Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Myth of the Loch Ness Monsters


Carnoferox

Recommended Posts

image46.jpg    

The so-called "Surgeon's Photograph" (above) remains the most iconic image of the mythical Loch Ness Monster. Taken on April 19, 1934 by British surgeon Robert Kenneth Wilson, it is genuine proof of the creature's existence. Or so the story goes. It was actually taken by hoaxer Marmaduke Wetherell, who photographed a toy submarine with a head made of wood putty attached to it. Wilson was responsible for distributing the faked photo and claimed to have taken it himself. Wetherell perpetrated the hoax as an act of revenge, having been hoaxed himself by someone who made "Nessie footprints" using a hippopotamus foot. It wouldn't be until 1994, after Wetherell and Wilson were long dead, that the hoax would be revealed by Christian Spurling. Spurling, Wetherell's step-son, admitted to making the fake Nessie for the photo.

The Surgeon's Photograph is only one of a few dozen images of the famous living plesiosaur. The first time the Loch Ness Monster was supposedly caught on camera was in 1933, and the last time was in 2014. Only a few of the most famous Nessie photos will be analyzed here. As with the previously covered thunderbird photos, all of them can be debunked.

The Muppet Photo

image48.jpg  

This image is often called the "Muppet Photo" due to this creature's resemblance to a hand puppet. It was reportedly taken by Anthony "Doc" Shiels on May 21, 1977, while he was camping along the shore of the loch. This photo has become popular because it is by far the clearest of them all. However, it does have numerous problems. First off is the incredibly fake appearance, and the fact that it is not creating any ripples (a sign that it is stationary). Secondly, if it is supposed to be a plesiosaur, then it's neck is broken; the Surgeon's Photo has the same problem. Plesiosaurs could not lift their necks at a 90 degree angle relative to the body like commonly depicted.

Thirdly, Shiels is not the most reliable source. Shiels, a magician, psychic, street-preformer, and monster hunter, has been responsible for perpetrating hoaxes like the Morgawr (another lake monster) and the Owl Man. The Muppet Photo is most certainly a hoax, although Shiels still claims otherwise. He asserts that the photo is genuine and evidence of the creature's existence. However, he does not think that Nessie is a plesiosaur. Rather, he believes that the monster is actually an undiscovered species of freshwater cephalopod that he calls the elephant squid (Shiels' illustration is below).

  

image50.jpg  

Gray's Photograph

image52.jpg  

Although very poor quality, this is actually the earliest known photo of Nessie. It was taken by Hugh Gray on November 12, 1933. It is often claimed to be the back of the creature rising out of the water. The photo is really too indistinct to preform a good analysis, but many have suggested that it resembles a dog swimming with a stick in its mouth. Others think that it could be a log, a wave, or even an eel. Whatever the case, Gray's photo is probably a misidentification of some kind. Unfortunately, the low clarity prevents a valid diagnosis.

Stuart's Photograph

image53.jpg  

Snapped by Lachlan Stuart on July 14, 1951, this is another photo showing the "humps" on Nessie's back. For many years, this was one of the best images of the monster. However, in the 1970's a group of researchers traveled to the spot where the picture was taken and noticed that the water was very shallow. It was far too shallow for a creature the size of the one in the photo to move around in. Eventually confirming suspicions, Stuart admitted that he had hoaxed it. He had simply covered three bales of hay in tarpaulins and set them afloat, creating the distinctive humps in the picture.

The Flipper Photo

image56.jpg    

This is one of the most interesting images, reportedly one of the Loch Ness Monster's fins. It was captured on August 7, 1972 by an underwater camera utilized by an expedition led by Dr. Robert Rines. The original photo (below) was actually far less clear, showing either a cloud of bubbles or sediment on the loch bottom. The image was then computer enhanced to show the flipper-like shape of the final version, which was then shown to the public. This is more of a case of deliberate misinformation rather than an outright hoax.

image57.jpg  

The Full-Body Photo

image58.jpg  

Another underwater photograph taken on an expedition led by Robert Rines, this time in 1975 (no exact date). It purports to show the outline of the body of a plesiosaur. Like the previous photo, it has also been computer enhanced. The original image is unknown, but it likely is another picture of sediment at the bottom. Once again it is another case of misinformation by editing a photograph to form a more suggestible outline.

Conclusion:

All of these supposed photographs of the Loch Ness Monster can be easily debunked as misidentifications and hoaxes. The existence of a plesiosaur in the loch, the traditional view of Nessie, is an impossible notion. As with pterosaurs, plesiosaurs have been extinct for 66 million years, leaving absolutely no indication of their survival in the fossil record. Additionally, Loch Ness is a glacial lake that formed only 10,000 years ago, far too young for plesiosaurs. However, it is wholly possible that a large animal does live in the loch, being responsible for a majority of the sightings. Eels do inhabit the loch, and have been known to reach lengths of up to 7 feet. Other reasonable candidates include the Greenland shark, Wels catfish, and beluga sturgeon. Although there is probably something big in Loch Ness, it is a not a plesiosaur of any kind.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always liked hearing stories about the Loch Ness Monster. Nessie has always been one of my favourite mythical legends of our recent modern times. :wub:

In fact humans have always waned to believe in these wonderful mystical creatures. Even going back between the 8th and early 11th century peoples beliefs and wonderful imaginations took them far away from their normal daily lives.

The world is full of stories about mythical creatures, legendary beasts, and supernatural and god-like beings. For thousands of years, humans everywhere—sometimes inspired by living animals or even fossils—have brought mythic creatures to life in stories, songs, and works of art. Today these creatures, from the powerful dragon to the soaring phoenix, continue to thrill, terrify, entertain, and inspire us. Some, such as the Loch Ness Monster or Sasquatch, continue to be "sighted" and sought to this day. While the origins of these fabulous creatures are varied, and often disputed, they have played significant roles in human society, and have served to stimulate the imagination and desire that is ingrained in human nature to experience more than this physical world. Whether they truly exist in physical form is indeed secondary to their existence in the minds of so many people throughout the world and through history.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/ten-mythological-creatures-ancient-folklore-001805?nopaging=1

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Anybody willing to debate?

There isn't really anything to debate - unless of course you believe in Ness the monster ?

6 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Yes, they only exist in the mind, it seems.

That was certainly a quick change of heart :-*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to debate anybody who does believe in Nessie (as a lake monster/plesiosaur/mythical creature). I think it's just a large eel or other fish.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may have been a very large eel that may have been spotted to begin with - hence a wild imagination - thus born Nessie ...(a hoax) which has now become legendary. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Anybody willing to debate?

I agree broadly with what you say, both here and on the thunderbird thread. 

The criticism I'd make though, is that there's nothing new in your posts. The subjects you've selected are very old and not only have been proven to be hoaxes, but have been done so in popular culture. The only kind of environment that can support a cryptid. 

Why not tackle something a bit more novel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carnoferox said:

Suggestions anyone?

 

Just now, Carnoferox said:

Suggestions?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Suggestions?

 

If it's specifically photographic evidence you're after, there's the Rilla Martin photo, the Remy Van Lierde's giant Congolese snake photo. Klaus Emmerichs' thylacine photo. And, the many thylacine photos which pop up. Also the Doyle footage. 

I'm not aware of any in depth analysis of these. Except the Doyle and Martin photos. In the case of the Doyle footage it has been shown to be a canid, though to my knowledge, that's never been widely circulated. And the Martin photo is still unresolved. 

There must be more. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err - lets not forget the Yeti  aka; the Abominable Snowman.

 images_8.jpg

images_10.jpg

 Or aint he cool enough anymore smileys-cool-334612.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those pictures are bogus, sure, but they've been bogus for decades. I agree with Old Rover; this forum is full of discussions about the stuff you're "debunking." Why not try something new, or say something new about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/07/2016 at 7:25 AM, Podo said:

Those pictures are bogus, sure, but they've been bogus for decades. I agree with Old Rover; this forum is full of discussions about the stuff you're "debunking." Why not try something new, or say something new about them?

I understand that Carnoferox is well and truly 'into' cryptids and is obviously well read on the subject.

But then he debunks them (in his own thread) - before they get debunked. It's like putting the cart before the horse :huh:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎20‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 0:04 AM, Carnoferox said:

 

 

Have you ever  been to Loch Ness ? talked to any locals ?  I bet the answer is no. How about you spend a week or two checking things out first hand before passing judgement in front of your keyboard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bluethermal said:

Have you ever  been to Loch Ness ? talked to any locals ?  I bet the answer is no. How about you spend a week or two checking things out first hand before passing judgement in front of your keyboard.

Asking the locals near Loch Ness is like asking the citizens of Nazareth if Jesus was born there.  History is irrelevant when tourist dollars get involved.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bluethermal said:

Have you ever  been to Loch Ness ? talked to any locals ?  I bet the answer is no. How about you spend a week or two checking things out first hand before passing judgement in front of your keyboard.

I take it that you are from Scotland ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bluethermal said:

Have you ever  been to Loch Ness ? talked to any locals ?  I bet the answer is no. How about you spend a week or two checking things out first hand before passing judgement in front of your keyboard.

Not that it really matters. 99% of those who claim to have seen the monster would describe an indistinct shape that could be pretty much anything, from animals to logs to hoaxers. Why would I pay thousands of dollars to travel to Scotland just to hear a couple locals describe that?

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

 Why would I pay thousands of dollars to travel to Scotland just to hear a couple locals describe that?

Good point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Not that it really matters. 99% of those who claim to have seen the monster would describe an indistinct shape that could be pretty much anything, from animals to logs to hoaxers. Why would I pay thousands of dollars to travel to Scotland just to hear a couple locals describe that?

Because Scotland is a gorgeous country? Double dip! Loch Ness, monster or no, is a really nice place. Everyone should visit it someday.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bluethermal said:

Have you ever  been to Loch Ness ? talked to any locals ?  I bet the answer is no. How about you spend a week or two checking things out first hand before passing judgement in front of your keyboard.

Have you been there?  Have you talked to the locals?  I won't bet on what the answer is, because it is irrelevant to the thread.  Just as irrelevant if the OP has been there or not.

Do you believe this creature could exist, and has been seen, but not documented, or even proven to exist?  If so, please cough up some material and make us believe too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the maybe cryptids that allegedly haunt our world, Nessie is the one I sit on the fence over, as Id really like it to be real, but I can't ignore the evidence to the contrary.

the one big thing that stands out for me are the claims that there's not enough food in the Loch to sustain a community of beasties like Nessie, which is used to ultimately debunk Nessie - however if there was a community of Nessies there, they'd be eating all the food meaning our surveys would show little food to be found.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just adding a little bit of back-ground information on Nessie. Even today some folk still believe the monster exists.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Of the maybe cryptids that allegedly haunt our world, Nessie is the one I sit on the fence over, as Id really like it to be real, but I can't ignore the evidence to the contrary.

the one big thing that stands out for me are the claims that there's not enough food in the Loch to sustain a community of beasties like Nessie, which is used to ultimately debunk Nessie - however if there was a community of Nessies there, they'd be eating all the food meaning our surveys would show little food to be found.

Good Sir Wearer, a point of biological reality/logic:

Given the longevity of the Loch Ness myth, your scenario would result in a nutrient source that would be incapable of effective reproduction on a scale necessary to support the purported entity.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

Of the maybe cryptids that allegedly haunt our world, Nessie is the one I sit on the fence over, as Id really like it to be real, but I can't ignore the evidence to the contrary.

the one big thing that stands out for me are the claims that there's not enough food in the Loch to sustain a community of beasties like Nessie, which is used to ultimately debunk Nessie - however if there was a community of Nessies there, they'd be eating all the food meaning our surveys would show little food to be found.

Another perfectly valid reason for its non-existence. Especially for the large "plesiosaur" theory. Also considering that they have been extinct for 66 million years without leaving any evidence of survival in the fossil record, and couldn't lift their necks at a 90 degree angle relative to their bodies (as Nessie is often portrayed). 

Edited by Carnoferox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.