Monday, 2 August 2010

Follow Up on Surgeon's Second Photo

Feedback from my previous blog suggested that the second photograph could have been achieved because the toy submarine was capable of diving.

My problem with this is that the experts on the subject - Alastair Boyd and david Martin do not see fit to defend this or even mention it as a theory in their book. Hence their reasons to dismiss the 2nd photo on other grounds. Perhaps Spurling said something about the capabilities of the altered toy or they thought it through themselves - they don't suggest it and I accept their silence as proof that a toy submarine with a 12 inch lump strapped all over its hydrodynamics is too unstable to do much else than float.

Here is a picture of such a toy from that period.

Reagarding the plotters rephotographing the best photographs so they knew exactly what to give to the Inverness chemist - again I have a problem with this subplot.

Four plates were submitted to the chemist but only two came out. Perhaps my knowledge of 1930s photogaphy is incomplete but that doesn't sound like the work of meticulous hoaxers to me!


  1. Here are informations about the Unda-Wunda submarines with a picture of the circa 1932 model :
    Best wishes
    Denis Biette (France)

  2. I don't understand the crazy idea of the chemist needing to be in on the hoax, why ?

    The less people that are in on the gag means the hoax is much more likely to succeed.

    1. I don't think he was involved, but his presence along with that second photo has not been satisifactorily explained (to me).