1 SASquaTCH Assistant: Loch Ness. So Steve, what's the first step?
2 SASquaTCH Assistant: Aerial reconnaissance? An exhaustive sonar survey? Chemical analysis of water samples from various depths? Trawling the lake bed?
3 Steve: Nah! I'll wade in and have a look around! {wades into the water}
4 SASquaTCH Assistant: The hands-on approach! Now that's a real scientist at work. {Jane Goodall glares at assistant}

Unfortunately Steve looks a little too out of focus in the last shot. He should be somewhat out of focus, being in the background of a shot focused on the foreground figures, but the optics of shooting macro images so close to the subject is such that the depth of field is extremely shallow. Unlike Loch Ness, which is very deep.

---

2020-02-01 Rerun commentary: It's about 230 metres deep, as best anybody has been able to measure. Or as the infobox on Wikipedia's page currently says: 226.96 m deep. I'd like to know who reckons they've measured the depth of the loch to an accuracy of 1 centimetre.

Looking back through the page history, that figure has stood uncontested since the edit of 3 November 2010, over 9 years ago.

The page history also indicates that by far the most common edit to the Wikipedia article on Loch Ness is to add the Loch Ness Monster as one of the species of fish listed in the lake.

Also interestingly, the article on Loch Ness comes in at a smidgen over 1000 words, while the article on the Loch Ness Monster is a heavy 7300 words. So an article on an almost certainly fictional creature is seven times as long as the one on the real piece of geography where it's alleged to live.