk named Columba

is attempting to cross

the River Ness with a group

when they stumble upon two men

burying a friend.

This man had just been swimming

when he was att*cked

by an enormous water beast.

You would think

that after that exchange

the monks would try to find

a different river crossing.

But Columba stays, undeterred.

Maybe he didn't believe

the locals,

or he just thought

that his faith will protect him.

He orders another monk

to swim across and retrieve

a small boat.

As this monk

gets about halfway across,

this creature suddenly appears

out of the water,

gives a giant, bellowing roar.

Everyone panics,

with the exception of Columba.

He steps right up

to the edge of the bank,

makes the sign of the cross,

and demands the monster

leave the man alone.

The creature supposedly obeys.

To the witnesses on shore,

it is nothing short

of a miracle.

Columba eventually

achieves sainthood,

and this tale

is supporting evidence

for his faith and abilities.

And this story is retold

for years to come.

Debate continues for centuries.

What could this

mysterious creature actually be?

In Columba's time,

and continuing

for several centuries after,

through the Middle Ages,

dragons are still believed

to be real.

And so, many people think

this is some sort of sea dragon.

But nobody has any concrete

evidence of what it is,

or if it even truly exists.

It remains

an essentially local legend

for quite some time.

Then, in the 20th century,

new visitors flock

to the Highlands,

thanks to one

remarkable invention

the automobile.

By the early 1930s,

there's a road built

along the shore of Loch Ness.

One afternoon in 1931,

a local couple

were driving along there

when they spotted

a large animal.

It was rolling and plunging

on the surface of Loch Ness.

Immediately they report

their experience

to the local papers.

When published, their story

uses the now-famous

key word, "monster."

The Loch Ness Monster

a name that soon spreads

far and wide.

Now all of a sudden,

the tourists are not coming

to see the beautiful lake

and the rolling hills.

They are coming

to see the monster,

who is soon lovingly called

"Nessie."

And guess what?

They are spotting it, all right.

They are spotting it in droves.

Soon, there are more

eyewitness accounts of Nessie,

and they seem convincing.

I saw a a large object.

It came right out of the water

in front of me.

I was wading in the river

fishing with fly-fishing.

The best view I ever had

was the very first in 1934.

I saw the head, the neck,

and the huge body

which I'd say

was about 30 feet long.

Each new glimpse

brings fresh seekers,

all with the latest technology.

We shouldn't have to wait long

before somebody

captures it on film,

and then we're bound

to know what it is.

In April of 1934,

that finally happens,

and it becomes front page news.

A gynecologist from London

named Robert Kenneth Wilson

went on a fishing trip

over there to Northern Scotland

when he decided to go

for a walk.

During his stroll,

that's when he spotted something

unusual in the water.

Luckily, he had his camera,

and he snapped a picture.

And there we have it,

probably the first photograph

of Nessie.

Known as "the surgeon's photo,"

the image causes quite a stir.

Shows a silhouetted creature

with a long, slender neck,

a small head,

and a large body emerging

slightly above the waterline.

This is amazing.

We finally have some

visual evidence

to back up these

eyewitness accounts.

And not only that, some experts

think they can identify

this animal.

The creature's shape

also strikes a chord

with British paleontologists.

So, what particular species

do you think it is?

The evidence as I interpret it

all fits

and I know this is

a fantastic statement

but this all fits plesiosaur.

Plesiosaurs are a marine reptile

dating back millions of years.

Their fossils were first

discovered in 1823

during a dig in England.

Fossil hunter Mary Anning

actually uncovered

a nearly complete skeleton

of a previously unknown species.

It is given the name

Plesiosaurus,

meaning "near to reptile."

Plesiosaur fossils have been

found around the world,

but a major cluster of them

comes from here in Scotland.

We're talking about hundreds

of specimens.

This was, at least at one time,

this creature's main habitat.

These fossils show

that the plesiosaur

was an enormous

water-dwelling creature,

over 20 feet long.

They had broad, flat bodies

with short tails.

Their limbs had evolved

into four long flippers

that propelled them through

the water in a flying motion.

They breathe air,

and so they would constantly

have to come to the surface

for oxygen.

Most notably,

they had long thin necks.

The surgeon's photograph

happens to fit that to a T.

And coincidentally, so do most

of the witness statements.

Though some believe

Nessie could be a plesiosaur,

the theory has one major flaw.

Scientists believe

that a mass extinction event

about 65 and a half

million years ago

k*lled about 75% of all

species on Earth,

including dinosaurs

and plesiosaurs.

A plesiosaur should not be

inhabiting these waters today,

in Saint Columba's time,

or any time

during human existence.

They're supposed to be extinct.

But is it possible

the plesiosaur somehow survived?

When we say that 75%

of the creatures

did not survive the last

mass extinction event,

that means that 25% did survive.

So, platypuses,

turtles, crocodiles

all kinds of animals

actually did survive that event.

Scientists point to a fish

long thought to be extinct

as an example

the coelacanth,

discovered alive in 1938

in South Africa.

The entire

scientific community believes

that the coelacanth dies off

66 million years ago.

There are no fossils after that.

It's the same time

as the plesiosaur.

If the coelacanth can still be

swimming around out there,

what's to say that

a small number of plesiosaurs

couldn't have somehow

avoided extinction, too?

But to many,

the plesiosaur theory

remains too far-fetched.

The fact that they breathe air

could account for the animal

being sighted at the surface,

but I actually think

that's evidence

against Nessie

being a plesiosaur,

'cause it would have

to surface all the time.

If that were the case, we'd have

so many more photos and videos.

One would have probably

already been caught

and put in a zoo by now.

Plus a creature as big

as a 20-foot-long plesiosaurus

would need a lot of food

to sustain itself.

There's just not enough

of a food source

for a massive beast,

let alone a community of them,

which there would have to be

in order for this species

to survive this long.

And honestly,

the plesiosaur theory

only hangs on the one

photograph.

And before the surgeon's photo

is published,

absolutely nobody

thinks it's a plesiosaur.

1934 the first photo

of the supposed

Loch Ness Monster

incites public frenzy

and a torrent of tourists

looking for Nessie.

But not everyone

believes the image

known as "the surgeon's photo"

is authentic.

Dr. R. Kenneth Wilson,

who submits this photo

to the Daily Mail,

claims that it's real,

but others say "Hold on, this is

an elephant's trunk"

"rising out of the water,

or maybe it's a dolphin's fin,

or something else."

What we do know is that

the photo that's published

is substantially cropped

and zoomed in,

which blurs the shape

of the creature a bit

and skews any sense of scale

or perspective.

But when some experts

go back and examine

the original, uncropped photo,

they see something

entirely different.

Seeing the uncropped version

changes their perspective

completely.

They believe that whatever

this beast is in the water

isn't anywhere near

20 feet long.

It's maybe three feet long,

at the most.

Is it possible that

the most famous photo of Nessie

is somehow doctored?

People question the authenticity

the moment this photo

comes out in 1934.

But many people still believe

this thing is real.

And there is

no definitive proof otherwise.

Then, in 1994,

the photo's whole provenance

comes into question,

thanks to a deathbed confession

by a man named

Christian Spurling.

He claims that in 1933,

his stepfather was hired

by the Daily Mail

to find evidence

of the Loch Ness Monster.

Spurling is the stepson

of a big-game hunter

and filmmaker named

Marmaduke "Duke" Wetherell.

So, Duke goes on

this expedition to Scotland,

and it doesn't take him long

to find

these really large animal tracks

near the banks of the loch.

Judging from the size

of the footprints,

Duke estimates the animal

to be at least 20 feet long.

Wetherell sends

plaster casts of the tracks

to a London museum.

When the results came back,

they find that the tracks

didn't come from a monster,

but they came from a hippo.

It sounds unusual

because we all know

that hippos do not come

from that area.

But back then, hippo's feet

were used as umbrella holders

and ashtrays,

so it wasn't that uncommon.

So, one of two things

is happening here.

Either Duke faked the tracks,

or someone was fooling him.

The Daily Mail is not happy

about either of these options,

so the paper

publicly ridicules him.

According

to Spurling's confession,

Wetherell concocts a scheme

to save his reputation.

Duke goes to his stepson,

who happens to be a model-maker,

and asks him

to fabricate something

that looks like the eyewitness

descriptions of the beast.

So, using plastic, wood,

and a toy submarine,

they create this model

of a creature

with a long neck and small head.

And then, Duke goes

to the loch with his other son

and creates

that iconic photograph.

But in reality, it's just

a picture of the model

floating in the water.

Now, Wetherell just needs a way

to make the photo public.

The perfect solution?

The surgeon,

Dr. R. Kenneth Wilson.

Duke realizes the best way

he can pull this off

is if he finds

someone trustworthy

who can claim the photo

as their own.

So, he passes

the photo on to Wilson,

the very same surgeon who

publicizes the infamous photo.

The surgeon's photo

is really a game-changer.

It unleashes

a torrent of tourism

that still is going on

to this day.

Over the years, there

are more fake photos of Nessie,

all of them eventually debunked.

Then, in 2016, there's suddenly

new evidence

that suggests

the monster could be real.

Researchers

from Kongsberg Maritime

send an underwater drone

deep into the loch

to search for any evidence

of the monster.

And surprisingly,

the sonar returns images

of something that has the shape

of the monster's head and neck.

At first, this is big news.

Until it's determined

to be a prop from a movie.

In 1969, a Sherlock Holmes movie

was sh*t at the loch.

In the movie, there's a scene

where the Loch Ness Monster

att*cks the heroes.

But during the filming,

director Billy Wilder

takes a look at the monster prop

and decides he does not like

the humps on the back.

So, they remove the humps,

and accidentally cause the prop

to sink to the bottom

of the loch.

There's a lot of fakery

surrounding

the Loch Ness Monster.

People love getting their

15 minutes of fame from this.

Every Nessie sighting

gets attention,

and people

love getting attention.

But the sheer volume

of sightings throughout time

convince many

that Nessie is real.

We are talking about thousands

of sightings,

and that's

a conservative estimate.

It could be tens of thousands,

over the course of 1,500 years.

Before cameras,

before Photoshop,

before robotic toy submarines.

Sure, a few dozen sightings

may be fake.

But all of them?

No way.

A key piece

of evidence for believers

a discovery in 1808 on

the Scottish island of Stronsay,

just 120 miles from Loch Ness.

According to eyewitnesses,

the corpse of a strange animal

washes up on the beach

and a crowd gathers to see it.

It's the rotting carcass

of an enormous,

unidentified sea beast,

and the locals

have never seen

anything like this.

Eyewitnesses call it

the "Stronsay Beast,"

and describe it as having

a serpentine-like body

with a long neck and six limbs

that resemble paws.

They say its head is small

like a sheep's,

and its eyes are similar

to a seal's, but bigger.

It has some short hairs

around its head and neck,

and skin that is rough

to the touch

and grayish in color.

The measurements they take

show how gigantic

this thing actually is.

It's 55 feet long,

with its neck alone

measuring 10 feet.

Authorities

document the creature

and take sworn

witness statements.

This is the early 19th century,

so they can't photograph it.

But they also know the story

won't be believed,

so they need

to prove it somehow.

So, they bring

all the eyewitnesses

to the capital where they can

swear before a magistrate

that what they saw is the truth.

We still have these records,

along with drawings

that they made.

The carcass

is quickly decomposing,

and they lack

the right equipment to transport

or preserve this massive animal,

but they do take samples

of the specimen.

The skull is saved

and sent to London

for further examination,

but unfortunately,

it is destroyed during

the Blitz of World w*r II.

The vertebrae,

on the other hand,

are sent to leading anatomist

John Barclay

from Edinburgh's most successful

school of anatomy.

He concludes that this

is unlike any other creature

he's ever seen, opening the door

to the possibility

that this is a newfound species.

The connection

isn't initially made

to the Loch Ness Monster,

because it's not the 1930s yet,

so Nessie fever

has not swept the nation.

The legendary creature

is not famous yet.

But once it becomes famous,

theorists realize,

"Hold on,

this might be the same animal."

The fact that Stronsay

is just 120 miles from Loch Ness

earns extra attention.

And the physical description

of the two creatures

is strikingly similar.

Gray skin, long neck,

some kind of flipper-like

appendages, small head.

The only real major difference

I would say is the size.

The Stronsay Beast

according to those eyewitnesses

is much larger than anyone

has ever claimed

the Loch Ness Monster to be

nearly twice the size.

That doesn't necessarily rule

out the same species though.

Perhaps Nessie is just smaller.

Or, there's an even

more compelling idea.

What if the creature

in Loch Ness

is a younger specimen?

What if the loch is where

these animals breed?

It certainly happens.

Salmon swim in

all the way from the North Sea

and breed in the River Ness

and the loch.

It's an annual event.

This may also explain

the inconsistency of sightings.

If that's the case,

the animal breeds

and raises its young

in the loch,

but then it migrates

out into the sea.

So, the reason people

don't see it all that often

is because it doesn't live

in Loch Ness full time.

It's possible.

Loch Ness and Stronsay

are actually connected by water.

Both the Caledonian Canal

and the River Ness

connect the loch

to Rosemarkie Bay,

and ultimately the North Sea.

So, it's entirely possible

that whatever washed up

on the Isle of Stronsay

is the same species

as the Loch Ness Monster.

If the Loch Ness Monster exists,

the waters it lives in

remain largely unexplored.

But as marine science evolves,

new theories emerge

about what Nessie might be.

Over time, modern technology

has allowed scientists

to dive deeper into bodies

of water than ever before.

And the diversity of life there

is amazing.

And the more species

we discover,

the more we have to compare

to the Loch Ness Monster

to see if they're a match.

And that approach has yielded

one particularly

compelling candidate.

In 2012, biologist Jeremy Wade

publicizes a theory

that some scientists

have held for years

on the origins

of the Loch Ness legend.

Nessie may in fact be a creature

that scientists already know

a highly-elusive,

very mysterious species,

but one that is very real.

The Greenland shark.

Why a Greenland shark?

Why this animal in particular?

Upon first blush,

this theory seems way out there.

For decades

Nessie has been described

as more of a dinosaur-like

creature.

But that belief

stems from a photo

that we now know to be a hoax.

What if Nessie is not

the long-necked beast

in the surgeon's photo,

but something else entirely?

Like Nessie,

Greenland sharks are elusive.

They tend to prefer very deep,

very cold water.

That makes them hard to study.

They are rarely

photographed or filmed.

A lot of what we know about them

has only come to light

in the past couple of decades,

despite the fact

that our best guess

is they've roamed the Earth

for over 100 million years.

In fact, the first time

one was photographed

wasn't until 1995.

And when you first look at it,

you may not initially

see Nessie, but keep looking,

and think about some

of the eyewitness accounts.

It could fit.

Greenland sharks

are typically mottled gray

or brown the same colors used

to describe

the Loch Ness Monster.

And they're big.

Greenland sharks can get

to like 20 feet long

and like four tons.

So, they're very,

very large animals.

They can actually be larger

than great whites.

Unlike most sharks,

they have a small dorsal fin.

If a normal shark were

cruising along the surface

of Loch Ness,

people would know it,

it's instantly recognizable.

But the odd, stubby fin

of the Greenland shark

could easily be mistaken

for something else

possibly the head or a hump

of some kind of sea monster.

Which definitely applies

to most sightings of Nessie.

Witnesses often describe

multiple humps

undulating through the water.

When you think back to the time

of Saint Columba,

through the Middle Ages,

and the Nessie sightings

even up to the 1800s,

there are still people around

who believe in things

like mermaids

and all kinds

of fantastical creatures.

So, it's not surprising that

somebody could catch a glimpse

of a bizarre-looking shark

like this and think

that it is a monster

in Loch Ness or the River Ness.

I mean, it kind of does look

like a monster.

According to some scientists,

Greenland sharks also move

like the Loch Ness Monster.

So, most people imagine sharks

as being fast agile hunters.

You think of like

a great white or a mako shark

chasing down a meal.

Nessie sightings tend to

describe a slow-moving animal.

Greenland sharks live

in a completely

different habitat

where the water's really cold,

and they have a very slow

metabolism.

So, they swim slowly,

they eat slowly.

They do everything slowly.

That is why they're

sometimes called sleeper sharks.

If an enormous

Greenland shark surfaced

and moved along the water

of Loch Ness that slowly,

it's easy to see how it could

be misconstrued

as something other than a shark.

And why don't we see

Nessie very often?

Because a shark

doesn't have to come up for air.

It may occasionally make

its way to the shallows,

but not very often.

These Greenlands

love the depths.

The problem with

the Greenland shark theory

is that Loch Ness

is a body of fresh water.

For a long time we've thought

that Greenland sharks

are saltwater creatures.

But new evidence

suggests otherwise.

Greenland sharks have recently

been filmed

in Canada's

St. Lawrence River.

In fact, they go all up

and down the St. Lawrence Seaway

through America and Canada,

and that is entirely freshwater.

A similar freshwater route

connects Loch Ness

with the North Sea.

If Greenland sharks can

live in both freshwater

and seawater,

it's entirely possible

one could survive in Loch Ness,

or at least migrate in

from time to time.

Maybe there's even a chance

that the Stronsay Beast remains

were misinterpreted, and it was

some kind of large shark

that was capable

of going back and forth

between the sea and the loch.

All of this evidence excites

the scientific community.

There are so many similarities

between Greenland sharks

and Nessie, experts think

that they've solved the mystery.

A 2016 experiment

at the University of Copenhagen

only adds to that excitement.

These scientists

take 28 Greenland sharks,

and have them radiocarbon dated

to determine their age.

Shockingly, one of them

is over 400 years old.

400 years makes

the Greenland shark

the world's longest

living vertebrate.

To give you an idea

of how incredibly old this is,

there could be a shark swimming

out there that was alive

before the Pilgrims

left England on the Mayflower.

The team also finds

that these sharks

only grow about

a centimeter every year,

and they don't even reach

sexual maturity

until they are

about 150 years old.

For some, this seals the deal

that the Loch Ness Monster

is a Greenland shark.

That longevity could be key

to how isolated

the sightings have been.

Nessie seems to be

a solitary creature.

No one has ever seen

two at once.

Most animals, you would need

a family of them

living in the loch

and regularly breeding

to account for so many years

of regular sightings.

One single Greenland shark

could be responsible

for all of the sightings

dating back to the 1600s.

To find out if a Greenland shark

is living in Loch Ness,

a team looks for proof in 2017.

A team of scientists

led by Dr. Neil Gemmell

from the University of Otago

in New Zealand

did a really interesting study.

They went to Loch Ness

and they took water samples

all over the lake the middle,

the sides, the ends, everywhere.

From a half a liter of water,

we can get a very,

very good catalogue

of life within the loch.

They did

a DNA analysis of all the DNA

that they found in that water.

So, in theory,

any living creature

that has been in that water

would leave a DNA trace.

If there's a shark

in there, they'll know,

along with anything else

that might be swimming around.

After two years,

on September 5th, 2019,

they announce their results.

First and foremost,

they found no evidence

of Jurassic-era animals,

including plesiosaurs.

But more importantly,

they found no evidence

of shark DNA,

including Greenland sharks.

If we think

the creature might be migrating

in and out of the loch,

and maybe it's been away

for a while,

perhaps the shark

is still a candidate for Nessie.

But that DNA test makes things

a whole lot less likely.

This study wasn't

completely fruitless though,

because they did find the DNA

of countless other species,

including

an incredibly large deposit

of another potential

Nessie candidate.

Across nearly 1,500 years

of sightings,

witnesses and scientists alike

have been fascinated

with the mystery

of Scotland's beloved Nessie.

But a closer look at results

from a 2019 DNA test

might finally reveal the secrets

of what's living in Loch Ness.

Throughout the years,

since at least the 1960s,

and maybe even before,

modern technology has been used

to try and solve the mystery

of the Loch Ness Monster

everything from sonar,

to thermal imaging,

to hydrophonic soundwaves.

But none of these techniques

have given us concrete results

or gotten us any closer

to legitimate answers.

However, anybody who has

ever watched a crime show

knows that the best evidence

to provide the identity

of the culprit is DNA evidence.

In 2019, a team

of scientists from New Zealand

finally complete

their DNA analysis of water

from Loch Ness.

While there's no trace

of Greenland sharks,

what they discover unleashes

new possibilities for Nessie.

They find about 3,000 species,

if you can believe it.

Most of those

are tiny plankton, roundworms,

nematodes, small crustaceans.

Of the larger fish,

they find salmon, pike,

stickleback, lamprey,

a few others.

They even find DNA

of land-based creatures

that sometimes end up

in the water

for one reason or another,

including dogs, cattle,

sheep, rabbits, and even humans.

This tells us that this test

is very sensitive.

Even animals that rarely

go in the loch are detected.

But the largest amount

of DNA they find

that is detected

in almost every single sample

is eel DNA.

There are a ton

of eels in Loch Ness.

It is one of the principle

spawning grounds

of the European eel.

Now, most of these eels,

they only grow

to be about 0.8 meters.

So, they're not

exactly monsters,

But could there be

a monster eel?

Very possible.

Every single sampling site that

we went to pretty much had eels.

And the sheer volume of it

was a bit of a surprise.

The largest eel in the region

is the European conger.

It can grow

to almost 10 feet long

and weigh up to 160 pounds.

Could that be Nessie?

Eels are migratory fish,

so if someone saw an eel

in Loch Ness,

it's pretty easy to assume

that they could think

that that's

the Loch Ness Monster.

Once you have an eel

in mind, and you look back

at the videos and images

of Nessie,

you realize

it could be possible.

Especially if

you analyze the way

both Nessie and eels move.

The Loch Ness Monster

has often been described

as a serpentine-like monster,

maybe snake-like,

or perhaps, eel-like.

If any animal could look

like a sea monster,

an eel is a prime candidate.

It really has a classic

serpentine look.

Eels move in a slithery,

sort of snake-like way,

where their body curves,

and that's exactly what people

say the Loch Ness Monster

looks like.

So, it's really possible

that they saw an eel

with those hump-like shapes,

and they thought,

"That's the Loch Ness Monster."

A 2007 video sh*t by

retired engineer Gordon Holmes

seems to support this theory.

In 2007, Holmes makes

some trips to Loch Ness

to perform some

amateur experiments,

just for fun.

At first, he records some sounds

using hydrophonic equipment.

Then he sets up a camera

to capture video of the lake,

but he doesn't find anything

out of the ordinary.

That is,

until his visit on May 26th.

Holmes spots

some movement in the water

as he's driving, and pulls over

and grabs his camcorder.

His footage clearly shows

some type of large animal

moving through the water.

Though it's hard to tell,

it appears as though it's moving

in a serpentine fashion,

almost slithering

through the loch.

This is some

of the best video ever captured

of a creature on the surface

of Loch Ness.

Holmes purposely zooms

in and out while he's sh**ting

to make sure the shoreline

and other landmarks are visible,

so the footage

can be analyzed later.

Holmes sends

his footage to a forensic team

to determine

the animal's size and speed.

They find that

it's 10 to 15 feet long

and swimming at a speed

of six miles per hour.

Based on movement analysis,

they find a strong likelihood

that this animal is an eel.

Eels are the most common animals

in the loch,

and it's very likely that most

of the sightings over the year

have been related to eels.

At the time, this is

long before the discovery

of eel DNA in the loch,

so they come to this conclusion

all on their own.

Eels can also appear

brownish gray in the water

and have very smooth skin

like the Nessie descriptions.

The so-called "humps"

that people see

could be the serpentine curves

of the eel as it swims.

And the whole

"long, thin neck" concept

could fit with the eel as well.

They have a long, thin

everything.

But at 10 to 15 feet long,

if Holmes' research is correct,

that would still be an eel

of massive proportions.

And in fact, they did develop

an amazing new science

and a way to study

bodies of water

and what lives in them.

But of course,

potentially identifying

the Loch Ness Monster brings

a ton more attention

to their research.

When a DNA profile

of life in Loch Ness

is completed in 2019,

it uncovers a wide array

of species,

but it doesn't

identify everything.

Some of Nessie's

most passionate researchers

are quick to note that according

to the full 2019 report,

the source of 20%

of the DNA collected is unknown.

And that opens up a whole new

world of possibilities.

Maybe the monster isn't

a plesiosaur, or a shark,

or an eel, or any species

that we've even

encountered before.

All of the previous attempts

to prove that it is this animal

or this other animal

have been destined to fail

because it's none of these.

We may not know what it is

because we just don't know

what it is.

Based on all this

unidentified DNA,

could Nessie

be a completely undiscovered,

previously unknown species?

If there's one thing

that all underwater explorers

and scientists can agree on,

it's that we have not found

all the species in the ocean.

There are hundreds of thousands,

maybe millions of species

that we haven't found

or classified yet.

There's stuff out there that

we don't know anything about.

If Nessie's species is unknown,

how can we ever identify it?

Pretty much the only way

we can properly identify

a new species

whether it's a tiny insect

or a giant lake monster

is to find a specimen.

That's how science proves

and classifies new animals,

plants, and even bacteria.

Either living or dead,

we have to capture one.

As far as we can tell,

nobody has ever captured

a Loch Ness Monster.

There may have once

been those remains

on the Isle of Stronsay,

but we're not actually sure

it's the same animal.

And in any case,

none of that DNA survived.

So, there's no way to compare

the Stronsay Beast DNA

with the unknown DNA

that we have from the Loch.

So, we're stuck

with trying to catch

this elusive animal

in Loch Ness.

But for 1,500 years

no one has even come close.

We're still trying to get

a good photograph,

let alone trap the thing.

The problem lies

in the incredibly challenging

conditions at Loch Ness.

First off, Loch Ness is huge.

It's 23 miles long,

it's a mile wide,

and the most important thing,

750 feet deep,

which is impressively deep

for any lake.

It contains more water

than any other lake in the UK.

In fact, it contains

as much water

as all the lakes

in England and Wales combined.

So, it's a large place

to look for a monster.

But the size

isn't the only reason

it's hard to explore.

Loch Ness is full of peat,

which is organic matter

from plants

that's constantly

breaking down in water.

It makes the water dark brown,

almost black.

Visibility is only

a couple of feet at most.

And even if you were

to dive down for a look around,

the temperature

is not survivable.

Loch Ness has an average

surface temperature

of 42 degrees Fahrenheit.

And as soon as you get

about 20 feet down,

it has what is known

as a thermocline.

It's a stratification

of the water,

almost like an invisible wall,

where suddenly the temperature

can drop 10 or 20 degrees.

Without a very advanced

modern dry suit,

a diver could freeze to death

and drown in about six minutes.

I'm not sure that this thing

is possible

to catch in Loch Ness.

But could another lake

linked to Loch Ness

by a waterway offer fresh hope

of capturing a creature

like Nessie?

According to some,

the answer is yes,

and Sweden's Storsjön Lake

is the ideal location.

Both are freshwater

and fairly cold.

Both share similar

biological diversity,

oxygen levels, et cetera.

If something can live

in Loch Ness,

it can most likely

live here too.

Like Loch Ness,

it has a long history

of monster sightings.

There have been centuries

of reported sightings

of a creature with

the same physical description.

In Swedish,

it's called Storsjöodjuret,

which literally translates

to "The Great Lake Monster."

It's first written about

on a runestone

that dates all the way back

to the year 1050.

It's got this depiction

of a long serpentine

water monster on it.

Conditions in

the two lakes are similar,

but there's one key difference.

Storsjön Lake

is much cleaner and clearer,

and much less hazardous

to explore.

And that makes

spotting a monster much easier.

Thanks to much more

favorable conditions,

the Storsjöodjuret

has been captured

easily on video from far away,

most recently

in a 2008 documentary

that also sh*t infrared footage.

And attempts to track

the specimen

have already been mounted.

Researchers at the

Lake Monster Center in Storsjön

plan to continue

their search efforts.

If they're successful,

all we have to do

is compare

the Swedish creature's DNA

to all the unknown DNA

from Loch Ness.

If any of it matches,

we've identified our monster

and discovered

a brand-new species.

That would be among

one of the most incredible

scientific discoveries

in history.

As many as 18,000 new species

are identified

every single year.

So, the possibility

is out there.

I hope one day we can

add Nessie to that list.

Over long centuries,

many theories have emerged

about the origins and existence

of the mysterious

Loch Ness Monster.

Each offers an intriguing

possibility,

but none are airtight.

You say, hey,

maybe it's a plesiosaur,

but there's no evidence

any of them survived extinction,

and we'd see an air-breathing

creature much more often.

So, maybe it's

a Greenland shark,

but shark DNA wasn't found

in the loch.

Well, what about

all the eel DNA?

But could an eel,

even a giant one, grow that big?

What about the thing

that washed up in Stronsay?

Or the similar lake monster

in Sweden?

To be honest,

any one of these creatures

could be what was spotted

in Loch Ness,

or perhaps

it's more accurate to say

all of these things could be.

What if it's not

Loch Ness Monster,

but monsters?

We talk about

the Loch Ness Monster

as this monotypic creature,

like there's just one of it.

There's only ever been

one Nessie.

But given the time period,

1,500 years of sightings,

that's highly unlikely.

There's absolutely no reason

it has to be one thing

and the same thing

over centuries.

Let's start with the eel theory.

For sure, some of the things

that people have seen

in the loch over the years

have been eels.

Just look at

the Gordon Holmes footage,

and that's obvious.

It's a common animal

in the loch,

and when you're scanning

from far away

looking for any kind

of movement on the surface,

a large swimming eel could

certainly catch your attention.

How about a Greenland shark?

Well, we know they're swimming

around in the North Sea,

and they can and do

sometimes go up river

in the freshwater areas.

It's quite likely

a predator like that

could follow a bunch of salmon

into the River Ness

and could conceivably make it

all the way into the loch.

A lot of animals

that sharks like to eat

make that trip, including seals.

While there wasn't any shark DNA

in 2019,

there is still a good chance

that a shark has been spotted

in the loch across the thousands

of other sightings.

And what about

the plesiosaur theory?

I don't necessarily think

there's a living,

breathing plesiosaur

that is swimming around there.

But I do think the plesiosaur

may be what's behind the legend.

Scotland and the UK in general

are teeming

with plesiosaur fossils

fully-intact skeletons

of creatures

that back in the Middle Ages

would have been assumed

to be monsters.

Water beasts,

just like Saint Columba saw.

Imagine in 500 or 600 AD,

you stumble upon the remains

of a plesiosaur.

You would certainly tell your

buddies back at the ale house

about the crazy

giant long-necked creature.

It's quite possible that

this tale eventually morphed

into the Loch Ness Monster

legend.

As for the Stronsay Beast,

whatever it is,

it really doesn't matter.

If it washed up

on the shore of the island,

we know there's a direct path

of waterway

that connects back

to the Loch Ness.

And any migratory creature,

whether it's a shark, a whale,

or anything less,

could be swimming back and forth

from the sea to the loch.

Some of the Loch Ness sightings

could be the same animal.

Or perhaps

an unidentified animal

from even further away.

Across 1,500 years,

some of the Loch Ness sightings

may well be an unidentified

new species.

Even the DNA results

bear that out.

They can't identify

every living thing in the loch.

But if Sweden's Storsjön Lake

is hiding the same species,

maybe we'll have

an incredible discovery soon.

Still, even if they

identify the Storsjöodjuret

and identify one

in Loch Ness as well,

that doesn't mean that

Gordon Holmes didn't see an eel,

or others didn't see

other animals.

A new species

would be a revelation,

but remain only one piece

of the puzzle.

And still, there will

always be those people

who believe Nessie is a hoax.

We know for a fact

that plenty of Nessie witnesses

have been duped by hoaxes.

It happened to a sonar team

that found a movie prop.

And in fact, it happened

to millions of people

around the globe, thanks to

the surgeon's photograph.

So, yes, Nessie is also a hoax,

but not just a hoax.

There's much more

to the monster than that.

One day, we may get

the perfect biopsy,

the perfect picture,

the perfect bone specimen,

or maybe a strange

long-necked creature

will just walk right out

of the loch and say hello.

And when that day comes,

it'll be time

to break out the champagne.

But until then, I think

we shouldn't limit our minds

to what Nessie could

or couldn't be.

Because it could be

something new next year.

The possibilities are endless,

and that is what has kept people

fascinated with Nessie

for so long.

Despite the many challenges,

thousands of amateur

and professional researchers

still spend time

at Loch Ness every year

hoping to unmask the monster.

Perhaps modern technology

will soon provide us

with a clear picture

of what's hiding in the depths.

Until then, there's no shortage

of people willing to look.

I'm Laurence Fishburne.

Thank you for watching

"History's Greatest Mysteries."