iStockphoto
A man named Charles Rankin claimed that the Loch Ness Monster is dead because he buried its partially burned remains beneath St. Ninian’s school in Gourock, Scotland way back in 1942.
However, for some reason, his story has been largely ignored for more than eight decades.
Rankin’s story has once again come to light thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Inverclyde Council submitted by Alba Party General Secretary Christopher McEleny in Scotland.
Charles Rankin’s Loch Ness Monster tale was previously reported by The Strathearn Herald back in 1980.
According to Rankin, in 1942 he and another man discovered a “[carcass] of an animal the like of which neither of us had seen before.”
“I decided to dispose of the [carcass] before the smell became really offensive and this had to be done before the tide flowed again,” Rankin claimed. “The [carcass] was cut up into manageable pieces and removed to the town’s incinerator grounds.
“The remains were buried in the grounds of the town’s incinerator. I had in mind to dig them up at a later date once the flesh had decomposed, but I left Gourock in 1946 and the opportunity was lost.”
He also claimed that the Royal Navy wouldn’t allow him to photograph the beast, but he did create a drawing of what he witnessed.
Christopher McEleny’s FOI request response, obtained by The Daily Star, revealed even more information about the supposed fate of the Loch Ness Monster.
“1942 Council worker, Charles Rankin, was the Burgh Surveyor of Gourock,” the response to the FOI request read. “Mr. Rankin claimed that he found a sea monster washed up on the shore of Gourock.
“It was reported that as the MOD and Royal Navy prevented photography of the find that Gourock Corporation – now succeeded by Inverclyde Council – incinerated the beast and buried it beneath the what was playing fields of St. Ninian’s school in Gourock, which is now the site of St. Ninian’s school in Gourock.
“The Public Protection Service’s Contaminated Land Officer confirmed that if the sea monster was incinerated it is unlikely there would be much in the way of identifiable materials left,” the response continued.
“Inefficient incineration might leave some material intact but this would be unlikely at an industrial incineration facility. I see there are references to the monster being cut up and buried.
“Depending on ground conditions it is unlikely there would be much tissue remnants after 81 years of decomposition.”
Christopher McEleny now believes “this is the first time in decades that it’s been confirmed by suitably qualified and in the know public officials that the stories are in fact true.”