Indeed Roy Mackal printed the second illustration following in his book on the Loch Ness Monster on the famous sighting he had previously documented in his earlier book on the Great Sea Serpent. The game should have been up at that point because it showed once and for all that what people were describing as a long string of humps was actually an illusion caused by the waves forming in the wake of an object moving in the water. Experiments would also show that you get much the same effect from any number of different causes so long as you basically have the same sort of a wake.
Because of this you have string of buoys wakes being left by fishes and whales of various sizes and also by boats. and the row of hump-ripples can be as small as a few feet long or seemingly stretch for miles. Adding the number of sightings from Dinsdale that are merely described as wakes to the assorted hump sightings makes the category the decided majority of Loch Ness Monster cases.
The conclusion to be drawn was clear. NONE of the string-of buoys reports were to be trusted and even the more basic reports of one to three humps would have to be scrutinized before they would be fit to call reliable evidence. The entire string of buoys categories of Heuvelmans' sea serpents would have to be dropped. At the same time, one of the demonstrable causes of the string of buoys wake effect was the Longnecked sea serpent, as in the fifth drawing down from the top in Dinsdale's fig 2. In which case the determininative characteristic for the creature was the long neck and not the humps
Determining sightings of the type statistically also put several of the sightings featuring a small head and large body together, with or without also mentioning the long neck as well. These reports were statistically consistent world-wide as shown by different comparable analyses done for each location separately. However the string-of-buoys reports were also alarmingly consistent statistically and they also turned out to be world-wide in distribution. The Plesiosaur-shaped pattern did prove to be consistent and an analysis of only the Longnecked category reports of Heuvelmans also resulted in much the same statistics. But it began to become apparent that worldwide and in any large number of reports, the reports specifying the long neck observations were in the minority. Several locations (including Lake Okanogon) had very few or no verifiable reports of long necked "Periscopes" over a yard or two long, and it also became obvious that even at Loch Ness they were not a consistent feature of reports at all times. At Loch Ness, long periods could go by when no observations of "Periscopes" would be made at all and when they did occur, the observations tended to come in bundles together.
|Nessie from Scotland and Nahelito from Argentina. In both cases the heads of the creatures have been said to be pieces of wood, but this comparison DOES go to show that the reports of the type are remarkably similar worldwide|
Taking the raw statistics alone it seems that in the long run and worldwide the consistent pattern IS the string-of-buoys series of reports and that category should be regarded as the background noise that researchers should be aware contaminates all collections of data we have on record. As such it must be emphasized that what most people have meant historically by the terms "Sea-serpent", "Ogopogo", "Nessie", "Champ" and so on has been the standing wave phenomenon, ie, the background noise reports and not the legitimate "Creature" reports at all.
On the other hand, many experts have been making estimations about "The Creature" that was supposed to be at the bottom of all of these reports. In the examples below, each of the experts had made a SeaSerpent model that was supposed to have included a population (or only stray individuals) that wandered into Loch Ness.
Below is Dinsdale's reconstruction for the Loch Ness Monster (leaving the humps off) and below that are my own comparable Longnecker reconstructions. An excerpt from Gould's book explaining his reconstruction is below, and it siffers from Dinsdale's mainly in having a longer tail (Gould directly states this is to account for some of the "String of buoys" reports) And at the bottom there is one of the reports from Gould allegedly showing the shape of the humps changing on the creature's back. This may be due to the type of flexible (boneless) fatty hump on the back that Bernard Heuvelmans describes in his discussion on the LongNecked Sea-Serpent.