Long time Nessie fans will be aware of Charles Wyckoff and his association with the Loch Ness hunt in the 1970s along with his friend, Harold Edgerton. Charles was best known for his work on high speed photography from the 1950s onwards and had worked with Edgerton on various projects such as photographing the Pacific atomic bomb tests.
However, it was in the 1970s that Edgerton brought him in to help out with the 1975 Academy of Applied Science led by Robert Rines. Edgerton had expertise in stroboscopic and sonar work and wanted Wyckoff to help integrate underwater photography with this into a complete sonar triggered set up at Loch Ness. The results were of course controversial and misinterpreted in part, but the technical contribution of Wyckoff could be less criticized. For example, it was Wyckoff who, using the light levels in various photos, estimated that the 1975 AAS "body" pictures was 25 feet away.
In this interview with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1995, he talks about his involvement with the AAS, though a large portion of the talk focuses on the work to get two dolphins trained to take cameras down into the loch. That project never bore fruit when one of the dolphins died. Wyckoff himself died a few years later in 1998.
The link to the interview can be found at this link and the ten minute portion on the Monster begins about forty and a half minutes in. Thanks to Thomas Eitler who pointed me to the video.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Another important figure in Nessie history. Not a sceptic!
ReplyDeleteIf one was to believe in the LMN being a plesiosaur, and that's a big 20 foot long IF, then this is hands down the best photographic evidence. I know there is controversy but still, what a beautiful image.
ReplyDeleteFirst time I've heard mention of the creative having sonar (echolocation) He also said they were 8-10 ft long. Does he mean tail and head encluded? Pretty puny for a monster, I would think.
ReplyDeleteI think the bulbous body in the picture was estimated at about 8ft. The echolocation is interesting, very little work has been done on detecting underwater sound in the infra- ultra- or normal sonic ranges.
DeleteIt would also be interesting to make a proper interpretation of the morphology. I have never quite been able to figure it out or read somewhere where it is suggested. Now, if one looks at the pic in landscape view, are we looking at a front appendage and rear appendage? If in the portrait view, are we looking at two front appendages?
DeleteAssuming it's a living thing, what's always struck me is how stubby the flippers look in relation to body size.
DeleteThis pic has only made sense to me in landscape mode, as printed here. My take on the appendages is that the largest and brightest appendage near the bottom is the left front flipper, and just below it, the flash has caught the mostly obscured rear left flipper - just the tip is visible. Then the appendage in the 2 o'clock position at the top is the tail, scudding from side to side and which just happens to have been caught by the camera on the animal's left side. I love Wyckoff's non-excitable demeanor as he describes the animal, not speculating on what it is, but emphatic that it's there.
DeleteHmm...OK, interesting take. I think I could go either way at this point. I will remain noncommital. It may be a Rorschach test for different people. No mistaking the long neck tough!
DeleteI see what you're describing. It makes more sense.
DeleteThe passing comment about LNM having echolocation capabilities is quite interesting! Would it be possible to track down when this particular event exactly happened? This definitely rules out salamanders and amphibians....it leaves in mammals, and perhaps sea saurians (but I am not aware of any evidence of present-day known saurians having echolocation). I am aware that the Lake Champlain creature has been recorded using echolocation also.
ReplyDeleteWell, emitting sounds may not equate to echolocation. First one would have to record some sounds and that requires first finding the correct frequency.
DeleteBut in this case Wyckoff said they pinged it and it pinged back detecting the source and took off!
DeleteYes, I wonder how they determined it was not their own sonar pinging back (which is what a ping is - a bounce back). There seems to be little documentation on this.
DeleteYeah, that's what I meant. What ever their sonar detected, reacted in kind with it's own sonar.
DeleteNot being a sonar expert, I can only surmise that they figured it wasn't their ping return by frequency and amplitude differential? When the creature sounded they noticed a difference in those parameters. There, now somebody make sense of my layman's guesswork explanation
DeleteInteresting to me that there have also been soundings made of Champ. and it seemed to be similiar and related to whales?
DeleteI read that Dick Raynor says the body picture is just a silhouette of the tree stump that he found.
ReplyDeleteDick Raynor throws a spanner into the works.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Gust_at_Sea.html
Dick Raynor will go to his grave trying to throw spanners in the works. It is what defines him.
DeleteIt is clear to me. looking at the "body" image that there is water to the left and right of it. In other words, the mid-water interpretation is quite defensible. I expand further on the issue here:
https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2017/11/follow-up-to-1975-underwater-photos.html
Well, after initially having doubts about the pic, you came around and convinced yourself that it had merit and indeed showed a large creature with a long neck, bulbous body and flippers. But, you failed to convince some here who continue to insist on the possibility of the creatures being giant eels. Certainly, they are wrong and in the minority as the pic bears witness to something else. Case closed on the giant eel theory.
DeleteIf the 1975 AAS is the LNM, it is unlikely to indicate an eel. Have we started another 200+ comment thread on giant eels? Erm, no more replies please. Go over to the giant eel post.
DeleteLOL Yeah, sorry about that GB. Didn't mean to start it all up again. I've had it up to my ears with eels for now. Just mentioned it in passing.
DeleteSo why hasnt Dickie shown us this tree stump if thats the case?
ReplyDeleteThere is a pic of the tree stump in the link above provided by John Alvarado.
DeleteSadly I couldn't find the specific tree stump image in question. To me the "body" pic looks as if it is swimming NOT connected to the bottom of the loch.
DeleteIsn't it a shame that everything LNM related is clouded in doubt to some degree or other? Whether outright fakery or not. Even when experts in other fields came to Loch Ness, they all left slightly tarnished for one reason or another, fairly or unfairly. I guess a lot of it is to do with cynic/skeptic push back and there's been so many chancers involved with the mystery it kinda taints everything.
Go to http://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Gust_at_Sea.html and scroll down to see tree stump.
DeleteThe clouding of doubt is in large part due to sceptics offering up multiple explanations to plant seeds of doubt in peoples minds. Unfortunately, a lot of them are totally untestable, but I don't think this lack of rigour bothers them....
Try this also. The link I posted was from this page.
Deletehttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/Sunken.html
Well I myself do think the "Gargoyle Head" is a stump. I mean what are the chances that an inquisitive and skittish Nessie went up to the camera and posed for a portrait LOL Besides, the pic really does look like the stump. A lot of controversy and doubt with that as with the flipper pic. The body shot is not so easily dismissed.
Thanks John. Soz for slight misommunication - 100% agree the "gargoyle" pic is probably a stump and doesn't look like an animal at all.
DeleteThe body pic looks like an animal. I know there's issues with potential size and angle which has been covered extensively here - but I think it's a fascinating piece of photographic evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI was about 14 the first time I saw the "Gargoyle" pic and it scared the cr*p out of me! It was almost a relief to hear it was probably a tree stump...
ReplyDeleteSame here, it looked really scary and nasty to me! Even now if I see a large version of it I still get chills.
DeleteThink that more interesting to me was ther part of the sonar, would that not mean some type of whale/dolphin creature then?
DeleteGiant eel, surely?
DeleteSteady!
DeleteLOL!
DeleteTo this very day, I'm still sitting on the fence with the underwater pictures. I obviously want it to be the real deal but my mind tells me to use caution before jumping to the Nessie conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI thought the tree stump was supposed to be the gargoyle head image not the body and neck shot image?
ReplyDeleteYes, Dick Raynor is overegging the pudding.
DeleteIn the photo taken of the body the neck is arched upwards. The scientists said that the Plesiosaur could not stick its neck straight up out of water because of its bone structure. The object in the picture appears to have its neck in an upright position. Eoin O Faodhagain.
ReplyDeleteI think it is different underwater with more buoyancy force working for a creature.
DeleteMay not be a plesiosaur. Convergent evolution may have produced a pesiosaur-like creature that shares the morphology of a plesiosaur that can hold it's head/neck erect out of water. And yes, a long neck creature could hold it's neck in any position buoyed by the water.
DeleteHi guys just believe I saw Nessie (certainly 100% an animate object) on the Nessie Cam this morning. By a stroke of good fortune I was only up and flicked it on and at approx 8.01 am to 8.05 there was an animate object moving from left to right across the Loch in the direct foreground- its on YouTube i think you can go to livestream and go back to that time. A grey morning up there but the Loch flat calm perfect to spot a moving object
ReplyDeleteHi Tim, I think it was a small boat with 2 people in it. It was out of the water the whole time moving in a straight line. There are a number of small jetties to the left from where it came from. Eoin O Faodhagain.
DeleteMakes sense Eoin thanks for replying, the problem with these cams are always going to be detail as well. They do pique the interest however so I guess they serve some purpose
DeleteHi Tim. The cam definitely serves a purpose. There has been 6 sightings registered directly from the cam of unexplained objects sighted in Urquhart Bay this year alone. Previous years have also contributed sightings. I have been lucky to have a few registered myself. Urquhart Bay has always been a hot bed for sightings regardless of the cam. Maybe it is because the deepest part of the Loch is located. Best time to look at cam is calm sunny day when the surface of the Loch is like a mirror. Keep preservering Tim it is all about luck. Eoin O Faodhagain.
DeleteWould be nice to have several HD cameras at the top and at various places around Urquhart castle encompassing this "Hotbed" area. I'm sure this would finally solve this mystery and we would have no more dubious sightings and blob Nssies!
DeleteHi, sorry if this is a silly question but sadly I've never been to Loch Ness so the geography is slightly fuzzy to me. Where exactly is the cam located? Is it Urquhart bay we're looking at?
DeleteHaving read the many books about LNM back in its heyday with all those hauntingly cold, bleak, grey, brooding photos we are all familiar with of the creature, those are exactly the kind of conditions I'd expect some monster to appear.
DeleteBut warm, bright, sunny calm days all rainbows and lollipops?? NO I say! I mean, what a flippin' disappointment, lol.
Jon
Oops! I checked Google Earth and realized Urquhart castle doesn't directly overlook Urquhart bay proper. But anyway, hasn't the castle also been a good place for sighting Nessies? Somewhere I heard, maybe a documentary, speculation of caverns under the castle where the monster is said to hang out just like in the movie. Oh, wait a minute, maybe it was the movie. LOL Just where is that camera located?
DeleteWas always scratching my head as to how anyone could even remotely make out some kinda head from that 'gargoyle' pic. Some folks having eyesight that extends out into the ultraviolet and microwave range is perhaps helping out a bit, heh.
ReplyDeleteJon
It's difficult to reconcile the Rines bottom photo with either the Gray or Bright snaps. None are clear enough to match up.
ReplyDeletelooks like a tree root ball and trunk. after spending lots of time on the rivers around here, ive seen many submerged trees and branches, and whole trees bobbing around, they partialy break the surface, and seem to move, but are just bobbing around in the currents.
ReplyDeleteThis is about 40 feet underwater.
DeleteStill seems like a log and branches to me!
ReplyDeleteI have a question, aka the Raynor claim of the stump, etc. IF this was indeed the stump in the photo, shouldn't it look exactly like the stump photo in all ways? Because to me, it doesn't. There are a few points that seem similar. But not that many.
ReplyDeleteIt looks close enough given that the "gargoyle" photo is 40 odd years old. The stump will have degraded a bit. To me the "gargoyle" photo never looked like anything much. The head and body photo is, however, incredible.
DeleteSurely the 'stump' is now sitting in the entrance to the Loch Ness Exhibition...or am I missing the point?
DeleteYes, people are just discussing the stump's claimed relevance to the "body" picture, not the "gargoyle" picture it was originally linked to.
Delete