Do Sonar Hits Really Show Creatures? Evidence Breakdown
Share
If you spend enough time studying lake monsters, you eventually realize something odd: despite all the photographs, eyewitness accounts, and shaky camcorder footage, the evidence that shakes researchers the most often comes from something less dramatic and far more stubborn.
Sonar.
A technology designed for mapping lake bottoms and tracking fish has quietly become one of the most intriguing pieces of the lake monster puzzle. And unlike eyewitnesses, sonar doesn’t embellish. It doesn’t panic. It doesn’t confuse a log with a leviathan or misread the play of light on water. Sonar returns whatever is there—shapes, densities, movements—without caring whether we understand it.
And yet, the debate around sonar hits feels even more contested than the creature sightings themselves. Some researchers swear their readings show unmistakable evidence of large, moving organisms. Skeptics argue the same images can be explained by artifacts, submerged debris, or technical errors. Meanwhile, the lakes continue to produce baffling hits that refuse to fit any known profile.
So the question hangs in the water like a suspended shadow: Do sonar hits really show creatures, or are we chasing illusions generated by our own instruments?
To get even close to an answer, you have to step into the dim, uncertain world where technology and mystery collide.
When the Machines Started Seeing Shapes
Sonar’s entry into monster lore didn’t begin with modern digital screens but with crude, scratchy printouts in the mid-20th century. Early systems functioned like underwater typewriters, thumping out jagged lines that represented echoes bouncing off the lake floor or moving targets. These machines weren’t built for cryptid research. They were built for commercial fishing and geological surveys.
But then strange shapes began appearing on those rolls of paper—long, solid forms far larger than any known fish. Echo returns that traveled at consistent speeds instead of drifting like logs. Shadows that rose and fell through the water column with smooth, controlled motion.
Some of the earliest hits came from Loch Ness in the 1950s and ’60s, when teams conducting environmental studies captured images of large, mobile sonar targets deep below the thermocline. Long, consistent returns. Torpedo-shaped profiles. And once, an object nearly thirty feet long pacing a boat before descending out of range.
For many, this was the moment the monster stepped out of folklore and into instrumentation.
But sonar, as it turns out, is not a simple interpreter of the underwater world. It needs context. It needs caution. And sometimes, it needs humility.
The Deep-Water Ghosts of Loch Ness
Among the most famous sonar readings ever recorded came from a 1972 expedition where researchers captured what looked like the flipper of a massive animal—broad, elongated, and moving in repeated strokes. The image made headlines worldwide.
Decades later, skeptics argued it might have been kelp, a seal, or a sonar artifact created by overlapping reflections. The problem is that Loch Ness has neither kelp nor seals in that deep middle region. And artifacts rarely repeat identically over multiple scans.
Then came the so-called “Nessie body” images: long, horizontal shapes suspended mid-water, too large to be sturgeon, too uniform to be debris. One sonar operator described seeing an object “the size of a small bus” drifting beneath the boat—and then accelerating.
That single detail—the acceleration—remains a sticking point. Logs don’t accelerate. Underwater reflections don’t accelerate. Fish do. Animals do.
But sonar has a way of giving with one hand and taking with the other. No expedition managed to follow these shapes to the surface. No camera captured what the sonar detected. The hits remained suspended between data and interpretation, feeding both belief and skepticism in equal measure.
When Modern Sonar Became Too Clear for Comfort
Today’s multibeam sonar systems produce images sharp enough to show fish fins, rock contours, and submerged tree branches. And modern lake monster investigations occasionally produce returns so clean that even skeptics admit they resemble animals.
One of the strangest comes from Lake Okanagan in British Columbia, home of Ogopogo. A sonar sweep captured a long, continuous object moving just above the lake bottom, its profile undulating in a way consistent with swimming. The size estimate ranged from twenty-five to thirty-five feet.
Fisheries biologists reviewing the footage struggled to identify any known species that matched it. The object moved too deliberately to be a school of fish, too long to be a sturgeon, and too uniform to be debris.
The sonar operator, a commercial fisherman with decades of experience, said simply, “That wasn’t anything I’ve ever fished, and I’ve fished everything.”
Skeptics pointed out that sonar can create elongated shapes when multiple smaller targets overlap. But this wasn’t a loose cluster. It was a single consistent return, maintained across multiple passes.
In other words, the sonar behaved as if it saw one very large animal.
When the Machines Lie
Sonar is remarkable technology. But it is not infallible. And in the world of lake monsters, its limitations matter just as much as its strengths.
Thermoclines—the layers where water temperature changes—can bend sonar signals. Schools of fish can merge on-screen to mimic a single large target. Air bubbles, underwater vegetation, and even the wake of the boat itself can distort readings. In rare cases, sonar reflections can echo off steep underwater slopes and create ghost images of objects that aren’t where they seem to be.
These artifacts can look uncannily alive.
There’s also human interpretation. People see what they’re primed to see. A veteran sonar operator may look at a large return and say, “That’s just fish biomass.” A cryptid researcher might see the same return and whisper, “There it is.”
Sonar doesn’t tell stories. Humans do.
And yet, with all those caveats, some of the sonar hits remain stubbornly unexplained.
The Uncomfortable Outliers
For every artifact and misread cluster, there are readings that persist through scrutiny.
In 2011, a research boat on Loch Ness captured a sonar image of a twenty-six-foot object moving beneath them. The return was crisp, smooth, and unmistakably unified. When the operators doubled back, the object had moved over one hundred feet from its original location—against the current.
In 2019, a team using advanced sonar on Lake Champlain recorded a long, arched shape that did not match fish schools, logs, or normal underwater geography. The operator said it looked like a “massive eel-shaped form” gliding parallel to the boat.
These are the kinds of hits that keep cryptozoologists awake at night. These are the ones skeptics struggle to explain without stretching their arguments to the breaking point. These are the ones that whisper that something is down there—something capable of moving in ways sonar cannot mistake for debris.
What Sonar Actually Reveals
Sonar doesn’t show lake monsters in the cinematic way people imagine. There are no scales, no fins, no open jaws. What sonar does reveal is presence. Density. Movement. Shape.
It shows when something large is occupying space it shouldn’t.
It shows when something moves with intention instead of drifting with currents.
It shows when a return maintains uniform size and speed across multiple sweeps—something only a creature can do.
Sonar builds its own kind of mythology, one made not of blurry photos but of shadows carved from physics.
And the shadows don’t always behave like we expect.
Between Data and Depths
The real question isn’t whether sonar can detect creatures—it can, and does, every day around the world in the hands of marine biologists and fishermen.
The question is whether these particular sonar hits reveal creatures that don’t fit any known species.
There is no single answer. Some hits are illusions, no doubt. Some are debris. Some are misreadings. And some—quietly, persistently, stubbornly—do not match anything natural or expected in the water they were recorded in.
A technology that shows fish, shipwrecks, and geological features with perfect clarity should also show a monster clearly, if a monster is there. But lake monsters, if they exist, inhabit the margins—thermoclines, silt layers, deep pockets where sonar scatter makes interpretation difficult.
Sonar sees just enough to tempt the imagination. Not enough to satisfy it.
The Mystery in the Echo
At its core, sonar evidence is compelling not because it offers answers but because it refuses to collapse into simple explanations. The most persistent, consistent returns suggest objects too large, too uniform, and too mobile to be explained away with logs or fish.
And yet, nothing ever breaches. Nothing surfaces for long. Nothing offers its body to confirm the blips and streaks we see on digital screens.
The sonar hits remain suspended in a strange limbo—more than myth, less than proof.
Stand on a quiet shore at dusk while the boat lights blink across the lake, and imagine those vessels sweeping the depths with their invisible beams. Every ping is a question thrown into darkness. Every echo is an answer we don’t entirely understand.
Maybe the machines are showing us creatures. Maybe they’re showing us nothing more than the lake’s own restless shadows.
But until something rises from the depths and erases the need for interpretation, sonar will remain what it has always been in monster lore:
A clue.
A temptation.
A voice from the deep that tells us something is there—
but never tells us what.
Continue the Expedition
Are Eels Actually The Lake Monsters?
Lake Monster Evidence
Why Lakes Breed Legends
Bring a Legend home from our Cryptid Curiosities Collection