Copyright: Süddeutscher Verlag
Loch Ness Monster researcher, Ulrich Magin, emailed me with a three hump photograph that has been on his files for years. While it is of interest in its own right, he wondered if it could have a link to the legendary MacRae film that was recently discussed on this blog? I reproduce the picture above with Ulrich's email below.
You might be aware of me as a person that has commented upon the monster from time to time. I have read your column on the McRae film, and just possibly I have a clue. I am not very sure myself. There has always been an alleged Nessie photo widely used in German sources that appeared to be a still from it (or, if you want, a photo created in imitation of the alleged film). It might also be something completely different, and perhaps you know it. I enclose photos of two reproductions,
photo A from: Elke Kahlert (ed): Die Urwelt lebt. dtv, Munich 1972, p. 31
photo B from: Helmut Höfling: UFOs, Urwelt, Ungeheuer. Ensslin, Reutlingen 1980, p.280
Both give as copyright holder Süddeutscher Verlag, Munich. At the time (ca 1980), I contacted that publisher, never to receive an answer. Some magazine reproductions were better than the enclosed photos, and you could just discern an almond/slit-like eye in the conical head at the left, to the left of the pointed, frill-like ears.
The photo (and it might be a still from an early SF film I am unaware of, etc.), however, contains many elements of the description: "three humps, together with the neck and head, are clearly visible. The neck is held low over the water and seems to be writhing to and fro. During the sequence, a bird flies down and lands on a stone in the foreground, which helps to give scale to the picture.
The Orm's head appears to be bluntly conical in profile - rather like half a rugger ball, to quote Mr Dallas. On the crest of the head are two hornlike sense-organs. Starting between these, and running down the neck, is a bristly mane. Mr Dallas said that this mane reminded him of baleen; it is stiff yet flexible and the texture seemed to him fibrous rather than hairy. Slit-like eyes can be made out on the head but they are not very distinct."
Clearly visible on the photo (it is the same in both books, no variation in the waves) are large, regular, very unlikely scales on the humps, which have not been commented upon by Holiday.
By the way, there are a number of "authentic" Loch Ness monster photos that are only ever published in German media, and may have their origin here rather than in Scotland. Possibly this is one of them. Kahlert's book was first published in 1970, close to Holiday's account. It might be a German forgery. It might be a still from a SF film. It might be a still of the McRae film - who knows.
I would add that I do not recall ever seeing this photo. I agree with Ulrich that we really can't take this photograph further on our own. He has done the work at the time trying to track down further information. There is no background to indicate it was taken at Loch Ness and we know nothing about the photographer or his supposed encounter.
In that light, it could be anything from a staged hoax (such as this one from Germany) to a still from the MacRae film. I would only add that it was my presumption that the creature in the Macrae film displayed a longer neck. Anyway, if anyone has further information on this photo, send an email or add a comment below.
You might be aware of me as a person that has commented upon the monster from time to time. I have read your column on the McRae film, and just possibly I have a clue. I am not very sure myself. There has always been an alleged Nessie photo widely used in German sources that appeared to be a still from it (or, if you want, a photo created in imitation of the alleged film). It might also be something completely different, and perhaps you know it. I enclose photos of two reproductions,
photo A from: Elke Kahlert (ed): Die Urwelt lebt. dtv, Munich 1972, p. 31
photo B from: Helmut Höfling: UFOs, Urwelt, Ungeheuer. Ensslin, Reutlingen 1980, p.280
Both give as copyright holder Süddeutscher Verlag, Munich. At the time (ca 1980), I contacted that publisher, never to receive an answer. Some magazine reproductions were better than the enclosed photos, and you could just discern an almond/slit-like eye in the conical head at the left, to the left of the pointed, frill-like ears.
The photo (and it might be a still from an early SF film I am unaware of, etc.), however, contains many elements of the description: "three humps, together with the neck and head, are clearly visible. The neck is held low over the water and seems to be writhing to and fro. During the sequence, a bird flies down and lands on a stone in the foreground, which helps to give scale to the picture.
The Orm's head appears to be bluntly conical in profile - rather like half a rugger ball, to quote Mr Dallas. On the crest of the head are two hornlike sense-organs. Starting between these, and running down the neck, is a bristly mane. Mr Dallas said that this mane reminded him of baleen; it is stiff yet flexible and the texture seemed to him fibrous rather than hairy. Slit-like eyes can be made out on the head but they are not very distinct."
Clearly visible on the photo (it is the same in both books, no variation in the waves) are large, regular, very unlikely scales on the humps, which have not been commented upon by Holiday.
By the way, there are a number of "authentic" Loch Ness monster photos that are only ever published in German media, and may have their origin here rather than in Scotland. Possibly this is one of them. Kahlert's book was first published in 1970, close to Holiday's account. It might be a German forgery. It might be a still from a SF film. It might be a still of the McRae film - who knows.
I would add that I do not recall ever seeing this photo. I agree with Ulrich that we really can't take this photograph further on our own. He has done the work at the time trying to track down further information. There is no background to indicate it was taken at Loch Ness and we know nothing about the photographer or his supposed encounter.
In that light, it could be anything from a staged hoax (such as this one from Germany) to a still from the MacRae film. I would only add that it was my presumption that the creature in the Macrae film displayed a longer neck. Anyway, if anyone has further information on this photo, send an email or add a comment below.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
This is a very old school depiction of Nessie. I could not even consider taking this photo seriously. The link to the MacRae film is tenuous at best.
ReplyDeleteCan I hear the sound of a barrel being scraped?
Not sure what "old school" means, but the article is not touting this as a live monster picture, more a request for information on it - be it hoax or otherwise.
DeleteThe only things missing here are the bagpipes and tartan hat. Someone is making a fool out of us all.
ReplyDeleteNo one's being made a fool of here ... unless you can quote where I say this is a picture of Nessie.
DeleteI can see why this photo brings to mind the MacRae film, but what are the chances of some German writer randomly having a still from it, when multiple other researchers haven't even been able to confirm the film exists?
ReplyDeleteSmall.
DeleteI find it so frustrating with photos of nessie. I believe the future lies with 3d sonar scans in the hunt of the Loch. Deep Scan back in the 70s raised some interesting anomalies. That was then.
DeleteTechnology has advanced ten fold or more. It's a matter of getting the right people/companies together for a 'one off' sh*t or bust final 3d sonar search.
It's obvious nessie for most of the time is submerged, let us not wait for nessie to come to the camera, it is now time that we come to nessie.
I hope to give an update in August.
Daz
Too bad we can't get the American or British navies to join in the hunt. They'd ferret old Nessie out with all their sophisticated sonar and other secret technologies. Back in the day Jacques Cousteau probably could have found Nessie's lair and maybe even figured out a way to catch one in a trap. Yes, alas a many lost opportunities
DeleteCan't see the USS George Washington getting through Clachnaharry Locks!
DeleteAnd I don't think we have a navy any more?
Yeah, your right Trevor, I can't imagine any kind of warship with sophisticated sonar getting through the rivers or locks leading to Loch Ness. I was thinking more of a small deep sea submersible crammed with all kinds of gear, sonar, infrared, the works.
DeleteYour reasearch amazes me Roland, always something new. Its far better than the twaddle on the lakemonsters facebook page with the old old photo's and constant slating of you. I love this blog, its adds something new 4 the reasercher. top man Roland.
ReplyDelete
DeleteCareful Tim, Glasgow Boy might call you a brown noser :-)
DeleteDefinetly, but I think his hyperbole has run its course.
DeleteSo whats wrong with a little praise for GB and his wonderful blog? Tim's defense of him from his detractors is always welcomed here. Add me to the list of brown nosers. I just hope Tim is being sincere. Hmm... I wonder if Tim is an acronym for something? If you get my drift. Hope not!
DeleteJohn, whatever you think, try holding just a little bit of your love back, eh? It's possible to smother without meaning to; -)
DeleteYeah, but my smothering is genuine. Feeling a little left out Geordy? Need a hug?
DeleteNot at all, but thanks for asking. I'm the main man in my own life.
DeleteTo discuss the picture itself, which end is being interpreted as the head? Because I thought the right side initially (it being smaller), but the article suggests the left? It would definitely be interesting to see a higher quality scan and that extra detail. It looks like a scaly beast, but a somewhat damning detail is that the humps appear to be out of line with each other.
ReplyDeleteI like John Alvarado, I think he adds quite a lot to this blog. But I can't seem to shake an image of him I have in my mind. For some reason I always picture the guy in Se7en in the darkened apartment, living a solitary life surrounded by Nessie clippings and some photos of Roland.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably an unfair assessment I suspect. Like I say, he does contribute well on here.
Yup, you're right Geordi, it's an unfair assessment. I am nothing like you imagine me to be. I don't obsess about the LNM, it's just one of my many interest. I am an aviation enthusiast, a spaceflight nut, I enjoy reading about and exploring the paranormal ( Ghosts, UFOs, cryptids, Life after Death, NDE etc, etc). I have an open mind about all these topics. In that sense, I am nutty.
DeleteSo, no, I am not cloistered in some basement obsessing just about Nessie. I don't even own a single book on the subject As for clippings, the only one I have is one which has survived 43 (1972) years from The Los Angeles Times on the LNIB continuing search for Nessie which includes a pic of the famous “ flipper”. And , no I don't have a picture of Roland. I have seen a picture of him from one of his post. I admire the man, I don't have a crush on him! The same could be said about Dick Raynor, despite our differing views. When you become a renowned researcher and debunker, I may feel the same way about you, but I still feel you are a decent bloke. We can't all agree on everything.
Johnny Boy, it's certainly not my intention to ever become "renowned".
DeleteNo, I see myself as nothing more than a wasp at a cryptozoologists' picnic. Anonymous, mildly annoying, and nothing much else.
Geordie my lad, you are more like a very annoying fly and nothing much else. Well, I have my doubts that you will ever become renowned at any kind of serous research, and engage in any kind of meaningful debating, as all you seem to want to do is foment dissension, ridicule people, engage in snarkiness and turn one against the other. My thought is that maybe you want to make a name for yourself, in and around the skeptic circles. So, take my advice, stick to the subject at hand, won't you, i.e the article contents. That's the best way to go, if, that is your intention. Otherwise, you won't be taken seriously. Stop the insanity!
DeleteI take breaks now and then John. The problem is that I know from the communications I receive privately that I often do make a useful contribution to discussions. Certainly far more useful than someone who simply sets out to rubber stamp whatever GB writes.
DeleteWhen I feel I'm getting too much on a post I drop off it. You could consider doing the same if you are unable to do much more than agree with articles every time.
Have you forgotten that this is a pro Nessie blog and I am a staunch supporter?
DeleteYou're simply someone who comments, John. Nothing more than that. Certainly no one's "right hand man" as you keep implying.
DeleteNow, now, Geordie, don't go putting words in my mouth or implying for me. I never implied any such thing.
DeleteThat's a very intriguing photograph
ReplyDeleteJohn i am very sincere. I have a genuine interest in sea monsters and this type of mystery. But most sites and subjects on this are very poor and very child like. Lake monsters facebook is a typical example of this. Silly photos and childish comments and digs st Roland.Roland digs deeper and finds new things and his reasearch is second 2 none. I enjoy this blog very much and as 4 lakemonsters facebook well We should leave that 2 the children.
ReplyDeleteTim, do you believe that Roland's research matches what you'd find here?
Deletewww.lochnessinvestigation.com ?
Because I can't see how anyone could possibly say Roland matches that website. Unless you are viewing the subject as someone who only wants to read the stuff that keeps your hopes up about Nessie of course?
Tim,from the LMFBook page...May the Heavens Bless You...and learn a little bit more before walking.PD. My respect to Roland and his incredible blog.
DeleteCome on Geordie! you're comparing apples to oranges. Dick Raynor has his agenda and Roland has his. Is there another pro Loch Ness Monster site that compares with Roland's in it's wealth/breath of knowledge, documentation, fine, factual, amusing and entertaining story telling? If there is, I'd like to know about it.
DeleteDick has his style and Roland has his. And, not everything has to be dry, dead serious. Can you direct me to another skeptical site solely dedicated to debunking the LNM on a par with Dick's. If so please provide the link, since you're so concerned about equal time, fair play and telling all sides of the story, pro or con.
I like GB's articles too, but they focus on anecdotal rather than measurable evidence. It's understandable, because the only evidence for Nessie is the anecdotes, as we see each photo and film fall away like a house of cards.
DeleteBut Dick uses scientific measurements to analyse whatever we do have. Likewise, Adrian Shine analyses the geology and biology of the loch itself. This is a world apart from posting up tales of films hidden away and an old lady in 1933 chasing a plesiosaur away from stealing her sheep.
But I do find this site thoroughly entertaining.
I would point out that such "scientific" analyses are examined on this blog and often found to not be as precise or as compelling as made out.
DeleteWell, many readers, skeptics and those with no opinion one way or the other, or those that are undecided enjoy the articles for the sheer pleasure of indulging in a mystery. You are a good example. Dick's website may be more analytical in the sense that he tries to explain natural phenomena and fauna for mistaken interpretations of unknown creatures.
DeleteDon't get me wrong there are some good background stories to be read, some anecdotal and some current affairs, as far as background on how we got to the present state of affairs, but I tend to think that most readers enjoy a good read, such as found on this blog. Where ever he can GB does do a good deal of scientific analysis himself. Think of this blog as a Nessie News magazine and you'll do just fine.
Now you're instructing on how to read someone else's blog! Really? Just a small point: this is Roland Watson's blog. It's not yours any more than it is mine. I prefer to regard it as a blog with a comments section rather than a magazine. It certainly looks more like that to me.
DeleteI really think intelligence or lack of it shows when believers and sceptics analyse articles and make comments. The intelligent sceptic has to notice and concede the good points made for the pro-Nessie case, even if (s)he considers them few and far between. Equally, the believer proves his or her worth by noticing and commenting on flaws in pro-Nessie articles. What shows stupidity and a lack of worth is the sceptic who challenges and rebukes everything. The sycophant who fawns over every word in the articles is also stupid and of no use when it comes to progressing the Loch Ness story.
Personally I think this conversation is over.
Welll, speaking as someone very much on the skeptical side, I think this blog is very valuable. Roland does a huge amount of original research, going back to original reports, tracking down witnesses, etc, and almost always brings something new even to the most well-trod stories. Something doesn't have to be scientific analysis to be of value, especially when you consider that the LNM phenomenon is a historical/sociological one as much as it is biological, if not more so. That's the kind of thing that keeps me interested, even though I don't think it likely there's any animal there. This may not be the kind of endorsement GB wants, but I very much object to the idea that as a skeptic you can't engage positively and in good faith with a blog like this. Turning it into an "us vs them" thing serves no one.
DeleteYou're the kind of reader I was referring to Robin G, Thank you for displaying your honesty, fairness and making sense.
Delete“What shows stupidity and a lack of worth is the sceptic who challenges and rebukes everything.” You just described yourself Geordie! Are you OK? You're not making sense. No need to reply. You've had a rough day.
DeleteOh dear, John. Not been reading my comments properly eh?
DeleteYeah, I did.
DeleteI will have 2 have a look at that one Geordie Sceptic i have not seen it. I will get back 2 you after i have looked.
ReplyDeleteTim, Dick Raynor uses the lake monster facebook as a platform to publicise his site, how can you not know about it?
DeleteRoland i did not go into it a lot , I just had a flick through and thought it was a load of old twaddle. i thought it was more 4 kids 2 be honest.
ReplyDeleteYou remind me very much of jake who some time posts here.
DeleteSome folk dont like people with an opinion of their own lmao. Sorry LMFBook but my opinion is your page is twaddle.ok 4 kids though.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyway of blocking people on here as I'm getting fed up with the sceptic troll brothers.
ReplyDeleteWhy Anon ? Has Jake slated LMFBook 2 ? Does he brown nose Roland also? Well sorry guys, we are all allowed an opinion Lmao
ReplyDeleteNice to see my name mentioned in my absence :))) tim u remind sumone of me hmmm u must be a decent chap then !!!!! Do u like tennents and believe reptiles can live in the cold too ????? :))
ReplyDeleteSoz i bin workin all weekend!!! for wat its worth ill give my opinion on the three blogs mentioned......first the facbook monsters page..... only check this out now and again ! Its ok but not really my cup of tea ( or can of tennents :) ) i wudnt scoff at any blog or page that has the topic of nessie or a blog that sumone spends time putting together!!!! ..... second..... loch ness invesigagion..... well after meeting up with Dick few weeks ago i took a good look at his page and yes its very good and well worth a visit for any one who reasearches nessie like myself believer or non believer!!! Dick makes a lot of sense on lots of photos but again some are down to personal opinions. I agree with most of it but not all!!! .......third....GB s blog......another great blog and lately sum new material coming up which is wat i like. Too much old hat about these days i have said before !!!! Im always looking for new stuff for my reasearch cheers lads ! Oh and while im on subject does anyone know anyrhing bout a video taken by a paul alexandra in 1996 ????? GB ???? cheers
ReplyDeleteGood to see you back as Jake.
DeleteHmmmm an ' anon' saying im sumone else lol.....u cudnt make it up :))))
ReplyDeleteSome 'sceptics' really cant hack us believers :)) disagree with them and ur either a nutcase or sum one else in disguise haha xx love it !!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo sorry Jake i dont like lager lmao and yes of course reptiles can live in the cold, only a total numpty would think they could not pmpl .
ReplyDeleteThis is hilarious, keep it going!!! :-) :-) :-)
DeleteI think we have the makings of a comedy team here. lol
DeleteSomeone needs to explain to Jake - and of course "Tim" - how to reply to other people's comments rather than start a new thread at the bottom every time. You errr two seem to be the only people in the comments sections who don't know how to do this.
ReplyDelete...and please don't start chatting to "eachother" again, eh? ;-)
I chat to the blog not to one person anon sorry geordie lol :))
ReplyDeleteThink sumone has hit a nerve sumwhere haha :)))
ReplyDeleteAnyway enough of the wasp lol and back to why im here ' reasearch' lol GB do u know anything bout the video i mentiined earlier??? Paul alexandar 1996 ??? Cheers
ReplyDeleteI've probably seen it, but not connected the name. Link?
DeleteMight this be it? It's a collection of clips. The Alexander one comes in at the 33 sec mark, very short,
Deletelong range and indistinct, but shows something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQep5h3UOjg
Its on youtube....called loch ness monster evidence in 60 seconds!!! Shows a clip but its so quick i can see if its any good or just a boat wake. Just checking. :)
ReplyDeleteWhat makes it all even more remarkable is that Jake and Tim both use the same misspelling "reasearch". It's quite uncanny how similar these two chaps are!
ReplyDeleteHmm...Very peculiar, you might be on to something. Keep us posted.
DeleteThis is why in an ideal world we'd have registration and passwords on these comments sections. It would make it harder to create fake names. Here we see the ludicrous situation of a man chatting to himself using two different names, obviously both agreeing with eachother because it's the same person typing it! GB, is there really no way of creating a log in system? I would be very supportive of such a move. Your blog deserves better than this nonsense.
DeleteHaha and from the man who comes in as anon sometimes lol oh and u rate the blog now do u lol it has become a bit nonsense lately but that is because of u trying to belittle beluevers. Even saying john lives in a dark room. Yes GB we could do without this nonsense!!! Get back on the mystery. Geordie doesnt cintribute anything anymore!!!!!! See u all soon im off to benidorm for a week xxxx
ReplyDeleteBetter than being as fake as Frank Searle's photos. Next time you decide to post under a fake name, try to keep to under 4 cans eh? Your mind seems somewhat fogged. Read the conversation above that you had with yourself and realise how ridiculous you've made yourself look, jake.
ReplyDeleteSeems the thermometer is registering a rise in temperatures. Time to cease and desist, gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteThe most amusing comments Ive read for a very long time. Stunned!!
ReplyDeleteI think it is a sign of people getting a bit fed up of what these pages are about. It used to be a good debate page but its now just full of people having a go at each other.Im not giving up on it getting back to what it was. Fingers crossed
ReplyDeleteWell said. I believe this blog is for people who think there is an unknown species in the Loch. Let the na sayers go forth and multiply.
DeleteNo that's not what I was saying. It used to be a good debate page. Both sides are needed.
DeleteI suspect Jake and Tim are friends and were having a laugh together. maybe Tim did not know how to spell research so asked Jake - he did not know either :-) No harm done. I agree with the above, the blog has gone a bit silly lately and maybe it takes something like this to get it back to normal. Nessie heads or sceptics -come on, keep up the debate nicely before Glasgow boy has enough and stops the comment section, and that would be a shame.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean skeptics as the people being a bit fed up by what these pages are about, you are probably right. But, I'll put a qualifier on that by saying it is the hard core skeptics that are put off. I can't imagine the Nessie fans being annoyed. As for the squabbling of late, I would suggest that some find it titillating and enjoy the drama. Human nature being what it is. I will admit, that it shouldn't be like that, but sometimes it's inevitable. All this shouldn't detract from the spirit and good faith which GB puts into the blog. There's more entertainment here than just Nessie!
ReplyDeleteI'm not really annoyed as such. Ok something pretty silly happened here and I'm sure that person is suitably embarrassed, but time to move on. Jake (and Tim) is basically an ok lad. I reckon we should put this behind us now.
DeleteI wasn't singling you out Geordie. I was speaking in general. We're both as much to blame. It's over, let's drop it.
DeleteYes, no more comments. All will be filtered out.
DeleteJuly 2015, 3d sonar, sit back and await,.I'm spending a few k for the hunt.
DeleteAugust 2015, still no monster. :-(
DeleteHappy hunting old pal. ;)
ReplyDelete