A Veterinarian “Meets” A Monster

A couple of days ago I wrote an article here at Mysterious Universe titled "A Classic Encounter: Nessie On Land, 1933." It was focused on the strange and controversial story of a Mr. and Mrs. Spicer, who encountered one of the legendary Loch Ness Monsters not in the waters of the mystery-filled loch, but actually on land - in 1933. In part I said: "... George Spicer described the animal as being hideous, an absolute affront against nature. What particularly struck Spicer – and which provoked his comments – was the way the thing moved. It did not do so like any normal animal. Rather, it lumbered across the road in a series of odd jerks and coils; something which, for Spicer and his wife, was reminiscent of a massive worm. He continued that by the time the shocked pair reached the section of the road where the monster appeared, it was already gone. Nevertheless, evidence of its presence was still there..."

What's particularly interesting is that one year later, there was yet another land-based encounter. This one was just as controversial as the Spicer affair. On this occasion, the witness was a man named Arthur Grant, of Glen Urquhart. The date was January 5, 1934.That Grant was a student-veterinarian at the time, added to the weight and credibility of his report - for some, at least. A keen motorcyclist, twenty-one-year-old Grant was on the roads, heading home at around 1:00 a.m. when, he claimed, he very nearly became the first person to ever have a head-on collision with a Nessie! Fortunately, however, neither monster not motorcyclist were injured.

That the night sky was dominated by a powerful, eerie moon meant that Grant had a very good view of the beast, as it loomed before him, and was caught in the glare of his motorbike’s headlight. It was at a distance of around 120 feet that Grant caught sight of something unusual in front of him. Exactly how unusual it was near-immediately became apparent. Grant said of his sighting that he was practically on top of the monster when its tiny head – sat atop an elongated neck – suddenly turned in his direction. Evidently just as shocked as Grant was, the monster made two bounds across the road, headed down to the loch and vanished into its depths with an almighty splash.

Grant brought his motorbike to what was literally a screeching halt and, demonstrating his spirited character, gave chase! It was quickly clear to Grant, however, that, as a result of the huge splash, the monster had made good its escape. Nevertheless, in the time between it was first seen and when it fled for the dark waters, Grant was able to get an excellent view of the thing. He described the monster as having a bulky body, flippers rather than legs, and an approximately six-foot-long, thick tail that looked like it could inflict significant damage. As for its overall size, Grant suggested somewhere close to twenty-feet.

Skeptics claim that Grant fabricated the story; however, it should be noted that he was insistent that he saw a monster and even made a statement to that effect to the Edinburgh-based Veterinary Society. Given that Grant was a student-veterinarian, it seems unlikely that he would have taken the risk of recklessly lying to the Veterinary Society. A prank on the press is one thing. Risking one’s entire future career in front of the society would have been quite another entirely. Grant’s statement is an important one, as it adds some additional, intriguing data to his original report.

As he said, given his profession he knew more than a bit about the world of natural history. As a result, he had pondered deeply on the nature of the monster. Interestingly, Grant said that the beast seemed to be a chimera – that’s to say a combination of several creatures. The head of the monster, explained Grant, was eel-like. Or, it could have been more snake-like; he wasn’t altogether sure. The body resembled that of a plesiosaur. The eyes were large – although, admittedly, Grant only saw one. Logic dictates, however, that both eyes would have been uniform in nature and appearance. The skin of the animal, meanwhile, said Grant, was like that of a whale.

Whatever the truth of the affair, and whatever the nature of the thing that Arthur Grant saw and almost crashed into, the story continues to endure.