In the light of recent sceptical remarks about gullible and naive Loch Ness Monster proponents, I wondered what the classic books actually said on these well known pictures. So, I dug out what books I had on the pictures and drew up a matrix of opinion.
The authors I was interested in were Rupert Gould, Constance Whyte, Tim Dinsdale, Ted Holiday, Nicholas Witchell and Roy Mackal. What did they make of the Gray, Wilson, Adams, Stuart, MacNab, Cockerell, O'Connor, Dinsdale, Rines and Shiels photos? The answer was not uniform as one would expect.
The books examined were:
Gould, The Loch Ness Monster and Others (1934)
Whyte, More Than a Legend (1957)
Dinsdale, Loch Ness Monster (1961 and 1982 editions)
Holiday, Great Orm of Loch Ness (1968)
Holiday, The Dragon and the Disc (1973)
Witchell, The Loch Ness Story (1974 and 1989 editions)
Mackal, The Monsters of Loch Ness (1976)
The photographs in question are:
Hugh Gray (1933)
Kenneth Wilson (1934)
F.C. Adams (1934)
Lachlan Stuart (1951)
Peter MacNab (1955)
Hugh Cockerell (1958)
Tim Dinsdale (1960)
Peter O'Connor (1960)
Robert Rines Flipper (1972) ("RINES 72")
Rober Rines Body (1975) ("RINES 75 B")
Rober Rines Head (1975) ("RINES 75 H")
Anthony Shiels (1977)
Some pictures and films are not included but it always strikes me how thin photographs and film are on the ground. No photographs between 1935 and 1950 and very little between 1961 and 1971 despite the LNI's attempts. Put it another way, where were all the so called hoaxers? One simple rule should apply, the number of hoaxed Nessie pictures should be proportional to media interest. I don't actually see proof of that statement in the overall record.
I added the author's judgement on each photo/film designated by:
I added the author's judgement on each photo/film designated by:
Y (green) = Accept
N (red) = Reject
I (orange) = Neutral
NA (yellow) = Not Applicable
NC (blue) = No Comment (photo not mentioned)
The "NA" applies to photographs published after the book in question. Sometimes the author's opinion seems ambiguous in that they offer a sceptical or proponent interpretation in which case the inconclusive or neutral category is assigned. The table is produced below and you should click on it to enlarge it for closer detail. There may be some mistakes in the table, point out any you think are there. These are judgements based on the written evidence, authors may well have altered their opinions later, confirmation with sources would be appreciated.
The results are not too unexpected, though some things should be highlighted. Firstly, the F.C.Adams picture is not so much rejected as ignored. Only Mackal accepts it while Witchell merely calls it an unidentified object in Loch Ness which to me is a neutral statement. The rest say nothing which may mean nothing but I suspect silence suggests the preconception of a very long neck is being mapped onto this picture and hence leading to a quite passing on.
Holiday is the most non-committal author in his two books as only four out of the nine he could comment on actually get a mention. I wondered if omission is as good as rejection here? The Adams and Rines flipper pictures would not have fitted in with his Tulliomonstrum invertebrate! I suspect where the "NC" appears elsewhere, there could well have been more personal bias than just no room to mention it in the given book, but that is very much for each reader's opinion.
Nobody backs the O'Connor picture, even Dinsdale drops it in later editions after giving it the nod in his first edition. Holiday gives it no mention although looking quite Tullimonstrum like! The Dinsdale film is the only one to get 100% green positives.
Comparisons between first and later editions tells us something about the given author's journey. Dinsdale grew cold on the Gray, Wilson and O'Connor pictures but "promotes" the Stuart picture along the way. Interestingly, Dinsdale only explicitly rejects the 1975 "gargoyle" head picture. One wonders where Dinsdale would have stood if he was alive today? The sceptics would doubtless have him over in their camp, but I would not be so quick to judge the man. I don't doubt he would have dropped the support for the Shiels pictures. What he would have done with Frere's pronouncement on the Stuart picture, I don't know.
Witchell between 1974 and 1989 has definitely grown more negative about the evidence. Three pictures are downgraded and the 1975 Rines pictures are rejected. Though these were not mentioned in the 1974 book, they were promoted as positive evidence in the 1975 edition. Witchell seems to have completed his journey over to the "other side" in later years.
Roy Mackal is still with us and I would like to know how he would assess his 1976 list today. The one person that interests me most would be Ted Holiday. Since he believed in a paranormal Loch Ness Monster, how would that have influenced his assessment? He and Dinsdale had about seven sightings between them and that has an effect on assessment. If you do not think there is a large creature in Loch Ness, then the whole line is red. But I don't think that Holiday and Dinsdale would run the red line right through.
One thing seems for sure, I doubt many pictures would be promoted as opposed to downgraded today.
One thing seems for sure, I doubt many pictures would be promoted as opposed to downgraded today.
You seem to have omitted Steuart Campbell 1986.
ReplyDeleteThe article is aimed at people who believed in a Loch Ness Monster and how much they adhered to the classic evidence. Steuart Campbell would be red all the way.
DeleteBurton and Binns went from being believers (or at least open-minded enthusiasts) to being outright atheists. Omitting them seems to miss the point that they "went red" across the board. What about Searle and Costello? Harmsworth? Other books, other takes.
DeleteThis article is about books which published in favour of the Loch Ness Monster and their diversity of opinions on the classic pictures. Sceptical books are shall we say pretty predictable on whether a photo shows the Loch Ness Monster...
DeleteAFAIK, Searle pretty much just talks about his own pictures and Costello's book is not a book on the Loch Ness Monster.
Searle has some negative things to say about some classic shots; Costello spends three quarters of his book discussing the LNM, and talks extensively about the evidence.
DeleteI would not regards serial hoaxer Searle as a classic author.
DeleteCostello's book looks more like a 1/3 on Nessie to me.
Your recollection is dim, then. Costello discusses the photos more than, say, Holiday.
DeleteSo you're now official in the Searle-as-hoaxer camp? I seem to recall you defending him at one point...
Yes, but Costello is not a classic author IMO, sorry.
DeleteAlways was in the searle-as-hoaxer camp, but that doesn't mean everything said about him is right.
So now I'm confused. What constitutes "classic author" status, then? Costello is typically cited (for good or ill) in the literature.
DeletePersonal opinion, really. Feel free to compose your own list!
DeleteThen your chart is meaningless, as your selection method is completely arbitrary.
DeleteThat too is ... personal opinion!
DeleteBut I'm not the one posting charts to prove a point whilst omitting facts simply "because."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCampbell can hardly be regarded as a "classic" author, having entered the scene with his book (1986) years after the heyday of modern era LNM hunting (1960 - 1975). More like a "hostile witness" to me. The same goes for Binns (1983) for that matter.
DeleteIt just occurred to me, Frank Searle can, technically, be considered a "classic" author with his books and booklets. After all he was there in the thick of things, albeit in an obstructionist sort of way, what with his hoaxer antics, confrontational and alienating behavior. This in its totality negates any opinion he could have offered on any photographic evidence. It's a shame that his envy of others accomplishments and desire for attention and fame further obfuscated the mystery of the LNM, eventually leading to his self-destruction and Infamy. Instead of taking his place in the honor row of well regarded monster hunters, he will henceforth be remembered as a notorious hoaxer and profiteer.
DeleteAgreed on Searle. Disagree on Binns, whose book is referenced often enough to receive "classic" status....in addition to the fact that Binns put in his time at Loch Ness as part of the ongoing investigation.
DeleteI was perplexed at the time way back as to why a copy of Dinsdale's book from library had the O'Connor pictures in it and then some years later a copy from library did not. Thought I had gone mad!
ReplyDeletePretty phony looking now but very exciting to my young mind
Jon
"Gullible and naive." I assume Roland is referring to my pointed accusation that Dinsdale enthusiastically backed fraudulent films/photos -- specifically O'Connor, Shiels and the Smiths (the photographers, not the band).
ReplyDeleteWhile a look at archaic assessment is interesting, I would rather see a Dinsdale supporter examine, in detail, the following:
1. Dinsdale's film in light of allegations of misidentification
2. Dinsdale's hyperbolic account of the incidents leading up to the filming (convincingly deconstructed by Binns)
3. The larger ramifications of Dinsdale's quest on a personal level, much of which hinged upon the idea that his film was genuine
4. The specific "evidence" he endorsed and promoted in the pages of his book (Shiels, Smith, etc)
5. His later reevaluation of classic photos (Wilson, Gray) in light of new evidence and distance
Taken all together, it paints a pretty clear image, one that looks more like a dog with a stick in its mouth than a 90-foot dinosaur that can somehow be black, white, grey, yellow and mahogany, sometimes with horns and sometimes without, sometimes with one hump and sometimes with many, all to different people.
The gullible and naive refers to the Abominable Science thread I am still involved in.
DeleteYour "backed fraudulent films/photos" statement may be taken by some that he was somehow cognizant that they were dodgy. Just to clear up that this was not the case.
May I remind you of your comment on the fish head image in the Gray picture:
"Fantastic analysis of a typically under-discussed photo. I find the "head" revelation to be the first major revelation to come out of the study of Loch Ness photography in a good many years (though I am inclined to believe that the author's final interpretation of the photograph to be as much a "swimming dog" as the swimming dog that he (rightly) invalidates."
Feet grown a bit cold? The fish head is just as clear if not clearer than any dog pareidolia - if not more (it at least casts a shadow).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePS - I have never read about any Loch Ness Monster proponent advocating a "90-foot dinosaur"!
DeleteFeet grown cold? I'm not sure why you're willfully misreading my statements. I have made it crystal clear that I don't believe that Dinsdale was "dodgy"; I believe that his enthusiasm blinded him to certain truths. In his published letters, Shiels seems to indicate that he went after Dinsdale for support because he was an easy mark. Dinsdale's crusade and eagerness for new evidence colored his perception, in my opinion. What part of this isn't registering for you?
ReplyDeleteRegarding my quoted congratulations for your Hugh Gray discovery: I stand by it! I found it cool that you discovered a detail in an image famous for lacking detail. But again, read my comments carefully: while it was an exciting and entertaining "find," I still believe it's wishful thinking.
The feet reference is regarding my Gray photo interpretation. You seem to be gravitating back to the kennel again. :)
DeleteNo, I still don't believe it's a swimming dog. But my argument is that there tend to be far more reasonable explanations for the multitude of images than a water dragon.
DeleteSo are you following Dick's explanation, like ermmm a cygnet follows her mother swan? :)
DeleteWhat I'm following is sense of logic: and logic dictates that, unlike most of the classic photos, we'll never know what we're looking at for sure because it's a terrible photograph that no one can agree on, because there's almost nothing to see.
DeleteDon't agree with the "almost nothing to see".
DeleteI agree with the "we'll never know what we're looking at for sure" but not because it's a terrible photo.
You guys can pass on, I'll continue to look for clues (as a future article will reveal).
But it IS terrible. No foreground, background, or sense of scale. Shutter speed issues or double exposure. Contrasty as hell. It's a terrible, terrible photo of nothing. Why "nothing"? Because there's nothing clear to see: hence 80 years of endless debate over Day One analysis.
DeleteThe fish head is just as clear if not clearer than any dog pareidolia - if not more (it at least casts a shadow).
ReplyDeleteIf that photo was taken in Loch Ness there cannot be a shadow, as they cannot be cast on a non-turbid water surface.
Reflection then.
DeleteThe brain is wired to see faces in images (wood grain, clouds, etc) that lack a specific reference point. That is my personal feeling on the Gray photo and your discovery. Neat and fun speculation, but still a terrible photo of nothing.
DeleteBesides: why would the head be in near-perfect focus (right down to water droplets pouring from its mouth) when the body is a big, seemingly double-exposed blur of detail-free fog...?
(And please, no one reiterate Holiday's nonsense that the spray is a giant humped back. Not only is it clearly NOT a solid object, but no animal swims in such a fashion unless it's of the inflatable variety.)
Reflection then.
DeleteHow can a white object have a dark reflection?
:-)
Doesn't look white to me ... the water spray beside looks white.
DeleteHmmm, even more whiter objects on Loch Ness (your fave, Dick - swans). Quite dark reflections or are we back to shadows?
http://www.holisnaps.com/mhiann/cx/86cwzx9o.JPG
http://lochnesswelcome.blogspot.co.uk/2010_03_01_archive.html
http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g793520-i52693442-Glenmoriston_Loch_Ness_Scottish_Highlands_Scotland.html
Reflection then.
DeleteHow can a white object have a dark reflection?
:-)
That was a trick question, and sometimes what we see as a dark area of water is neither a shadow nor a reflection, but a lack of reflection of the bright sky. However, I still maintain that one cannot see a dark to black object under the surface in deep loch water. A pale tin tray on a bed of pebbles is not a replication of the Rowe incident. And for there to be "spray" thrown into the air in the Gray photo, should there not be a violent disturbance of the water surface where the water departed upwards? All I see are usual surface ripples very close to the photographer, similar to those in the Surgeons photograph.
Hmmm, I'll have to start calling you "Tricky Dicky"!
DeleteIs it possible that a creature rising to the surface could cause Peat particles to rise and float on the surface.If this is possible could it create the conditions for a shadow to register.
DeleteJack.
Still waiting for an explanation as to why the head, shadow and water droplets are in perfect focus, right down to the eye (!), but the rest of the body is an incoherent mess. I am asking this as a photographer, not simply a Doubting Thomas.
DeleteMotion blur, cascading water. Also some areas of the photograph have suffered from light leakage (according to those who examined the original print/negatives back in 1933). A mixed bag really.
DeleteI am not sure I would say the head part is in "perfect focus".
Compared to the rest of "the body," your Admiral Ackbar head (if a head it is) stands out a little too significantly. Water droplets? Really? But no features to be seen in such precise detail elsewhere in the photo?
DeleteThe inconsistency here is that if the head were that unequivocally clear and sharp, it wouldn't have taken nearly 80 years to be recognized even without the superior quality of the Heron-Allen print GB rediscovered. That it's clear enough now is quite a good thing, but what was always sharpest in any version of the Gray photo was and still is the tail.
DeleteNow that we can recognize both a head and tail in the photo, what's problematic is interpreting the middle, and I grant that is not an easy thing. We have uneven reflections from wet and dry surfaces, spray, and signs of motion blur. We have haze at the top, often mistaken for a dorsal line improbably too high for any morphology, but we do have a solid dorsal line below that even if we can't view it contiguously, and a second dorsal line even lower than that one. But it can't be a double exposure, or we'd have out-of-phase waves giving us a blurred water surface -- and I think we can all agree the water itself is not blurred. In any event we have to have a body, as that's what usually falls between what we know we have: a head and a tail.
Coherency comes when you look at it as two animals, side by side, with the head of the nearest of the two hidden behind the spray and glare, and probably turning left and away from the camera, towards the head that IS visible. The question then becomes not whether these are animals, but WHAT animals could they be?
"PS - I have never read about any Loch Ness Monster proponent advocating a "90-foot dinosaur"!" may be a reference to David James' introduction to the LNI published JARIC Report in which he explains that there is no visual clue as to the shape of the object in the film. Paraphrasing, it could have been a vertical board of no horizontal extent sticking out of the water, which which case it would have been 5.5 feet high (as Angus Dinsdale states in his book) or it could have been a flat horizontal object of no height, in which case it would have been 92 feet long. Obviously neither case is plausible and a happy medium of 3 ft height was chosen, corresponding to a length of 12 to 16 feet. DJ ends by writing "It is fervently to be hoped that with the foregoing in mind no-one else will think that the object filmed was 92 feet long!" This suggests to me that the figure had appeared in the media.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying, Dick -- I had meant to answer that challenge but became bogged down with minutiae.
DeleteGB, at the end of your review you wrote The one person that interests me most would be Ted Holiday. Since he believed in a paranormal Loch Ness Monster, how would that have influenced his assessment? He and Dinsdale had about seven sightings between them and that has an effect on assessment. If you do not think there is a large creature in Loch Ness, then the whole line is red. But I don't think that Holiday and Dinsdale would run the red line right through.
ReplyDeleteIn my estimation those statements over-simplify the issues by using terms like believed in and sightings. I suggest that by using such semi-religious and very vague language you seem to be inviting support from people who do not have the technical education (nothing to do with intelligence) to understand the problems and form their own valid opinions, and are offering up what I have previously referred to as McScience and McLogic, superficially appealing but ultimately unsatisfying and rather unhealthy meals. Both Ted and Tim were very intelligent men and conversations with them ranged far beyond what they ever dared to publish. They were open-minded and willing to change their opinions in the light of new data. Their own observations and collected witness reports clashed with what they thought possible, and so they naturally fell to speculation about other causes, as yet unknown to them. Ted was probably the first to realise the impossibility of reconciling witness accounts with real animals, while Tim recognised the gap between the statements by some investigators and the reality of the events, which led him to discount the 1975 underwater photography. Thirty years ago these discrepancies were dealt with by discreet omission from later books or editions. Today I publish web pages on these matters which can be (and are) updated from time to time. I suspect that if you were to gain the confidence of the surviving investigators from the 60's and 70's you would find that they had mostly abandoned the opinions that they held 40 years ago, and so this present comparison, while interesting, is only a snapshot of historical thinking which is now superceded.
I am just beginning a new avenue of amateur investigation involving infrasound - http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/infrasound.html
and I am sure that Ted and Tim would have been years ahead of me had they still been with us, as both of them ( and I also) had experiences consistent with its effects.
This work, if successful, will in no way claim or prove that there are no unknown large animals in Loch Ness, it will only add to the argument that their existence is not necessary to account for the wide variations in observations and data obtained so far. If I see and film a plesiosaur from one of my boat tours tomorrow I will happily admit "Yup, there are plesiosaurs there too."
Terms such as "believe" and "sightings" are okay and consistent with the authors and their books. Ultimately, all we have left is what they left behind in their writings in terms of judging their stance.
Delete"believe" = "I am of the opinion" .. no religious connotations. If readers want a rounded view, they can visit your website. This is a pro-monster blog.
As for the science, I have read your views over the years and found them unconvincing for various reasons.
As a filmmaker, I'd love to film the two of you debating the various "proofs." Seriously.
DeleteAs previously stated, I loved the article on infrasound. It just goes to show that this world is already so very cool without the need for lake monsters, ghosts, or other antiquated beliefs. Truly fascinating stuff.
ReplyDeleteI also find it interesting that Holiday, along with his posthumously-published GOBLIN UNIVERSE, had also written a fourth book in which he'd apparently abandoned his supernatural explanations. It's a shame it was never published, as it would have demonstrated Holiday's ability to shift his theories in light of new evidence (or the absence thereof).
I am not sure he did abandon such a theory. What is the quote for your stance?
DeleteColin Wilson's book-length introduction to THE GOBLIN UNIVERSE.
DeleteColin Wilson's book-length introduction to THE GOBLIN UNIVERSE.
DeleteOh that one. I contacted Colin Wilson about that manuscript a while back. It's just a book on lake monsters (a bit like Dinsdale's "Leviathans").
DeleteYes -- but the point is, he reversed his thoughts on the subject of paranormal lake monsters.
DeleteI just read Wilson's preface and I do not see your conclusion. he didn't like the book and wanted to scrap it. There are various reasons why he would do that .. go ahead and pick the one that closest fits your bias!
DeleteWhat exactly did you miss? He argued that the fourth book was simply about lake monsters and "lacked the daring sweep of THE GOBLIN UNIVERSE" (or something close to that effect). He also mentioned that Holiday was troubled by the underwater photos, which seemed to prove his paranormal theories wrong. Seems pretty obvious to me without having to draw a chart.
DeleteYes, it was just about lake monsters. The Goblin Universe is a more diverse book.
DeleteIt's like you're missing the point on purpose.
DeleteNo, I just demand more evidence. :)
DeleteAs with so many other things, the evidence is right there.
DeleteHi Roland. A very, very interesting post indeed. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI know this is slightly off-topic GB, but I presume you've heard about the 'MacRae Tapes'. Would you do a blog summary on that in the near future?
ReplyDeleteAn intriguiong subject but most likely non-existent. No plans to do anything but consult:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IAKpNKhiRo
http://www.lochnessinvestigation.org/McRae.htm