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 Loch Ness orca?


Carnoferox

Recommended Posts

5bc944219c570_SPandorca.png.b522da96faf4a2906b0520874508942a.png

The "surgeon's photo" compared with an orca dorsal fin. Images from Popular Science, July 1934.

A little-known candidate once considered for the Loch Ness Monster is the orca, or killer whale, Orcinus orca. This identity was proposed by famed adventurer Roy Chapman Andrews based on the appearance of the infamous "surgeon's photograph" (SP hereafter). Andrew's hypothesis was initially reported in various popular magazines in 1934, soon after the first publication of the photo.

The earliest mention of the orca hypothesis I've found is in the July 1934 issue of Popular Science. The version of the SP published in this article (at top) differs from the usual and will be covered later.

Quote

(anon., 1934a, p. 18)

Finally Dr. Robert K. Wilson, noted British surgeon, managed to get a snapshot of the fabulous creature, and the mystery vanished. The picture showed the curved fin of a killer whale projecting in typical fashion from the water strongly suggesting an elongated neck and head. According to Dr. Roy Chapman Andrews, noted explorer and zoologist, and others who agreed on this identification, the whale evidently had strayed up an inlet from the sea into the lake.

Another brief reference appears in the September 1934 issue of Popular Mechanics. This article states that the orca identity was also favored by German zoologist Ludwig "Lutz" Heck.

Quote

(anon., 1934b, p. 400)

Looking at a photograph of the Loch Ness ‘monster’, Roy Chapman Andrews, American explorer, and Dr. Ludwig Heck, of the Berlin zoo, agreed that it was a killer whale and what resembled a neck and head, was its dorsal fin.

Andrews would later discuss his hypothesis in his 1935 book This Business of Exploring, where he added some particularly interesting details.

Quote

(Andrews, 1935, pp. 59-60)

The Loch Ness Monster was seen several times and photographed once. The picture, as it appeared in the New York Times, showed a long curved neck surmounted by a small head. Evidently it had been retouched by an artist who was obsessed by the ‘camel head’ complex. I got a copy of the original from the Times and it showed just what I expected - the dorsal fin of a killer whale. A killer’s dorsal is six feet high and curved. The head could easily be supplied out of the imagination as the newspaper artist did, in fact. Doubtless what happened was that the killer made its way through the narrow gate of the Loch from the open sea and remained there for some days. It may even have gone in or out several times.

Since the SP was revealed to be a hoax in the 1990's, the orca explanation can be discarded. However, Andrews' allegation that the photo was retouched may have some merit. Comparison between the SP from the Popular Science article and the original published in the Daily Mail and elsewhere reveals a difference in head shape. The Popular Science SP is missing the notable "crest" present in the other version (highlighted by red arrows).

5bc94e99c80fe_SPversions.png.7cc3e1b3574947aac9194721d95a3a13.png

The question now is, was the original SP retouched to look more like a sea monster head, or was the Popular Science SP retouched to look more like an orca fin? At this point the information I have is too scant to make a definite conclusion.

References:

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Since the pictures were faked it seems highly unlikely it was anything but a fake. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.. the Loch Ness Orca ? 

Unlikely. How would it get there ? It would have to pass through several sets of locks. 

Put it next to the Loch Ness Lump of Wood, the Loch Ness  Hoax Rubber Monster, and the Loch Ness Wind Ripples perhaps ? 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Timothy said:

@Carnoferox, can you just briefly explain what you’re trying to get at with this thread. 

I just thought it was an interesting take on an old story. One I'd not heard before.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I just thought it was an interesting take on an old story. One I'd not heard before.

I agree, I can see the comparison to the dorsal fin, even though it is being compared to a photo that was a fake. The chances however of it being an Orca are zero, it would have to navigate a canal system and several man made locks and there would definatly be more sightings of it. non the less an interesting angle on the sightings and well explained. Having said all that, there is a far more realistic chance of it being an Orca than a Plesiosaur or any other prehistoric creature.. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Timothy said:

@Carnoferox, can you just briefly explain what you’re trying to get at with this thread. 

I wanted to highlight an obscure hypothesis that I've never seen discussed before. I also wanted to show the alternate version of the SP and was wondering if anyone knew more about it.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture is a known fake we even got it from the person did we not but hey here is my own picture that is not fake..

I have better pictures of this nessie file is not so good on this one but you will see 

 

Snapshot 3 (11-09-2018 14-49).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo was clearly a fake, but this is a dimension of an old story that I had not heard of before, which is pretty neat. That being said...man, I've been fishing all my life, and the SP is 100% not an orca fin. It just isn't. It's too curved at the end, like a field hockey stick. Orca dorsal fins have a much more gradual arc.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring all the fakery and asides, the way photographs were printed back in the days does leave a big margin for errors as to what was captured on plates or negatives. The definition of details is usually very low, tone gradations is abrupt and high contrast. Its the technology available at the time. Low light photography was a challenge. The darkroom too has more than its share of complications, the lens on the enlarger, the projection bulb, the chemical processing, the paper and to top it all, the timing. Every batch is different as is every print is. To get two photographs that is perfectly the same is next to impossible. Today, with these fancy fancy machines available, it is greatly minimized

The thing I want to note is that the SP photo need not be purposefully adjusted or manipulated to have those characteristics emphasized. THe bump could just have appeared naturally due to just a fraction of a second longer in the developing bath or under the enlarger.

As to the story behind the photograph, I believe it was elaborated into enough at this point in time. What it was that was photographed though, I am not too sure of.

~

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, third_eye said:

Ignoring all the fakery and asides, the way photographs were printed back in the days does leave a big margin for errors as to what was captured on plates or negatives. The definition of details is usually very low, tone gradations is abrupt and high contrast. Its the technology available at the time. Low light photography was a challenge. The darkroom too has more than its share of complications, the lens on the enlarger, the projection bulb, the chemical processing, the paper and to top it all, the timing. Every batch is different as is every print is. To get two photographs that is perfectly the same is next to impossible. Today, with these fancy fancy machines available, it is greatly minimized

The thing I want to note is that the SP photo need not be purposefully adjusted or manipulated to have those characteristics emphasized. THe bump could just have appeared naturally due to just a fraction of a second longer in the developing bath or under the enlarger.

As to the story behind the photograph, I believe it was elaborated into enough at this point in time. What it was that was photographed though, I am not too sure of.

~

Question since I know zip about photography- if someone from the times of this photograph was aware of the different margins of error the conditions could create, would it be possible for a knowledgeable person to use that to manipulate the photo to look more like what they wanted in order to support their story/theory?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Jenn8779 said:

Question since I know zip about photography- if someone from the times of this photograph was aware of the different margins of error the conditions could create, would it be possible for a knowledgeable person to use that to manipulate the photo to look more like what they wanted in order to support their story/theory?

Oh absolutely. Photo fakery was invented almost as quickly as photography. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jenn8779 said:

Question since I know zip about photography- if someone from the times of this photograph was aware of the different margins of error the conditions could create, would it be possible for a knowledgeable person to use that to manipulate the photo to look more like what they wanted in order to support their story/theory?

In the early days it was practically believing the eyes, seeing is believing. Fakery was not easy, not everyone has access to darkroom facilities, those special effects came later when there was better understanding of the process and techniques, Also people basically were not as informed or knowledgeable as is the common today.

It was also the days where one's reputation and integrity were valued as highly as one's word, so calling something 'fake' is a poor word in my opinion. It was as much experimentation and creativity with a new medium.

It was not until much later that using photography as a tool to deceive / deception came into the light

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2018 at 5:11 AM, Carnoferox said:

@ChrLzs since you know more about photography than I do, what is your opinion on the two versions of the SP?

While it's an interesting observation and something I hadn't seen referred to before.. I can't add much.  The two images differ by more than just the crest - the entire upper neck and head seems to have been repositioned slightly and/or added to - note the differing overlaps of the wave formations.  I'd say they were two different shots, except for the fact that the waves are identical, so that tells me one (or both) are indeed faked/edited.  I confess I didn't actually overlay the images - as below, I'd be unwilling to spend much more time on such small and low quality images.  However, if you think that would help, I'll have a go at creating an animation showing the differences.

As stated by others, it's not difficult to edit such a contrasty and grainy image - it can be done undetectably by careful paint/pencil work on a photo, and then re-photographing or even just photocopying it, so that the final graininess looks consistent.  The only way to verify originality is to actually have access to the original (or perhaps a first-generation film scan) - is there a high-res high-quality (*low* contrast) scan of the original somewhere....?

If not .. it's a dead end and beyond that I can't really help much.  Thanks for the callout, though!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19.10.2018 at 5:24 AM, Carnoferox said:

Another brief reference appears in the September 1934 issue of Popular Mechanics. This article states that the orca identity was also favored by German zoologist Ludwig "Lutz" Heck.

As Heck was a top-nazi he was gaga anyway so I think his opinion is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, third_eye said:

In the early days it was practically believing the eyes, seeing is believing. Fakery was not easy, not everyone has access to darkroom facilities, those special effects came later when there was better understanding of the process and techniques, Also people basically were not as informed or knowledgeable as is the common today.

It was also the days where one's reputation and integrity were valued as highly as one's word, so calling something 'fake' is a poor word in my opinion. It was as much experimentation and creativity with a new medium.

It was not until much later that using photography as a tool to deceive / deception came into the light

~

Quote

It was not until much later that using photography as a tool to deceive / deception came into the light

Yep! It came along when Photoshop was invented......:lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Yep! It came along when Photoshop was invented......:lol:

The shenanigans started from far longer back I'm afraid, when they said 'cut and paste' they really mean cutting and pasting

~

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

While it's an interesting observation and something I hadn't seen referred to before.. I can't add much.  The two images differ by more than just the crest - the entire upper neck and head seems to have been repositioned slightly and/or added to - note the differing overlaps of the wave formations.  I'd say they were two different shots, except for the fact that the waves are identical, so that tells me one (or both) are indeed faked/edited.  I confess I didn't actually overlay the images - as below, I'd be unwilling to spend much more time on such small and low quality images.  However, if you think that would help, I'll have a go at creating an animation showing the differences.

As stated by others, it's not difficult to edit such a contrasty and grainy image - it can be done undetectably by careful paint/pencil work on a photo, and then re-photographing or even just photocopying it, so that the final graininess looks consistent.  The only way to verify originality is to actually have access to the original (or perhaps a first-generation film scan) - is there a high-res high-quality (*low* contrast) scan of the original somewhere....?

If not .. it's a dead end and beyond that I can't really help much.  Thanks for the callout, though!

Thanks for your response. This website has the first published SP from the Daily Mail on April 21, 1934, but I don't think the quality would be high enough for analysis.

 

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 1
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.