tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6500027230468033323..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: Some Thoughts on The Surgeon's PhotographGlasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-71619216076925011032019-07-27T16:57:12.461-07:002019-07-27T16:57:12.461-07:00Gee, just like that!Gee, just like that!David Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08169037253213828047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-4039521943532976112017-09-25T09:29:40.613-07:002017-09-25T09:29:40.613-07:00Surgeon's photo was proven to be a hoax in 199...Surgeon's photo was proven to be a hoax in 1993. Christian Spurling admitted to having helped Wilson pull it off. Link to this info:https://rucool.marine.rutgers.edu/monsters/monsters_loch_ness1.html Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-25896615279452655312014-03-06T01:01:57.300-08:002014-03-06T01:01:57.300-08:00Well, Rick, there are some unanswered questions in...Well, Rick, there are some unanswered questions in the whole saga, though the whole Boyd-Martin story generally holds together. Whether Wilson saw some kind of disturbance in the loch can never be proven. The woman in the story has been suggested as Wilson's girlfriend, but not much more is known.<br /><br />With the 80th anniversary of the picture coming up, it would be well worth revisiting some of these themes.Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-62922759140568207472014-03-05T16:31:13.551-08:002014-03-05T16:31:13.551-08:00Why does the second photo exist? Why did it remai...Why does the second photo exist? Why did it remain unpublished for nearly 25 years, and why does it look different from the creature depicted in the first photo? <br /> <br />Those were the very few unanswered questions I was left with, after reading the really excellently written and researched book Nessie: The Surgeon’s Photograph Exposed by David Martin and Alastair Boyd. I have since formed a theory ...<br /> <br />My idea comes from a close reading of the two private letters Wilson wrote himself, one to Dr. Maurice Burton, and the other to Constance Whyte, as reproduced in the above book. It has been suggested that in these letters Wilson tries to shift blame for the actual hoax from himself onto an unnamed female friend, and possibly also the chemist who developed the photos. Reading his words, I started to wonder: what if Wilson was telling the truth in these private letters? <br /> <br />If Ian Wetherell took the photo of the submarine model, which became the classic Nessie image, then it follows that photo was not taken by R. K. Wilson. Perhaps it was already at the chemist’s when Wilson arrived there with his undeveloped film. Wilson later stated there was a commotion in the water when he snapped his pictures. By his private account, it was the woman who was with him who pointed this out and screamed “…it’s the monster!” It was the woman who was with him who insisted they bring the photos to a particular chemist for developing. <br /> <br />Who first suggested Wilson sell the photo to the Daily Mail? According to Wilson it was the chemist he took the undeveloped photos to. Who later destroyed the negative of the second monster picture? The chemist. Why?<br /> <br />Maybe, when Wilson described his dramatic sighting for Daily Mail readers, he was only describing what he saw in the image he was handed by the chemist. He later said he was too busy with his camera to see much at the time. I think he smelled a rat (but played along in the spirit it being a lark) the moment he saw “his” photo developed, and it showed something weird; something that he had not in fact seen with his own eyes when he shot pictures of a real disturbance out on the loch that day.<br /> <br />And what of the second photo? Why is it so different? Why did the chemist destroy the negative? Why did Wilson never refer to it existing? <br /> <br />The second monster photo to my eyes could easily be a waterfowl of small size. It is just possible the second photo is the only one actually taken by Wilson that day. It might show a small diving bird causing a disturbance on the loch. More likely, it could be an earlier attempt at a monster hoax photo which the chemist had at his shop – again, likely a small bird – taken before the hoaxers decided to build a more convincing model. <br /> <br />I doubt Wilson ever saw this ‘second’ picture at the time. Why would the chemist tell him only one of his four photos came out? Because it wouldn’t due to have a small photo of a bird-like shadow on display, right next to an image of the sea-serpent silhouette Christian Spurling had crafted, both snaps supposedly showing Nessie and taken at the same time. The negative was destroyed because enlargement would have shown the second image to in fact be a bird, and thereby compromise the whole cover story behind the better image, which was of the elaborate submarine model.<br /> <br />I don’t think known jokester R.K. Wilson took this escapade at all seriously at the time, and I do think he actively played along with what he correctly guessed to be a hoax. I suspect his own role in it may have been deliberately contrived so that afterwards he could honestly state: I photographed something in the water. <br /> <br />I really doubt Wilson knew anything about Wetherell or a modified toy submarine. Perhaps Wilson was intentionally kept in the dark so that his story could not be compromised. He really did shoot photos of a disturbance on the loch. He really did hand his negatives to a chemist, who really handed him back a dramatic picture of a monster. And the story held up for 60 years!<br /><br />Rick Markham (USA)<br /><br />Rodericknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-12863668250463838242013-11-16T15:34:17.786-08:002013-11-16T15:34:17.786-08:00You're right Burton, the connection has always...You're right Burton, the connection has always seemed a bit vague. Since they were handed in for development at the same time, it seems logical to assume they were taken at least in the same time frame. <br /><br />Following on from analysis by Dick Raynor which shows that what was long thought to be a shadow, cannot be a shadow on the "second" photograph, I personally think it looks like a bird flying from right to left across the frame. What looks like a shadow is its lower wing, in shadow, and its higher wing catching the light. No claim has been made that its actually Nessie.Les Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655848425516575413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-5935429119112142822013-10-04T09:28:46.668-07:002013-10-04T09:28:46.668-07:00My question is how does the second photograph have...My question is how does the second photograph have any impact on it's more famous counterpart? With none of us being there at the time, how can the former credit, or for that matter, discredit the Surgeon's Photo?<br />My point is that photo could have been taken at any point, could have been an initial attempt where the model was flopping over and not floating to their wishes, or could have many other explanations. It seems there is this idea that it must have been taken in sequence, immediately after the famous shot, and that the differing position somehow proves it is an animate object and, hence, the real McCoy.<br />If I was setting up such a hoax, I surely would snap more than one picture. There might have been ten pictures and these two were the only workable ones, with one certainly being close enough to perfect to go down in history as the most famous picture of Nessie. The more fakes you create doesn't make each one more legitimate, in my estimation.Burton Caruthersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-72303255852051508692013-07-04T14:36:30.871-07:002013-07-04T14:36:30.871-07:00Don't forget, it can be a monster, but not nec...Don't forget, it can be a monster, but not necessarily a plesiosaur!<br /><br />Good point about the whiskers. I have never seen these alleged enhancements. Will ask around.<br /><br />Somebody did try and work out the dimensions. His name was Paul LeBlonde, an Ogopogo investigator.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-49560123071686257822013-07-04T14:33:19.050-07:002013-07-04T14:33:19.050-07:00Whilst I do not believe there is, or has been, a p...Whilst I do not believe there is, or has been, a plesiosaur type animal in Loch Ness I paradoxically find it hard to totally accept this phototgraph as a hoax. For one thing it looks to good. All the other head and neck photos I've seen clearly look false but the symetry and bearing of this object look 'natural'.Surley if it was some sort of construct it would be more obvious? <br />Also I seem to remember reading somewhere (possibly Witchell) that the photo had been analysed by NASA who had identified whiskers hanging near the mouth - this would surley blow the model story out of the water.<br />Thirdly, the classic image we see is actually a blow up. I have seen the original image and the 'monster' is small in a vast expanse of water and the far bank is visible at the top of the picture. Would it not be possible to work out the objects dimensions from this original image? I am not saying this photo is not a fake but I'm certain there is a lot more to it than is currently known.David Dukesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-83988890839092099482013-02-01T20:23:10.279-08:002013-02-01T20:23:10.279-08:00Les:
I sincerely believe that Wilson was involved...Les:<br /><br />I sincerely believe that Wilson was involved -- whether directly or as a participant -- in hoaxing the photo. His initial willingness to put his name on it and give an account of the alleged sighting, followed by his sudden desire for anonymity (and the subsequent letters to Whyte in which he attempted to pass the blame onto his mistress and, peripherally, the developer at Ogden's) suggests a prank that spiraled out of control and contributed to professional scrutiny. He all but admits to Whyte that the photograph is fake, which, when combined with the data available from simple analysis of the image itself, paints a pretty clear picture. His duplicity of character casts a very dubious light on his ethics as a human being, rendering him an unreliable witness.<br /><br />Other questions arise. Why did Whyte suppress the damning information in Wilson's letters (going so far as to destroy the original unedited copies)? Why did Witchell do likewise upon receiving the briefcase of data? Did Boyd, Martin or Shine ever question Witchell on this? Who actually took The Surgeon's Photo? If it were indeed Wetherell, why wouldn't Wilson allude to a responsible third party who may or may not have played a trick, rather than telling a very involved story about a woman engaged to be married to a man of royalty (which is far more potentially embarrassing gossip to entrust to a complete stranger than the Wetherell story)? Of the four plates exposed, two of which were blank; so which was taken first: the popular Surgeon's Photo or its inexplicable lesser twin? And most importantly, why do the Wetherell Hoax supporters undermine its absolute relevancy in a story that doesn't support it?<br /><br />One last point: in the early 90s, a fellow named Lambert Wilson admitted to being responsible for the hoax, a claim which made its way into the literature. Why are we not discussing the validity of that claim, as well?ekmhttp://www.roulettefilm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-55134129798531760222013-02-01T07:23:00.567-08:002013-02-01T07:23:00.567-08:00ekm - If you're sure the surgeons picture is a...ekm - If you're sure the surgeons picture is a hoax, but unconvined by Martin and Boyd's argument, do you have an alternative theory? I'm curious to know if you dismiss it totally or just think there are a few errors in it?Les Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655848425516575413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-15178802538250397842013-02-01T06:38:51.559-08:002013-02-01T06:38:51.559-08:00Clearly I do not accept every I am told. When I sa...Clearly I do not accept every I am told. When I say I am a "believer" I mean I accept the proposition that there is one or more large and unidentified creatures in Loch Ness.<br /><br /><br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-26811678496988332182013-02-01T06:27:18.492-08:002013-02-01T06:27:18.492-08:00But surely you need to be skeptical even if you ar...But surely you need to be skeptical even if you are a believer? If you were not, you would simply accept every presented picture of Nessie, as being Nessie. I'm sure you don't, so you apply skepital enquirie to make a decision on the picture one way or the other.Les Johnstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13655848425516575413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-59440648944623556472013-02-01T01:28:17.011-08:002013-02-01T01:28:17.011-08:00Yes, ekm, it's a bit of a surprise that Wether...Yes, ekm, it's a bit of a surprise that Wetherell did not come clean and follow thru on his revenge against the Daily Mail. They got a winning photo and that from Wetherell's point of view seemed to make things worse.<br /><br />My assumption is that his co-conspirators did not want the adverse publicity and put pressure on him to stay silent.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-58054427801503026932013-02-01T01:24:27.985-08:002013-02-01T01:24:27.985-08:00I agree one can be a sceptic of individual cases. ...I agree one can be a sceptic of individual cases. I am a sceptic in that regard. As to a large unknown creature in Loch Ness - I am a believer.<br /><br />Sceptics in the general sense are sceptical of ALL cases. The only grey area is the theory advanced that a known large animal could be a visitor to Loch Ness such as a sturgeon.<br /><br />So to quote Rumsfeld, you have known unknowns and unknown unknowns!<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-68036682450821047102013-01-31T18:51:12.471-08:002013-01-31T18:51:12.471-08:00Burton wrote: "If Wetherell's motivation ...Burton wrote: "If Wetherell's motivation was publicity and attention, why use R.K. Wilson as the front man? If he was seeking such things, he would not have allowed another man to take credit for the photo."<br /><br />Of course he needed a front man. He'd been discredited! All the better to use a willing man of good reputation to endorse a controversial image, and then come forward and say, "Ha ha, gotcha!" What's the point of revenge if no one ever knows about it, or suffers from it? If anything, the Daily Mail sold a ton of newspapers!ekmhttp://www.roulettefilm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-32083281389440252242013-01-31T18:48:16.266-08:002013-01-31T18:48:16.266-08:00Dick:
I feel that I would have been more inclined...Dick:<br /><br />I feel that I would have been more inclined to take the account at face value had the book omitted the Eggington and Wilson letters; as it stands, the combined hearsay -- which, let's face it, is what it amounts to -- demonstrates the unreliability of the photograph as evidence beyond what is clearly evident from the image itself (the size of the object, the waves, and the distance from the shore). However, I'm still not sold on the Wetherell/Spurling story in the least. Is it possible? Sure. But had some key questions been pursued, there might be a few less troubling doubts.ekmhttp://www.roulettefilm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-30000105364723852602013-01-31T07:30:08.403-08:002013-01-31T07:30:08.403-08:00ekm writes: "The whole thesis for Wetherell&#...ekm writes: "The whole thesis for Wetherell's alleged prank (and involvement in the search as a self-styled big game hunter) was his obsessive craving for publicity and attention, coupled with a desire for revenge against the Daily Mail for his dismissal. I think right there you have a pretty good argument for why his failure to follow through on his hoax rings false."<br /><br />While these ideas certainly were behind Wetherell's initial involvement in the Loch Ness hunt, it seems clear from what I've read that his sole reason for the Surgeon's Photo hoax was revenge, pure and simple. His son claims his words were, "We'll give them their monster", and that he was still smarting from the embarrassment over the hippo print incident.<br />If Wetherell's motivation was publicity and attention, why use R.K. Wilson as the front man? If he was seeking such things, he would not have allowed another man to take credit for the photo. Having lost all credibility from the previous hoax, the scrutiny would have been even more intense had Duke come forward with this photo. In his arrogance, I believe he thought he could easily slip the hippo prints past everyone, as evidenced by the levels he allowed it to go to. He wasn't about to make the same mistake twice this time around. Wilson was the perfect front man, having an air of perceived respectability about him. Nobody questions Wilson at the time, but Wetherell would have been a far different story.<br />I also disagree with Roland's assertion that the hoax became too big and Wetherell & co. ran and hid from it. While that idea may ring true in the case of Lachlan Stuart's hoax, it doesn't apply here, in my estimation. Wetherell set out with the purpose of "giving them their monster", and he certainly did so, and in spades!<br />In conclusion, I feel conjecture on Wetherell's motivations behind and reaction to the success of the Surgeon's Photo is just here to muddy the waters and create diversion from what has been stated by those close to him. The evidence shows his motivation was revenge, and he accomplished that, creating the singular iconic image of the Loch Ness Monster. This image, despite cracks in the hoax foundation along the way, held up to scrutiny for 60 years and, despite Spurling letting us all in on the joke, many still believe in the image. It endured as the most famous photograph of the Loch Ness Monster or any lake or sea monster for the remainder of Marmaduke Wetherell's life and he never had to answer for it. I'll ask again - what better revenge for Wetherell than pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and never taking a hit for it the rest of his life?Burton Caruthersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-58636782171944726872013-01-31T03:41:54.153-08:002013-01-31T03:41:54.153-08:00Erik Myers asked "has the Surgeon's Photo...Erik Myers asked "has the Surgeon's Photo ever been legitimately replicated using the cited tools and aspects of creation?"<br /><br />I don't know. I also don't "know" the materials used, the exact toy it was based on nor the extent of any retouching before the prints were rephotographed with a plate camera, so to replicate all these unknowns is plainly impossible.<br /><br />What is clear to me is that all the information they unearthed fits into the broad story of a hoax as described in their book, which you will note was not published until 1999. The writers end by inviting the readers to come up with a better explanation if they can. I cannot.Dick Raynorhttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-13611890921836018942013-01-30T17:56:42.461-08:002013-01-30T17:56:42.461-08:00Dick:
I realize that Whyte's archives became ...Dick:<br /><br />I realize that Whyte's archives became available to Boyd and Martin only after Spurling's death (which, if I recall, was about a year after his "deathbed confession," which still leaves an inexplicable gap between admission and revelation -- time which could have been spent ironing out the details, so to speak); but as I stated before, the Eggington letters are, apart from being hearsay, completely incompatible with Spurling's account, or with Wilson's own letters to Whyte. I hardly consider that a jigsaw piece that fits the larger whole.<br /><br />I also have to ask, given your knowledge and association with the authors: has the Surgeon's Photo ever been legitimately replicated using the cited tools and aspects of creation? I've seen Boyd and Shine in several documentaries using models built of decidedly more modern materials: styrofoam being the most suspect. I've also seen video of Boyd floating a replica using lines for stability and control, which doesn't correspond with Spurling's account. Boyd and Martin present a pretty compelling Surgeon's Photo replica in their book, but I have to ask if a 1930s-era clockwork sub and plastic wood were utilized.<br /><br />Please understand that I am a Nessie atheist, and a great admirer of you, your decades of work, and your website. It's just that I'm not sold on the story as it stands.ekmhttp://www.roulettefilm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-78762318029053690632013-01-30T17:47:16.147-08:002013-01-30T17:47:16.147-08:00Burton:
The whole thesis for Wetherell's alle...Burton:<br /><br />The whole thesis for Wetherell's alleged prank (and involvement in the search as a self-styled big game hunter) was his obsessive craving for publicity and attention, coupled with a desire for revenge against the Daily Mail for his dismissal. I think right there you have a pretty good argument for why his failure to follow through on his hoax rings false.<br /><br />And as for the argument that the photo became too big a sensation and its residual effects scared him off, I call B.S. The man reputedly placed footprints of a mounted hippo foot, basked in the limelight of his "discovery," and then allowed plaster casts to be sent off for analysis! He had to have known the bubble would burst on that one; so why at that point would he keep quiet about a photograph that (by and large) was a legitimate success insofar as hoaxes go? What reputation did he have to preserve...? And what revenge is there to be found in a cover story that earns your rival top dollar in sales...? ekmhttp://www.roulettefilm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-36051034098629360682013-01-29T17:33:52.124-08:002013-01-29T17:33:52.124-08:00Erik Myers also wrote: "And while the "d...Erik Myers also wrote: "And while the "deathbed confession" bit is an obnoxious publicity thing, just why did Boyd and Martin sit on their story long enough to hit a sixty-year-anniversay gimmick, when it resulted in the inability for the star witness to be properly cross-examined on many of these points..."<br /><br />The answer to this question is also in the book, as you will see on your sixth reading :-)<br />Mr Spurling passed away in November 1993, but it was not until February 1994 that the Boyds came across the letters from Major Eggington while investigating Constance Whyte's archive material. Only then was R K Wilson's own admission of the hoax discovered, so putting the last major piece of the jig-saw puzzle into place for Martin & Boyd. Dick Raynorhttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-19556963524595211312013-01-29T16:02:38.277-08:002013-01-29T16:02:38.277-08:00Erik Myers wrote: "... I am baffled that anyo...Erik Myers wrote: "... I am baffled that anyone would consider Boyd and Martin's book to be the definitive last word on the subject..."<br /><br />The authors themselves don't claim that and neither do I, it is simply the most plausible account published to date. At least you have read the book, which is more than most of its critics appear to have done. Perhaps you will publish a better one, but until then theirs is the best available.Dick Raynorhttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-81752860450672031922013-01-29T07:40:40.631-08:002013-01-29T07:40:40.631-08:00Burton,
Wetherell & co probably took fright w...Burton,<br /><br />Wetherell & co probably took fright when the photo became a sensation, exposing it as a hoax could well prove detrimental to all involved. <br /><br />It does remain the iconic image and will probably stay that way. It did spark a generation of monster hunters but the effect was short lived as world war 2 broke out.<br /><br />It required the Dinsdale film 26 years later to catalyse a new generation of seekers.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-88100318122545644122013-01-29T07:37:52.107-08:002013-01-29T07:37:52.107-08:00I am following up a line of enquiry on the Wilson ...I am following up a line of enquiry on the Wilson photo but I don't think I will find anything other than a confirmation that it is a hoax.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-51574422089529286502013-01-29T07:33:48.971-08:002013-01-29T07:33:48.971-08:00One thing I have always found strange is that so m...One thing I have always found strange is that so many people looking to discredit the the fact that this photograph has been uncovered as a hoax question why Duke Wetherell remained silent to his grave about it, and seem to suggest that this somehow casts doubt upon the entire hoax idea.<br />Wetherell pulled off one of the greatest hoaxes in history with the "Surgeon's Photograph", one that was a watershed moment in the modern history of the Loch Ness Monster, producing a photograph that became THE iconic image of the monster for 60 years running. This image was lauded as indisputable evidence that the beast was indeed what so many claimed it was, an extinct relic of the past. It sparked decades of belief, debate, conjecture, and countless expeditions in search of the creature, many very expensive and grand expeditions led by prestigious institutions and comprised of extremely intelligent people who were leaders in their respective fields. Wetherell's hoax was a catalyst for believers and debunkers alike for 60 years, it drew professionals and amateurs alike to the shores and murky waters of Loch Ness in search of anything from irrefutable proof to merely just a glimpse of something fantastic or mysterious. The newspapers and news services clambered over each other for the stories, photos, and first or exclusive rights to report any findings on the creature, even sponsoring expeditions, and Wetherell was the mastermind behind an enormous piece of the evidence which sat at the heart of inspiration for such things.<br />I'll ask this - what better revenge against those who humiliated Wetherell for his "hippo print" fiasco than 60 years of searching for something that's not there? Regardless of what Wetherell may or may not have believed, he certainly knew that what was in that photograph did not exist. What better way to exact revenge and satisfaction than to send them on a wild goose chase for years, only to be embarrassed at the end by finding nothing? What pleasure would be gained from fessing up immediately after the photo was printed in the papers? It would merely make the papers look foolish for being taken in by the picture, but would expose Duke Wetherell as an even bigger fraud than before, leaving him to walk away again with a tarnished reputation and no credibility whatsoever. How would Wetherell exposing himself as a liar, fraud, and con artist benefit him in any way? If not for Spurling spilling the beans to Boyd and Martin, the photo might be still going strong today, and despite the cat being out of the bag, the Surgeon's Photo still appears in every single documentary I see on Loch Ness specifically and any lake monster/sea serpent/water cryptid show in general. Is that not the best revenge?Burton Caruthersnoreply@blogger.com