Some more of Scott Mardis' comparisons with two different photos of the Loch Ness Monster: the first photo of the "Monster" by Hugh Gray in 1933 and the photo by Peter O'Connor in 1960. While I do not insist on the former, I think the latter is likely a photo of a living Plesiosaur: Peter Costello mentions Burton's dismissal of this photo and avers that Burton's explanation is also not to be trusted because of his extreme bias. Examination of the O'Connor photo resulted in a proposed scientific name, Nessiesaurus o'connori, which as Roy Mackal remarks could be held to have priority over Nessiteras rhombopteryx by priority (p. 220 footnote). The O'Connor photo is reversed above.
Dinsdale, Tim, Loch Ness Monster,1961, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp 152-158, Plates 5 and 10
Costello, Peter, In Search of Lake Monsters, 1974, Coward McCann & Geoghegan, Both photos reproduced in the plates, Hugh Gray in text p 38 , Peter O'Connor in text, pp 87-88
Mackal, Roy P, The Monsters of Loch Ness, 1976, Swallow Books,Gray photo is "P1", pp 94-96 and O'Connor photo is "P9", pp 104-106. It should be mentioned that Burton had no firm connection between what he found and O'Connor's photo other than a local's say-so: the "Evidence" was all too convenient to be found and could have been planted deliberately. Mackal says his own impression is ambivalent without examining the negative which indicates he sets no especial store by Burton's allegations either.
