Sunday 20 April 2014

The Surgeon's Photo Eighty Years On




It was eighty years to the day on the 21st April 1934 that the Daily Mail introduced the most iconic image of Nessie to the world. The Surgeon's Photograph as it was dubbed caught the imagination of the world and has ever since been the lead image for the monster.

Almost immediately, the photo gained acceptance amongst the monster hunting fraternity as Rupert T. Gould approvingly included it two months later in his work "The Loch Ness Monster". That was the way it pretty much stayed as Constance Whyte gave it prominence in the 1950s as did Dinsdale in his later works and into a plethora of authors throughout the 1970s and beyond.

As the photograph was scrutinized for further hidden clues, things became somewhat strained as Dinsdale thought he saw a concentric ripple near the object indicating further monster activity. Meanwhile, Ted Holiday, in his book "The Great Orm of Loch Ness" claimed to see monstrous appendages in the shadows which bolstered his invertebrate theory of Nessie. The less well known monster author, Edward Armstrong, made a somewhat better effort in claiming a print defect was in fact a seagull flying past the monster, thus making it about seven foot high. To complete the list, there was also the story from the 1990s by Nicholas Witchell of whiskers being visible on a computer enhancement of the photograph.

Sceptics may chortle at these failed attempts, but in their desire to look more clever than they really are, they too made themselves look a bit silly in hindsight. Roy Mackal, in his book "The Monsters of Loch Ness" pronounced the photograph to be no more than a water fowl. Maurice Burton decided it was perhaps an otter's tail caught in the act of diving, whilst the Linnean Society of London decided the object was a tree trunk thrust to the surface by erupting gases.

To be fair to Tim Dinsdale, he cooled a bit on the photograph in later years, but it was the research of another monster believer, Alastair Boyd, along with David Martin that finally exposed the story behind the picture nearly sixty years after its creation. It seems the whole affair was a model neck stuck to a toy submarine concocted by Marmaduke Wetherell, Christian Spurling, Maurice Chambers and Kenneth Wilson.

I won't go over the details of this oft repeated story, but suffice to say the case is closed for me and the majority of Loch Ness Monster researchers. Some unanswered questions remain, such as the nature of the less well known second photograph of the object submerging. To this day, there is no satisfactory explanation for this, and given the various failed sceptical theories about the first photograph, I wouldn't assume they have a grasp of the situation either. Critics may often accuse "believers" of accepting any old evidence, but I think that ad hominem has been disproved in this case (well, perhaps some still accept the picture as evidence).

But what of the man himself, Robert Kenneth Wilson? In an article from the ANZ Journal of Surgery published in December 2007, some more facts are revealed about him. Born on the 26th January 1899 into a medical family, he developed a love of firearms and joined the Royal Artillery in 1917, only to be wounded in action on the Western Front in 1918 (which left him with a slight limp for life).

Gaining the Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1926, he established a practise in Queen Anne Street near Harley Street, specialising in gynaecology. His expertise in firearms led him to be an expert witness in court trials and his expanding collection occupied three walls of a special room at their Highgate residence. The outbreak of war compelled him to donate the guns to the Metropolitan Police as personal armouries were outlawed. He also wrote a book on the subject of firearms.

The Nessie hoax with his shooting partner, Maurice Chambers, was a mixed affair to Wilson. The Daily Mail bought the picture from Chambers for £100 (over £6000 in today's money), but the British Medical Association fined Wilson £1000 for allowing his name to be associated with the picture! This was deemed as advertising and therefore improper for what his wife Gwen deemed a "silly prank" to their children.

It was claimed in this 2007 article that Maurice Chambers had confessed to all in his will after he died in 1944. I have examined a copy of the will obtained through the usual means, but have found no such confession.

Wilson again fought for his country in the Second World War, seeing action in France, Germany and the Far East. For these he was awarded the French Croix de Guerre and the Royal Orange Order of the Netherlands.

Having moved to Australasia in the 1950s to continue his medical practice (picture below), he retired in the mid-1960s after a stint with the Australian Petroleum Company. Our short story ends with Kenneth Wilson dying on the 6th June 1969 in Melbourne from oesophageal cancer.



Kenneth Wilson was obviously a brave and talented man, but even he and his co-conspirators could not summon the courage to come clean on a photograph that unexpectedly swept like wildfire around the world. Such is the power of the appeal of the Loch Ness Monster and eighty years on we look back on his part in this appeal with mixed feelings.








46 comments:

  1. While I can't decide if it's a fake (I SO want it not to be), what I am convinced is a fake is Spurling's "confession". He had nothing to back up his claims, and IMHO, he just wanted to go out with a bang and a fuss. Just because someone says something "on their deathbed" does NOT make it automatically true. It may be fake, but I think his story smells like last week's fish.

    I can't remember for the life of me where I heard/read it, but I seem to recall a story/rumour that the "real reason" that Dr. Wilson didn't come forward at the start was that he was up there with a woman who wasn't his wife, if ya gets my drifts? Since he wasn't supposed to be up there, he couldn't come forward because of the scandal.

    Are you familiar with this story, Roland? Because I can't seem to pinpoint when or where I got it from; sometime in the 80's, I think? But then, it could just be my years of youthful hedonism catching up with me in my old age; they do that.

    Yours in Nessiana,

    Storm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the lady story was mentioned in the Boyd/Martin book. Would need to check.

      Delete
    2. Geordie Sceptic21 April 2014 at 04:23

      Storm, was it not always obvious to you that the object in the photo was very small, i.e. around 1 foot tall? Even during the peak of my childhood belief in Nessie during the 70s it was very obvious to me that there were 2 things not right about this photo - firstly it had to be a tiny object when comparing it to the surrounding ripples, secondly the way there's an almost perfectly straight section on one side of the "neck" for me looked artificial. So even as a young child with a strong belief in the monster I had strong doubts about this image.

      Delete
    3. My doubts about the photo have always stemmed from both the unnatural perfectness of its shape and that it is in silhouette, providing no detail. The lack of other "longneck" photos before or since (except for Searle's fakery) has also always bothered me (Roland, feel free to school me if I'm mistaken; your interest is clearly more avid than mine, and you've come across all sorts of stuff that I've never heard of).

      So while my inner Scully says it's fake, the Mulder in me wants so very much to believe that both the photo, and The Creature, exist. Because, with all due respect, I get as much joy from believing in them as you seem to get from debunking them.

      Cheers,

      Storm

      Delete
    4. Long neck photos are rare, but that is to be expected. If long neck sightings are about 10% of all sightings, then one could expect a similar proportion for photos.

      The ones that spring to mind are the Adams, Bruce, J.Gray and R.Johnson photos. These of course are disputed by sceptics (as are all photos and sightings), but I mention them since you ask.

      Delete
    5. "Just because someone says something "on their deathbed" does NOT make it automatically true"

      The 'confession' was originally made some years before he died. It's just become known as a 'deathbed confession' since his death as it makes it sound more dramatic.

      Delete
    6. With all the things you are willing to accept as evidence GB I cannot believe you go for this obviously made up story. As I think I've written here before, I don't what that is a photo of but the Boyd/Spurling story is utter nonsense. As far as the size, look at an uncropped version of the photo with the shoreline included and you can get a more accurate sense of the how far away the subject is. I have seen both the "girlfriend" explanation, and even once someone claiming that the reason Wilson pulled over in the first place was because he had to urinate...

      Delete
    7. Hello Hopkarma, yes I know, seems uncharacteristic of me to side with sceptics, but I have to admit they are right some of the time.

      Delete
  2. I was never that taken by the Surgeon's Photo. All it has going for it is relative clarity given the range. Personally i always found the McNab photo far more iconic and interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll agree deathbed confessions aren't necessarily true, especially if it's a confederate, and not the actual person involved, but in this case I always thought there was something stilted and unnatural about the shape. Seeing it uncropped makes it especially unnatural-looking. You can indeed tell from the ripples (once you have some distance to compare) that it's not a big shape.

    What's interesting is that this came out the year after King Kong, and there's that theory that the brontosaurus in that movie influenced sightings and expectations from here on out--a long-necked pleisiosaur. Never mind the history of "salamander" and upturned-boat references up until then. I'd say this picture did more for the pleisiosaur theory than anything else... at least until those intriguing-but-undecipherable underwater photos taken in the 70s. I recently re-read the essay "Loch Ness Memoir" where the journalist spends his whole trip looking for the monster and finding nothing but gift shop trinkets, only to be told at the very end of his trip by the innkeeper that many locals have indeed seen something black and humped, but not long-necked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were a few long neck stories before the Wilson picture, the Spicers case being the main one. The Surgeon's Photo did not create that genre but it certainly helped. However, even since that picture, long neck sightings have always been in a small minority of about 10% or less.

      Delete
  4. Geordie Sceptic21 April 2014 at 10:39

    It's ironic that the main images which have excited the public over the years have all proved to be either fakes or mistakes. I'd consider the big headline grabbers to be the Surgeon's Photo, Dinsdale's boat film, the Rhines flippers and the Rhines body, neck, head and gargoyle head photos. All of these caused a huge stir, all have since been proven to be hoaxes or mistakes, or a combination of the two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well it's as untrue to say that this picture has been 'proved' to be fake as it is to say that it's been 'proved' to be a picture of an unknown animal. I don't take it seriously as a picture of a monster (or anything else unknown), but I do think that skeptics should apply the same level of skepticism to confessions and admissions of 'hoaxing' that lack any contemporary evidence as they do to claims of sightings. I don't see any more reason to believe Christian Spurling's account (and certainly no reason to consider it proof of anything) than I'd automatically believe, say, Frank Searle's claims of spotting Nessie. Both men are apparently unreliable, so why should we believe them when they talk of either hoaxes or sightings?

      Delete
    2. Chasing Leviathan21 April 2014 at 12:34

      Very respectfully, I do not accept that the Dinsdale film has been conclusively proven to be either a hoax or a mistake, although I certainly accept the possibility of the latter. I think a LOT more work needs to be done on this before such a definitive statement can be made.

      The Rines/Edgerton flipper shot is wonderfully intriguing, although I accept there are legitimate questions about it and the corresponding sonar record. Dick Raynor's criticisms in particular deserve the most serious consideration - the man was there after all. The 'Gargoyle Head' and the other pictures in this sequence must be suspect given that the camera was tilting and the discovery during Deepscan of debris in the same location that bore a strong resemblance to the 'Head' image.

      And the Surgeon's photo? I'm always intrigued by the date Gould ascribes to this in his book - "April 1st, 1934." Did everyone miss this, or did they simply ignore it?

      Delete
    3. I accept that, sceptics love "confessors" and dont apply the same rigor as they would to monster winesses.

      Delete
    4. Geordie Sceptic21 April 2014 at 23:00

      Fair points re. confessions - just as easy to fake as anything else. I was more referring to the entire Boyd book on the Surgeon's Photo, which I understand convinces people it's a hoax. Haven't read it myself, but if Roland has abandoned his belief in this photo it must be a convincing book.

      Dinsdale's film has in my opinion been 100% debunked, unless you believe a person was riding on Nessie's back that day.

      Delete
    5. Chasing Leviathan23 April 2014 at 13:56

      A person riding on Nessie's back?

      Careful, Geordie. Let's not give Mr Edwards any ideas..! :)

      Delete
    6. You would think the Royal Air Force,would have spotted that Mann inn thee boat( rolls eyes).
      What is it with you skeptics?

      Delete
  5. Geordie Sceptic22 April 2014 at 11:04

    Roland, I wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll put it here.
    I got thinking about the sightings v photos and videos discrepancy with Nessie and your "shock and awe" explanation. So I decided to take a look at Bigfoot forums to see how they deal with the same issue. To my amazement they have developed some crazy theorists: Infrasound - Bigfoot disorientates humans viewing them by emitting very low frequency sounds which actually cause people to lose several minutes of memory. This Infrasound is also used like sonar to detect the glass and plastic in cameras, thus enabling Bigfoot to avoid those. Infrared - Bigfoot can see infrared so can avoid all night vision cameras.
    Where there's a will, there's always a way when it comes to excusing the lack of evidence!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, are these the squatchers that think Bigfoot is linked to UFOs?

      Delete
    2. Infrasound would be very inefficient as sonar for detecting small objects. Ultrasonics, which bats use, would be better. Perhaps we should suggest it.

      Delete
  6. It was said it was a toy submarine. Were these around in 1934 ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/follow-up-on-surgeons-second-photo.html

      Delete
    2. http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/SUTCLIFFE-Unda-Wunda-Submarine-exellent-original-boxed-Tin-Toy-/161043450997

      From closer to the 1930s. One source states 1934 as the first year of production.

      Delete
  7. Burton Caruthers23 April 2014 at 08:14

    I question the authenticity of the photo of Wilson above. People actually wore their socks that high? Dear Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Looks like a hoax but the second photo adds a bit of mystery, as is the fact mr wilson himself i believe never admitted the hoax!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. As I recall, the neck was said to be about 12" high and made of plastic wood. I can't believe the toy submarines you show would be stable with such a thing stuck on top. If I had to fake a photo with such a toy I would use thin card. Do you know if anyone has replicated the alleged fake and made it work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would guess the neck was a hollow construct. Boyd's book talsk of lead weights at strategic points to stabilise the object.

      Delete
    2. It cannot be done with what they said it was done with - the Boyd/Spurling "explanation" is faker than a Searle photo...

      Delete
  10. I remember some attempt at recreating the image that was fairly successful. Can't remember the specifics though.

    I've always viewed the 'second photo' as a failed previous attempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "fairly successful" recreations all cheat out on the specifics - for example a stryofoam head neck.

      Delete
    2. I do agree, a more "by the book" reproduction should be done.

      Delete
  11. So why didnt they say the second photo was a failed attempt if they admitted the hoax? They didnt seem to know much about the second photo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody knew anything about the 2nd photo. I think it is simplistic to say it has nothing to do with the 1st photo. There is no reason they both came from the same camera. So it's an unsolved mystery how it came to be because Spurling knew nothing about it.

      Delete
    2. Unless the chemist was in on the "fake" too they both came from the same camera at the same time - c'mon GB, you know better.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps the second photo is the fake monster, sinking! In which case it could still be down there.

      Delete
  12. Strange how mr wilson never admitted the hoax. Seems a long time to keep num about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. looking around the net I came across an Australian program called The Extraordinary E39,which aired in the 90s I think,I can't remember seeing it in the UK so maybe it was only in Australia-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E89qRByA8sQ#comment-form at 30min/37sec is a segment about Loch Ness and a Nessie eyewitness from 1936.This gentleman seems very convinced about what he had seen.
      Jack.

      Delete
    2. Wilson was under some pressure from those in his profession to not talk about the matter - hence some of his more ambiguous comments as time went on.

      Delete
  13. In his book, In Search of Prehistoric Survivors, p 87, Karl Shuker makes some devastating criticisms of the toy submarine story. It was allegedly made of plastic wood which did not exist in 1934. Also, the type of toy submarine available at the time could not support such an unwieldy structure as the head-and-neck - unless it was ballasted, in which case it would have sunk. There is also the problem of the second photo.
    There was also a wild story published in 1992 by a Prof. Lambert Wilson that the photo represented himself swimming with a special "sea serpent" mask he had constructed.
    There are also at least three mutually conflicting stories by people who have claimed to have faked the Patterson "bigfoot" film.
    I personally have reservations about the Wilson photo, and I shall leave the Patterson film for another time. However, we should be aware that there is such a thing as a fake hoax. To put it simply, the average hoaxer has to chuckle about his action in private, or with just a few friends. However, some people have discovered that they can better get their 15 minutes of fame, and be believed, if they attach themselves to a well known event or photo, and falsely claim to have been involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wrote on "plastic wood" here:

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.co.uk/2013_01_13_archive.html

      It was around at least as early as 1928.

      Delete
  14. I've never read the Boyd book. What's the general jist? Is it all down to the Spurling confession?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not quite. There was a newspaper article by a relation of Wetherell in 1975 that pointed the finger at the big game hunter.

      Delete
  15. I know you're pretty convinced by Boyd's book, Roland.

    What was it about the argument put forward that convinced you the Surgeon's Photo was a fake? Is it just the confession or some other evidence?

    I've not read the book myself, so i'm just interested.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As I recall, Martin was going through some newspaper articles on microfilm in the early 90's when he ran across the 1975 story. In the story Wetherall's son Ian claimed that the photo was faked. What caught Martin's eye was a Maurice Chambers being named by Wetherall as the go-between (the mutual aquaintence of Marmaduke Wetherall and R.K. Wilson, who passed the photo(s) to Wilson). Martin and Boyd attempted to track down Ian Wetherall at a pub he was known to frequent, only to learn he had passed away some years earlier. However, they were informed that Ian Wetherall's stepbrother, Christian Spurling, was still alive. Martin and Boyd tracked down Spurling and asked him about the alleged fake photo. Spurling told them it was he who had built the model monster by putting a plastic-wood head on the conning tower of a toy submarine, and that he stabilized the sub by soldering a keel onto the bottom. Spurling knew nothing about the particulars of the actual photography; his involvement was limited to building the fake monster.

    Paddy

    ReplyDelete
  17. I accidentally deleted this comment from GS (never use iPhone for comment moderation!):

    "They had a couple of stills to work with. Recent analysis of the sequence from experts (including a JARIC member) using the latest forensic technology to analyse images shows a man sized shape on a small boat sized shape. So you can stop rolling those eyes now. "

    ReplyDelete