Nessie Sceptics at work in 1934

I have masses of e-clippings going back to 1933 and before detailing Nessie and her kelpie predecessor. This particular one is taken from the Hull Daily Mail of 23rd January 1934. The Natural History Museum had not long declared Marmaduke Wetherell's Loch Ness spoors to be the product of a hippo foot.

In that light, two investigators got a hold of their elephant foot waste basket and headed to the beach, as I reproduce below. One thing that escapes me though, didn't the Natural History Museum say that one of the other Wetherell spoors belonged to a rhinoceros? Perhaps someone can confirm that?

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Karl Shuker's latest Nessie book and the Surgeon's Photo

I finally finished Karl Shuker's book on Nessie entitled, "Here's Nessie: A Monstrous Compendium from Loch Ness" and review it here, but some things Karl said also merits some thoughts on that most famous of Nessie photographs, the Surgeon's Photo.

Firstly, Karl has brought a lot to the cryptozoological table since the 1990s and his PhD in zoology qualifies him to speak perceptibly on various issues in the field of cryptozoology. Naturally, the Loch Ness Monster is one of those go to subjects and one that gripped the attention of Karl from his youth upwards.

Now the book itself is a compendium, so what we have is an collection of Karl's shorter writings over the years addressing the issue of the monster in its zoological, cultural and folkloric aspects. In that respect, some of the material may be familiar to seasoned Nessie readers. But the main point is that his thoughts are now put down on paper. As I have emphasised before, websites do not last forever. The may end up partially archived on Internet archive websites, but paper adds a degree of permanency which I welcome.

The scope of the book is wide and its depth varied as it moves from detailed analysis of cryptid theories to the lighter aspects of songs written and stamps issued in honour of this most famous of Scottish icons. The book begins in a more serious tone as it looks at the monster as plesiosaur and as long neck pinniped. The long necked seal theory was quite popular back in the 1970s as it was championed by the likes of Bernard Heuvelmans and Peter Costello.

I agree with Karl's conclusions that this is an unlikely candidate for the Loch Ness Monster. There are too many cons outweighing the pros of the argument. I would add the qualifier that I would only consider it viable if the creature was somehow not a resident of the loch, but rather a visitor who breeds and feeds elsewhere. That in itself is another discussion.

The modified plesiosaur also enjoys extended treatment and Karl writes well on this vexed subject. I say vexed because even if plesiosaurs survived the great Cretaceous extinction, we have no idea what they would like today after such a long time. It would be easy to add various adaptions to produce a Nessie-like plesiosaur, but a surviving plesiosaur may actually look nothing like the Loch Ness Monster. 

I also appreciated Karl's lookback at the 1987 symposium on the Loch Ness Monster in Edinburgh which I have read obliquely about in its published papers, but not from the perspective of an attendee. I am trying to think why I did not make this event myself. I suspect it was because I had started working and became a bit too focussed on that! 

Thereafter, the book tends to move towards smaller cultural articles which is probably a wise move as one is more focused at the beginning. 

THE WILSON CONTROVERSY

But let us focus more on the overview of chapter one and Karl's words on the Surgeon's Photo. Karl takes a strong line in viewing the Spurling story of the hoaxed photograph as a hoax itself and bases this conclusion on various inconsistencies he sees in the narrative and which he lists in his book.

Now I myself take the view, based on the balance of the pros and cons, that the Spurling account is true. I don't say that with a 100% certainty as I tend to rate Nessie pictures on a scale of probability which is purely my own personal interpretation (as everyone's will be).

So in the mix of pictures that I regards as fake, real or misinterpretation, I may say a picture is 60-40 in favour of being the monster or I may say it is 70-30 in favour of being a wake or something else. That rating approach will also apply to this famous photograph. Let me now list Karl's objections in no particular order of persuasiveness.
 

1. There was a suspicious delay in publicising the 1975 Marmaduke article, leading to it being too late to question now deceased people.

2. The clockwork submarine with attached neck would be unstable. Karl does admit that a Japanese TV documentary crew did get a toy submarine stable, though he is not convinced of its closeness to the original setup.

3. The ripples around object show it is not moving, in distinction to the claim that the submarine was moving.

4. A 1987 study by LeBlond/Collins study of the surrounding wave patterns suggests the neck is nearer to four feet high and not the one foot that Spurling claimed.

5. The submarine theory does not explain the second photograph (below).

6. There are contradictions between the Wetherell confession and the Spurling confession.

7. Why did the hoaxers not expose the picture to the world and get their revenge on the Daily Mail?

8. The Egginton letter claimed Wilson told Egginton that the photo was a superimposition laid over an original image and not a model.

9. There is no evidence that the toy submarine was used (no photos of it or its deployment). The descendants of Marmaduke Wetherell manage to produce the hippo ashtray with which he produced his infamous tracks, but they could not produce anything to do with the toy submarine.

Now obviously some arguments carry less weight that others. I would not attach much weight to points 1, 4 and 7 as I can see counter explanations. Point 2 and the stability of the modified submarine was always one that could go either way for me. Spurling said he stabilised it by adding lead strips to the bottom and that is fair enough.

This was basically one that needed to be retried to satisfy curiosities. I can't find a link which shows this Japanese crew trying out their submarine reproduction, if anyone can find it, post a link below. But for me, the main test is not placing this in a bathtub, but seeing how stable such an arrangement would be in choppier waters. 

Points 3, 6 and 8 are all variations on the theme of contradictory witness statements. Was the rigged submarine moving or not? Was it actually a manipulated photo rather than a model? Wetherell does not mention Spurling as a co-conspirator and Spurling does not mention Chambers. Wetherell says it was rubber tubing, Spurling says it was plastic wood.

Now I have to say that if this was a group of eyewitnesses describing a monster sighting, the same sceptics who dismiss these contradictions would quite happily use them against any Nessie report ... because their prejudices demand they be used against the eyewitnesses. I expect nothing less from sceptics and their tactics, but should others fall for this?

The answer can be "yes" or "no" depending on the case. My problem is that Ian Wetherell made his confession 41 years after the event and Spurling made his nearly 60 years after. Clearly, there is going to be a significant degree of memory recall issues after such long periods. In fact, one cannot be sure either of them is being accurate in their details.

In the absence of written records or retained artifacts, I would say it is impossible to distinguish a lie from a memory defect after such a long period. That does not mean the basic story is in doubt, but rather the precise details.

Point 9 has its merits as well as we do have the hippo ashtray (now resident at the Loch Ness Centre in Drumnadrochit) but we have nothing physical to prove the Wilson hoax. Wetherell claimed the sub was stepped on because a water bailiff approached the group. It seems they did not recover it.

I had a curious thought at that point. Was not Alex Campbell the water bailiff at Loch Ness and so was he the supposed bailiff that interrupted the Wetherells? If so, he seems to have said nothing about it to anyone!

Finally, there is point 5 and that mysterious second photograph. I know critics say the wave patterns are different between the two photos, but the point is that the Spurling theory does not predict the photo, let alone explain it. It was on one of the exposed plates, so what does it mean? To date, I have read no persuasive argument regarding it.

So, do you think these nine points swing the argument towards "monster" or keep it in "hoax" territory? I have been aware of these arguments for some time, but I still weigh the pros and cons and come out about 60-40 in favour of this being a hoax. The one thing I would say is that this story has two confessors - Ian Wetherell and Christian Spurling.

Any one individual can make an accusation against a photo and we have had them in this field and that is why I am cautious about accepting one single person's accusation unless there is some corroborating evidence (e.g. Richard Frere and his lone accusation against Lachlan Stuart).

So we have two people on the record and, unless you believe in a conspiracy, that strengthens the case. And that is where I think I would leave this particular case.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Review of Nick Redfern's "Nessie"

Having reviewed Malcolm Robinson's book on Nessie, I now move onto another recent publication by Nick Redfern entitled "Nessie: Exploring the Supernatural Origins of the Loch Ness Monster". Now, Malcolm's book had its fair share of references to the psychic, paranormal and supernatural. But, if that book was the starter on this subject, Nick's is definitely the main course.

Following in the tradition of Holiday's "The Dragon and The Disc", "Goblin Universe" and Shiels' "Monstrum!", we have waited over 25 years for another like minded book, and Nick Redfern is the man to continue this centuries old thread in the tale. Now, one would normally expect such a book to be rubbished as the majority of Nessie people continue to look to the biological for a solution.

I, too, seek an answer in the realms of zoology, but I can view myself as being able to critique Nick's book to a certain degree as I was in the paranormal Nessie camp many moons ago. In fact, if you want to read my views back in the 1980s, I refer you to one of the archived Nessletters from Rip Hepple here.

I also recently gave a talk at the Scottish UFO and Paranormal Conference in which I examined the links between Nessie and Ley Lines. Well, actually, I was regurgitating stuff I had done back in the 1980s. What I exactly think of those results, I am not sure myself!

Anyway, I move onto the book. If one is going to talk about supernatural Nessies, one must start at the beginning with St. Columba and progress through the tales of water horses, kelpies and other such mingled constructs of overlaid truth.

Opinions vary as to the nature of these beasts as perceived by those who once told tales of them to riveted audiences. Nick takes a view which is, shall we say, all encompassing as to their nature and relation to other Highland phenomena of the time and their shape shifting tendencies. You could probably call it a paranormal Grand Unified Theory.

Indeed, there is a large degree of overlap between my own book and Nick’s as the folkloric landscape is surveyed. The question is how literally should one take these tales? How big was the kernel of truth that was too often obscured by ancient raconteurs? That answer very much depends on who you ask and Nick supplies his own opinions on these pre-industrial demons. 

Taking those demonic forms into the modern Nessie era is not normally done by the majority of researchers, but Nick takes this oldest of Loch Ness Monster theories and attempts to map it onto the modern phenomenon.

But how does one go about proving that the Loch Ness Monster is a supernatural beast? What exactly does that mean? Is it a product of the human mind or another mind? Is it a real sentient entity in its own right or does it even have a substantial form? Nick homes in on his answer as the book progresses.

Though having proven beyond his own doubt that plesiosaurs are not the answer, how do you do the opposite for a paranormal cryptid? The evidence is circumstantial. But then again, is that not the way of it with Nessie theories of all shades?

From that period and 1933 onwards, Nick narrates the Nessie story to the present day. There are the usual suspects plus a few minor typos on the way. Willox the Warlock did not battle the Loch Ness Kelpie, his ancestor did. Marmaduke Wetherell did not find the hippopotami spoors, he created them. Moreover, Loch Latch is written as Loch Laide.

But Nick follows a parallel course as he presents stories from in and around Loch Ness that suggest there is more to this area than just elusive aquatic beasts. With that in mind, we are regaled with stories of ghosts, the Loch Ness Hoodoo, UFOs, out of place cats, Aleister Crowley, exorcisms, Men in Black, witches and other strange people with somewhat magical designs upon the place.

Indeed, Nick will answer such questions as why researcher Jon Downes was butt naked at Loch Ness and what Boleskine House has to do with the Disney cartoon, The Jungle Book! But this all culminates in the sinister suggestion that a serpent worshipping cult may have operated at the loch, and may even do so today. The evidence for this is somewhat tenuous, but considering men are inclined to worship almost anything past, present and future, why should that surprise us?

After all, we have had the rituals of Donald Omand, Doc Shiels and Kevin Carlyon. Have we missed anything out? To this end, Nick refers us to further clues which I leave to your judgement. 

Ted Holiday and Doc Shiels, of course, figure highly, as does Tim Dinsdale. Holiday’s untimely demise is viewed with suspicion. Shiels’ activities are not viewed with the same eye as Nick embraces him. His 1977 Nessie photos are generally rejected, but Nick puts up a defence, omitting to address the matter of the audio tapes featuring Shiels and friend Michael McCormick in 1977 which records them discussing how to fake monster photographs. Nick needs to reply to that before we proceed further with Anthony Shiels.

We know Tim Dinsdale was a member of the Ghost Club and had his own fair share of spooky stories (as well as an alleged demonic attack). However, Tim’s public opinion very much stayed in the biological domain. Did Tim secretly believe in a supernatural Nessie? Only his family and closest confidants can come clean on this, thirty years after his death.

As one that continues to believe in paranormal phenomena in other domains, I accept that strange things happen around Loch Ness. The question for me is how statistically significant they are compared to other geographical regions and what is the relation between increasing distance from the loch and diminishing relevance to the loch?

Moreover, having accepted the premise of a supernatural Loch Ness region, how do you use that to make the leap to a supernatural Loch Ness monster? And here’s the rub. Putting aside old tales of talking kelpies and indirect stories of other things around the area, what exactly is it about the modern monster itself that speaks of a paranormal nature?

The answer is precious little as Nessies don’t vanish like ghosts. They don’t do unnatural feats like fly off or speak to you. They don’t look as weird as werewolves or mothmen. They don’t give off sulphurous smells like devils or cause any strange synchronicities.

Maybe they don’t have to, but there are one or two things with better promise. The shape shifting thing; is that paranormal or normal? Nick points to variations in appearances described by witnesses. Perhaps so, but how much of that is accountable by intra-species variations due to sex, age or seasonality? How much of the variation is just down to the fact that eyewitnesses cannot deliver a 100% accurate description (but still accurate enough to point to a large creature inhabiting the loch)?

But all is not lost. As I close, there are some strange things that defy explanation for me. Ted Holiday’s weird experiences after the 1973 exorcism are not so easily dismissed and that strange figure he met near Urquhart Castle may not just be a mad motor biker. There are other tales that also make you think twice. I refer readers to the story related by Tim Richardson, which does not make it into Nick’s book, but points to something perhaps beyond the normal.

Is the Loch Ness Monster a demonic form, a psychic projection, a zooform or something else that is currently beyond scientific explanation? I know there are many people who class themselves as paracryptozoologists. It is up to them to continue to make the case for such a thing. I suspect their number is increasing; they just need to increase the arguments in line with that.


The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

Nessie FAQ

Realising that people of varying familiarity with the Loch Ness Monster visit this blog, I thought it appropriate to put up a page of frequently asked questions concerning Nessie. For some, most of these facts and figures may be well known but to others such as kids who may wish to write a school essay on Nessie or anyone else who wants the straight facts for any article, this Loch Ness Monster FAQ can help them.

 Now when I say "facts" or "evidence" there is clearly going to be disagreement on what constitutes evidence for the Loch Ness Monster. Indeed, most will regard any evidence as falling short whilst others such as myself will be found closer to the other end of the spectrum. The point of this page is not to sit in judgement but rather state what has historically been regarded as evidence.

Also facts can lack unanimity. This is perhaps best shown in the total number of claimed Nessie sightings. Some claim as many as 10,000 whilst others drop to the hundreds depending on their "filtering" processes. I have no doubt in my mind that the number of sightings are in the thousands but most never make it into the public domain.

The sources for the data come from a variety of places and the data may change as new information comes to light. This is a work in progress!

Q. How did the Loch Ness Monster story begin?

A. There had been stories of strange things in Loch Ness going back centuries, but the "Loch Ness Monster" as we know it began in 1933 as a series of reports of monsters received increasing attention from local, national and international media organisations.The first report came on May 2nd by a Mrs. Mackay and was followed in August by a sensational sighting of the creature on land by a Mr. and Mrs. Spicer. The first photograph by Hugh Gray followed in November and monster fever reached its highest pitch in April 1934 when the famous Surgeon's Photograph was published.

By the end of 1934, there had been over three hundred claims of monster sightings and the Loch Ness Monster was now firmly established as an international mystery. The press loved a monster story, especially during those years of economic depression, and so a large dinosaur-like creature turning up at a remote highland loch was a godsend for them. The debate around that time revolved around not only the reports but what the creature could be and what steps should be taken to solve this mystery.

Theories from the fantastical to the more mundane abounded while plans to trap the creature ranged from large, baited hooks to huge steel cages. Plans were afoot to set up long term observation platforms with cine cameras and send divers down to explore the murky and intimidating depths. The creature even merited mention in the British parliament as questions were asked as to the protection the law afforded to a creature as yet unidentified.

Expeditions of varying seriousness and complexity were organised as people proactively sought to obtain conclusive evidence, not only of the creature's existence, but also it's identity. However, given the loch's wide range and the creature's apparent shyness, nothing that would convince the likes of the Natural History Museum was ever forthcoming. It seemed there was no need to consult protection laws while Nessie successfully eluded all insipid attempts at capture and by 1935 the story began to slow down and almost disappear as the country moved onto a war footing.


Q. Was there any monster legends before the Loch Ness Monster became news?

A. Like a lot of other lochs in Scotland, Loch Ness was feared as the abode of a Water Horse. This creature would capture people by pretending to be an ordinary horse ready for use by the wayside. On mounting the beast, the victim would be stuck to the monster which would then race into Loch Ness to feast upon its drowned victim. There are a lot of reference to this unworldly beast in old Victorian books and it is also sometimes referred to as a Kelpie or the more benign Water Bull. Loch Ness is the most often mentioned home of a Water Horse in old Highland literature, exceeding other lochs such as lochs Lomond, Morar, Tay and Awe.


Q. What about Saint Columba and the Monster?

A. Adamnan's "Life of Saint Columba" mentions the saint invoking the name of God to drive away a "water beast" that had killed one man and threatened to take another in the River Ness. The account was written in the 8th century but the event probably took place in the middle of the 6th century. The incident perhaps took place at the Bona Narrows just north of Loch Ness though other tales of Columba tell of further encounters with the beast in Loch Ness itself.

Some say the tale is fabricated or speaks of a bear or walrus. The story itself does not identify the animal though it is reasonable that the story presents it as an aquatic-based animal and not something demonic like the Water Horse.


Q. How many times has the Monster been seen?

A. In terms of reports starting in 1933 that appears in books, magazines and newspapers, the total runs to about one thousand seven hundred (1,700). Doubtless, there are others which have gone unreported. This would average out at about twenty sightings a year, but the actual numbers per year can vary enormously from over a hundred to none. Indeed, it seems that the number of reported sightings has been on a continuous slide since the 1970s with various explanations being offered as to why. Is Nessie dead or do less witnesses come forward now?

Undoubtedly, a proportion of these reports fall into the hoax or misidentification category. It is generally agreed that witnesses are sincere in what they claim to see and so hoaxes form only a small part of the overall number. As to how many of the remaining reports are monster or misidentification depends on who you ask!

There are also reports of the monster before 1933, most of which were revealed by witnesses coming forward after 1933. These come to about seventy in all since the St. Columba story.


Q. What is usually described?

A. The majority of reports describe a large humped like object in the loch. Sometimes the object has two or three or more humps which can change shape. Perhaps a fifth will describe a long neck seen with the humps or on its own. More rarely a long tail and flippers or webbed feet are described. The object can be described as moving in the water and producing a noticeable wake. Sometimes it simply sinks vertically back into the loch.

The skin is usually described as dark in colour and can be smooth or rough in appearance. Horns are mentioned in very rare circumstances as are small eyes and mouth. Finer details of the creature are not usually expected since it is normally seen hundreds of metres away (unless the witness has binoculars or telescope).


Q. Has the creature been seen out of the water?

A. Yes it has, but on even rarer occasions than water reports; about 29 times in the last 81 years. There are about 55 water based sightings for every land based sighting. The last claimed report was in 2009 and most were in the 1930s. What witnesses describe is in keeping with water based reports, though there are some exceptions which are weird to say the least.


Q. What is the evidence for the Loch Ness Monster?

A. There is a large volume of eyewitness testimony as well as a range of films, photographs and sonar readings. However, the quality of the evidence is disputed. It is said that the testimonies are unreliable and untrustworthy while the photographs and films are deemed inconclusive or hoaxes. Sonar readings are disputed as being illusions created by sound reflections and refractions as well as lacking resolution.

To some extent the evidence is in the eye of the beholder as personal bias and prejudice enters the assessment on both sides. Because a number of sightings, photos, films and sonar have been found to be erroneous, there is always a small chance that someone has lied or misperceived. However, this should not be used as a reason for wholesale rejection of all evidence. One bad report does not invalidate 100 others. Each has to be assessed on it own merits and that is where the debate begins and continues to this day.

Ultimately, zoological experts will require a piece of the creature, dead or alive. It may be that even close up shots of the creature in this digital age will be disputed, so in the tradition of the Wild West, it is a case of "Wanted, Nessie: Dead or Alive".


Q. Where can I get the latest sightings of the Loch Ness Monster?

A. There are various outlets. Online newspapers will carry stories as will this blog from time to time. Gary Campbell's sightings website is also recommended (link). For the latest news on any aspects of Nessie, you could always set up a Google News alert to your mail inbox when news items appear on the Web.

Q. Why has no carcass of the monster been found?

A. The nature of the loch does not allow for carcasses to rise and drift ashore. Anything that dies will sink to the bottom aided by the loch's sheer high sides. Once the body is hundreds of feet below, the cold waters of the loch arrest the decomposition process, allowing scavangers to strip the carcass. This also defeats the buildup of gases in body chambers and the remains will not achieve buoyancy and float to the surface. The high water pressure at the bottom of the loch will also compress any decomposition gases, which again defeats buoyancy. If the monster has a skeleton, it will eventually be buried in silt or even dissolve in the water's slightly acidic environment if they are cartiliginous.


Q. Is there enough food in Loch Ness to feed the monster?

A. That again depends who you ask and how you frame the question. If by that you mean a herd of 50 plesiosaurs then the answer is "No". But if you specify a different kind of monster and lower the presumed population, the answer moves towards "Yes". Various attempts have been made to estimate the biomass of Loch Ness (excluding monsters) by sonar counting fish or extrapolating mathematically from samples of various animals from various points in the food chain. The only exact thing known is that no one knows exactly how much biomass is in Loch Ness. 

 

The best estimate for fish in the top layer of the water column is up to 24 tonnes but this does not account for fish along the sides, near the surface and closer to the bottom. This would include migratory salmon, trout and bottom feeding eels. These will increase the total number multiple times (my own estimate is over 160 tonnes). 

 

The other factor is Nessie dietary requirements. One estimate suggests the Loch Ness biomass can sustain a monster population one-tenth in mass which could range from 2.4 to 16 tonnes. But there are other ratios depending on the type of creature which allows a small population of monsters. The answer is not as clear cut as some make out.

 

But some Nessie believers do accept there is not enough food and these people tend to believe in a monster that is of paranormal origin or is a regular visitor to the loch which feeds in the oceans. More information can be had at this link.

 

 

Q. Will the Loch Ness Monster mystery ever be solved?

A. This again depends on who you ask. Some feel that the mystery was solved in the 1980s when people such as Adrian Shine synthesised a theory based on various misidentifications of known and not so well known natural phenomena plus the additions of hoax explanations and the occasional visit to the loch by Atlantic Sturgeon. Others think this theory is too simplistic and makes unwarranted assumptions about the observational abilities of the eyewitnesses. The manner in which photographic evidence is handled is also seen as too dismissive by those on the monster side of the debate. The accusation that something should have been found by now is also levelled, though without a convincing explanation as to why this should be the case. 

EVIDENCE

Note it is not being claimed here that all these are proof of the monster. Some are not but some will be. Also, there are a number of lesser known photos which I don't about which briefly "surfaced" in the 1980s and 1990s in one particular newspaper only to disappear from view.

Total number of known sightings: about 1800

Total number of land sightings: 35

Total number of sightings before Nessie "Era": about 70

Total number of photographs: about 30

Total number of films: about 30

Total number of sonar contacts: over 20

KEY DATES

Earliest account of Monster: 565AD by Adamnan (link)
First newspaper report of a "huge fish" in Loch Ness: Inverness Courier 8th October 1868

First "modern" sighting: 14th April 1933 by Aldie Mackay (reported 2nd May) (link)
Land sighting by Spicers on 22nd July 1933 which made international news
First photograph by Hugh Gray: 12 November 1933 at Foyers
Marmaduke Wetherell investigation for Daily Mail: November 1933 to January 1934
First organised expedition by Sir Edward Mountain: July-August 1934
The Surgeon's Photograph published April 21st 1934 by the Daily Mail
Rupert Gould publishes "The Loch Ness Monster and Others" in June 1934
Loch Ness Monster news goes into hibernation during war years
Lachlan Stuart photograph of three humps taken in July 14th 1951
Peter MacNab takes a picture of the monster swimming by Castle Urquhart on July 1955.
Constance Whyte publishes "More Than A Legend" in 1957.
Tim Dinsdale takes his famous monster film in April 1960.
The Loch Ness Phenomenon Investigation Bureau is founded in 1962 spending 10 years on the hunt
The Academy of Applied Sciences expeditions take their famous flipper photo on 8th August 1972.
They repeat the feat with the gargoyle and body pictures in 1975.
Operation Deepscan sweeps the loch with a line of boats in October 1987 with three unidentified sonar hits.
Nicholas Witchell fronts Project Urquhart in 1993.
April 1994: Surgeon's Photo exposed as hoax by Alistair Boyd and David Martin.

STATISTICS

Best year for sightings: Five on the 24th July 1934 (link)

Best month for sightings: August (about 20%)

Worst month for sightings: January (about 3%)

Best day of month for sightings: 27th (5% average is 3%)

Worst day of month for sightings: 31st (1.5% but only 7 months have that day)

Best time of day for sightings: 3pm-4pm (10%)

Worst time of day for sightings: 3am-4am (0.5%)

THE MONSTER

There are a multiplicity of candidates which attempt to identify what the Loch Ness Monster is. Though some may be drawn from known animals, be they existing or extinct, some kind of modification was required to fit the Nessie identikit. Here is a selection of them. Note that questions about the lifecycle of the monster very much depend on which (if any) of these creatures best describes the monster.

Plesiosaur or Elasmosaurus

Tullimonstrum Gregarium

Giant eel

Long Necked Seal

Paranormal Entity

 Basiliosaurus






 Embolomeri Amphibian

Atlantic Sturgeon

Misidentification of common phenomena

Monster Statistics

Average Length: 20-25 feet

Maximum Length: up to 60 feet

Minimum Length: A few feet!
Humps: Generally up to three, 3 to 10 feet in length and up to several feet high.

Neck: Typically 5 to 6 feet which tapers to about one foot where it joins body. Can be described as pillar or pole like.
Head: Sometimes described as small or even a continuation of the neck.

MONSTER HUNTERS AND SCEPTICS

The Loch Ness Monster has had its supporters and detractors throughout the decades. From the earliest days in 1933, when investigator Rupert Gould turned up at the loch to interview eyewitnesses through to today when a plethora of all types can be found with a simple Google search, finding an opinion on the monster is not difficult to find. Here we categorise some past and present names according to for, against or just simply in it for the publicity. The decades they were/are active in these roles is an estimate in some cases.

The Monster Men

Rupert Gould (1930s - 40s) Wrote first book on Nessie in 1934, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others"

Alex Campbell (1930s - 70s) Water Bailiff at Loch Ness who claimed 17 sightings.

Constance Whyte (1930s - 70s) Wrote influential book "More Than a Legend" in 1957.

Tim Dinsdale (1960s - 80s) Took most famous footage of beast in 1960 and wrote five books.

David James (1960s - 70s) Lead founder of Loch Ness Investigation Bureau

F. W. Holiday (1960s - 70s) Author of three books on or relating to Nessie.

Robert Rines (1970s - 2000s) Led the famous underwater searches in the 1970s.

Nicholas Witchell (1960s - 90s) Wrote the book "The Loch Ness Story".
Steve Feltham (1990s - today) Longest serving monster hunter living by the loch since 1992.

The Sceptics

Tony Harmsworth (80s - today) Former curator of the Official Loch Ness Exhibition

Adrian Shine (80s - today) Leader of Loch Ness Project and curator of Loch Ness Centre
Dick Raynor (80s - today) Loch Ness Researcher and author of various articles.
Maurice Burton (1960s - 90s) Author of "The Elusive Monster" and first major sceptic.
Steuart Campbell (1980s-today) Author of  "The Loch Ness Monster - The Evidence" and various articles
Ronald Binns (1980s) - Author of "The Loch Ness Mystery - Solved"

The Dubious Men

Marmaduke Wetherell (1930s) Lead conspirator in the Surgeon's Photo fake.
Frank Searle (1960s - 80s) Faker of many a Nessie photograph.
Anthony "Doc" Shiels (1970s-80s) Faker of various Nessie and Sea Serpent photos.
George Edwards (1980s-today) Loch Ness cruise boat operator ans self confessed hoaxer.

Noted Eyewitnesses

Aldie Mackay (1933)

George Spicer (1933)

Hugh Gray (1933)

Kenneth Wilson (1934)

Alex Campbell (various years)

Tim Dinsdale (1960)

Greta Finlay (1952)

Marjory Moir (1936)
James McLean (1937)

Noted Photos

Hugh Gray (1933)

Kenneth Wilson (1934)

F. C. Adams (1934)

Lachlan Stuart (1951)

Peter MacNab (1955)

Peter O' Connor (1960)

Jennfier Bruce (1982)

Anthony Shiels (1977)
James Gray (2001)
Roy Johnston (2002)

Noted Films

Malcolm Irvine (1933 and 1936)

G. E. Taylor (1938)

Tim Dinsdale (1960)

Peter Smith: (1977)

Gordon Holmes (2007)

Dick Raynor (1967)

Total number of books on monster: Sixty Three (and counting!)

Loch Ness Facts

Maximum Depth: 227 metres

Average Depth: 132 metres

Temperature:

Max Length: 36.2 kilometres

Max Width: 2.7 kilometres
Height above sea level: 17 metres
Volume: 7.5 cubic kilometres

Rivers: Oich, Moriston, Tarff, Foyers, Coilte, Enrick, Ness (outflow)

Towns (population estimates in parentheses): Fort Augustus (646), Invermoriston (264), Drumnadrochit (1020), Abriachan (120), Dores (109), Foyers (276), Inverfarigaig (74)

Total Loch Ness human population Estimate: over 2,500.

Total Loch Ness monsters population Estimate: ???

Any ideas or comments, send me an email to lochnesskelpie@gmail.com

A Couple of Clippings from 1933

Cryptid researcher, Paul Cropper, sent me a couple of PDFs from the Dundee Courier from the early days of the Loch Ness Monster in 1933.

The first is dated 23rd May 1933 and this one of the earliest clippings on the subject. As a comparison, the Aldie Mackay story which kick started the Loch Ness Monster story appeared three weeks earlier on the 2nd May in the Inverness Courier.

The text reads:

LOCH NESS MYSTERY "MONSTER" - Once again a sea monster is reported to have been seen on Loch Ness, near lnverfarigaig, where the water reaches a depth of 700 feet. Mr Shaw, of Whitefield, Inverfarigaig, who previously disbelieved that there was a monster, saw it a few days ago, and, calling his son and a friend. they watched it for about ten minutes through a telescope. Photo shows Mr Shaw and his friends, who are keeping a regular look-out in the hope of seeing it again.

The Mister Shaw in question was Alexander Shaw, who was interviewed by Rupert T. Gould for his 1934 book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others". The relevant testimony is on page 40 and is reproduced below (click on the images to enlarge).

I note that Mr. Shaw is stated to have lived in a house about 150 feet above the loch at Whitefield. I wonder if this is the same house that would later be occupied by Lachlan Stuart, who took his famous monster picture in 1951?

The second clipping is dated 27th December 1933 and concerns the discovery of a pile of bones which has been covered here before. The picture belows add some more facts, though the conclusion is still the same that these bones did not belong to a Loch Ness Monster.

LOCH NESS DISCOVERY - A quantity of bones and teeth of an animal long dead have been found near Urquhart Castle, on Loch Ness-side, by Mr A. O. M'Laren. After consultation with Mr H. E. Peters, curator of Inverness Museum, who expressed the view that the bones do not resemble those of any domestic animal, the bones have been sent to South Kensington Museum for identification. Mr E. Fraser. the custodian of Urquhart Castle, is seen examining the heap of bones.

These bones would have been sent to South Kensington Museum around the same time as the infamous casts of tracks found by Marmaduke Wetherell. Unlike the tracks, nothing more is heard of these bones.

Review Of "The Missing Evidence: The Loch Ness Monster"

British broadcaster Channel 5 televised the next in their series "Missing Evidence" on Monday, and Nessie was the subject of choice for their investigation. I have seen many a documentary over the years and the trend has, not surprisingly, been towards the sceptical. This programme very much continued that trend.

The program followed several threads of enquiry which were designed to lead the viewer to the conclusion that there's no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster.

THE HUNTER

Well, not quite. Arrayed against a line up of sceptically minded guests was Gordon Holmes, the one person who held out that a large creature of some description inhabited Loch Ness. Gordon's 2007 video naturally featured, but he was also filmed pursuing his latest hunting ideas. That meant a foray along the shores of the loch at night time. I like that idea, I have promoted it on this blog many a time.

Gordon trained a high powered lamp onto the loch in the hope of catching a sight of the creature. Quite how he planned to deploy the device and capture evidence was not made clear, but more power to his elbow, I say. His well known video was discussed, with the theory that it (and a nearby, similar disturbance) was the now ubiquitous seal. Gordon himself is not of this opinion. He thinks he filmed two members of a species of giant eel.

However, the main narration thread involved well known sceptic, Adrian Shine, as we were taken through a brief history of the phenomenon and Adrian's theories on it. Cue a whistle stop tour starting at St. Columba and spending an inordinate amount of time at the "Plesiosaur" and "Surgeon's Photo" stations.

Perhaps it is just my well worn familiarity with the subject, but it was a bit tedious watching the plesiosaur being trotted out again and being shot down to the exclusion of all other potential candidates. Again, no mention of the other alternatives, giving the unseasoned viewer the impression that if you disprove plesiosaurs, you disproved everything animal.

I hesitate to mention the Atlantic Sturgeon which inevitably gets mentioned when Adrian is around. But, you bet, it got the mandatory mention, but there is no evidence that such a creature has ever been in Loch Ness, and even if it had, Adrian himself admits it only forms a tiny part of the sightings database.

So, of all the various pieces of film and photo evidence that have passed our eyes, which ones were analysed? Only those which suited the sceptical theme and that meant the Surgeon's Photo and the 1972 Flipper Photo. I don't doubt this story is of interest to those unfamiliar with the subject, so I guess they are always going to turn up. My only wish is that the main man who actually exposed the photograph, Alastair Boyd, got the credit or, better still, did the talking himself.

One thing I did find interesting about the flipper analysis (by Mike Hartshorne), was his attempts to enhance the original photo using modern image processing software. Even this could not match the retouched flipper photo, which is not surprising.

ANALYSIS OF SIGHTINGS

Speaking of databases, Charles Paxton's ongoing work on a comprehensive sightings analysis was featured, and this was new to Nessie documentaries. The program promised some breakthrough evidence, which I shall come to later. I had attended Charles' recent talk on the same database work, so some of what was said was interesting, but Charles had already told me he planned to publish his findings in an appropriate science journal.

In other words, this documentary was probably not the prime place for full disclosure. Either way, Charles said his work neither proves or disproves the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. However, the multi-hump genre was mentioned as one statistical cluster than predominates in calm weather.

One may assume that was the case because multiple humps are harder to spot in rough, choppy waters, but this was taken to be a sign that all such cases were boat wakes. A seeming contradiction then ensued. The documentary switched to the FloWave machine run by Edinburgh University which can reproduce various wave effects. This mechanical tank allowed waves of various forms to be driven against each other to produce standing waves.

We were told that the topology of Loch Ness allowed for boat wakes to reflect off the loch sides to produce these effects. But I don't think that is the case, more likely the waves just dissipate as they reach the shores. Any standing wave effects are more likely to come from interacting boat wakes.

Those seals got a mention again when Charles told us the average reported length of a sighted object was 16 feet. This seemed good enough for Adrian to raise the matter of seals as a source of single hump reports and even the odd land sighting. He mentioned the creature moving in front of pony carts, which I take to be a reference to the 1919 Jock Forbes story. He had estimated the creature slithering past them to be at least 12 feet long. But seals are only a few feet long, so we are assured he was way out in his estimate - despite having the width of the road as a ruler!

A MENAGERIE OF EXPLANATIONS 

Adrian then declared there was one or more seals in Loch Ness during the manic year of 1934 to keep the story going. Again, there is no evidence that seals were in Loch Ness during that period. These inquisitive, frequent surfacers would have most surely been seen and photographed while Loch Ness was under intense scrutiny. Adrian states there were reports of seals but does not mention who and where.

But I suspect one of them was the claimed sighting by notorious hoaxer, Marmaduke Wetherell, creator of the dubious hippo tracks and the Surgeon's photograph. I would not trust his account any further than I could throw him and the seal theory was a tactic of  his employer, the Daily Mail, to gracefully opt out of the hunt after the debacle of the hippopotamus tracks.

I'll tell you what though, Loch Ness seemed to be host to all manner of creatures between 1933 and 1934. We have Adrian's sturgeon and seals on patrol but we also had Albert Jack's swimming elephants.

Why this theory was included in the program was beyond me, it is so daft that even the narrator felt compelled to argue against it. The theory was that Bertram Mills would take his circus elephants for dips in Loch Ness and fool a lot of people into thinking the back and trunk were the classic head-neck.

It's a pity they didn't try and argue against the other sceptical theories to add some balance to the program. In fact, it would have been better to edit out Albert Jack's ramblings and get Gordon Holmes (or someone else) to have a go!

MASS HYSTERIA

That brings us to a fellow called Chris French. He is Professor of Psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London and he is a vocal, ardent and prestigious sceptic. I have seen him before on other programs debunking other mysteries, so I presume the Loch Ness Monster is not his specialist subject. His assignment was to go beyond the seals, waves and elephants to add the "icing" of misperception.

First of all, he went through the expectations of our brains, false memories, the suggestibility of memory and the influence of cultural imagery. The implication of this was that the brain is not a perfect recording device and will fill in any gaps with preconceived notions about the Loch Ness Monster.

In an attempt to demonstrate how memories can be manipulated, French set up an experiment where pairs of volunteers watched a staged robbery, discussed the contents of the video and were then tested on their recall.

As it turned out, one of the pair was a "stooge" who would suggest false information to the other person. As a result, the majority of volunteers got some things wrong. They thought a gun was there when it was not, likewise somebody stacking shelves and a certain type of jacket were not there.

What was then attempted looked like a sceptic's version of "bait and switch". The robbery video was replaced by an object on Loch Ness. The stooge feeding false information was replaced by the plesiosaur imagery witnesses allegedly carry in their minds. We were then invited to accept that this is how birds, logs and waves become dinosaurs.

But in a narrative twist, Charles Paxton revealed that comparisons of retold eyewitness testimonies, often decades apart, were unexpectedly consistent and did not grow with the telling. Charles regarded this as a "mystery" and we did not get the pleasure of seeing Mr. French trying to explain this away.

My own view of this is simple. Dramatic events, such as seeing a real, large creature will burn into the memory more readily and have a greater permanence. You will know this yourselves, memorable events, be they good or bad, are retained better in our memories. Why Mr. French did not address this as a real aspect of eyewitness perception is also a "mystery" to me.

As for the attempt to reframe the experiment in a Loch Ness setting, I am far from convinced. A dark object against the back drop of uncomplicated, homogeneous water is not going to tax the memory as much as a complex robbery scene in a shop. A supposed idea of a dinosaur is a far cry from someone beside you feeding misinformation. Moreover, this theory does not explain close up sightings where opportunities for memory gaps are at a minimum. And, lastly, the theory is unfalsifiable, which is not where objective, critical thinking should end up.

FILMS

But Chris French left his most dubious theory to the end and this was our supposed revelation from Charles Paxton's database. Using an annual chart of sightings since 1933, he claimed that the number of sightings rose and fell with various monster films. The obvious one is King Kong from 1933, but I have covered that canard in a previous article.

The other mentioned film was one I had never heard of called "The Giant Behemoth" which was released in 1959. Now sightings subsequently increased into the 1960s, but we don't need a little watched B-movie to explain that coincidence. The Dinsdale film of 1960 and the arrival of the LNIB in 1962 to improve the collecting of sightings is all you need to know.

It was also mentioned that the much watched "X-Files" was responsible for an uptick in Nessie sightings. However, this run of 202 episodes ran from 1993 to 2002, which is a pretty broad spread for making any comparisons. Moreover, not many of these episodes dealt with lake cryptids. Ultimately, I would like to see his graph of supposed correlations and particularly how well it stacks against monster films which see no increase in sightings.

So, after an hour of trying to convince me that Nessie did not exist, I still believe Nessie exists. Then again, I am a diehard who will fight his corner. The man on the Clapham Omnibus may come to a different conclusion, especially if the argument was as imbalanced as it was on Channel 5.

As the program drew to a close, Adrian Shine reminded us of those three sonar contacts obtained during Operation Deepscan. He said he still did not know what they were, but that this did not mean they were monsters. This was probably the nearest admission from "Missing Evidence" that there is yet a mystery to be solved in Loch Ness.

A 1934 Book on The Loch Ness Monster

I just wanted to mention that Karl Shuker has updated his bibliography on books devoted to the Loch Ness Monster. By way of introduction, he mentions the first book on Nessie by W. H. Lane. For further information on this book and its author, you can view my previous articles here and here. (regular reader Steve Plambeck will warm to Colonel Lane and his giant salamander theory.).

Karl's list is a bit different to mine in that he includes non-fiction juvenile and non-english books. I don't, but I do include books which have sizable sections on Nessie while Karl is only interested in books devoted to the Loch Ness Monster. Between us, I think we have covered all the bases on what has been published. Well, that is not quite true, there are always general books out there which have a chapter on the Loch Ness Monster, these may well exceed what we have listed.

One title most of all caught my eye and that is Karl's up and coming book called "Here's Nessie!" which is a compilation of his writings on the famous beastie.  I look forward to this and Paul Harrison's forthcoming biography on Frank Searle in the months ahead!

While I am here, I promised in that first book article to look at the second ever book on the Loch Ness Monster. This was a 16 page booklet entitled "The Mysterious Monster of Loch Ness" published by the Fort Augustus Abbey Press and authored by a W.D.Hamilton and J.Hughes.

Unlike Lane's first ever book on the Loch Ness Monster, I have never seen the second book on public sale. I personally had to obtain a photocopy of an original held in Edinburgh. If it ever turns up on eBay, I expect it to go for hundreds of pounds. The authors are not mentioned in the book itself, but rather from the library catalogue. However, Michael Turnbull's book "Abbey Boys" which relates the history of the Fort Augustus Abbey schools, mentions them as teachers during the 1930s.

The book makes no mention of anything beyond May 1934, so I presume it was published around June 1934 putting it a few weeks ahead of Rupert Gould's better known book, "The Loch Ness Monster and Others". Proceeding in a chronological manner, the booklet goes through St.Columba, the Willie MacGruer land sighting around the First World War and the 1932 "crocodile" sighting in the River Ness.

A further note of interest states that the rumour of a released crocodile dates back to about 1913. I covered this persistent crocodile story in this article. Wetherell's infamous spoors are mentioned, but it is more interesting to note that this was contrasted with what was stated as the favoured theory of the locals which was of a "bearded eel".

The booklet goes a bit strange when it mentions strange toothmarks in sheep and deer carcasses but then states they were discovered to be those of a walrus! That in itself would be an unusual event as would be the tale of a famous deep-sea diver finding great honeycombed caverns in the gloom of the loch.

Having run off a few stories of other lake cryptids, the authors make no commitment as to what the creature may be and give a list of various candidates. The one thing that puzzles me from the list is what is a "megovia"?! The discourse ends with the two stories often given as the origins of the name of the loch.

PUBLIC NOTICE: Can "P.C." email me at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com about the painting they sent a comment to me about.

The Surgeon's Photo Eighty Years On

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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