Member of The Crypto Crew:

Please Also Visit our Sister Blog, Frontiers of Anthropology:

And the new group for trying out fictional projects (Includes Cryptofiction Projects):

And Kyle Germann's Blog

And Jay's Blog, Bizarre Zoology

Thursday, 31 January 2013

"Missing Loch Ness Underwater Photo"

Scott Mardis sent this in to me a while back and said it was "Rumoured to be a missing photo out of the 1975 set of underwater photos taken at Loch Ness by Dr Rines". I told him I had seen the photo before but had heard nothing definite about it, and I assumed it could be a more recent fake using a small toy dinosaur. At this point, thats about what I know about this one.

I have subsequently been informed (By Scott Mardis) that this photo is a fake and Dr Rines' son is quite upset about it, and he wants to have the photo pulled. If he does wish to have it pulled he may contact me about it: I am not in any position to contact him about it. However, just saying that Dr Rines' son declares this to be a fake ands it is in no way associated with his father should be enough.

I must apologise for the way that Scott Mardis expressed this matter to me in his communications on Facebook, he spoke to me as if he were in communication with Dr Rines himself but it subsequently came out he actually meant his son.


  1. "If he does wish to have it pulled he may contact me about it:"

    Bob passed away on 1st November 2009.

  2. How inappropriate. Poor Rines died and you don't even bother to check facts before spouting your crap. The fact that you have STILL not removed this just shows how shameful this blog is. DISGUSTING!!!

  3. HOLD ON THERE! This is clearly marked as coming from Scott Mardis. You have any problems, you take them to Scott Mardis. Scott has been kind enough to help fill in while I have been bouncing in and out of hospitals and as a matter of fact this was posted on a day I was going into the hospital. Later after it was posted Scott wrote to me and said "Its a hoax" and I dutifully added that information. I left it here because now anybody looking at that picture will also now get this page as reference together with the statement that the photo was a hoax. In this case THAT is now the most important aspect of the case. Now if you do not feel like the complete jackass you were acting like, you certainly SHOULD feel like a jackass because you firstly did not even bother to see who posted the photo and did the investigation in this case, and secondly you did not even bother to read the followup information that the same source had determined it was a hoax.

  4. I have a good reason to believe this message was left by Dick Raynor. Whoever left the message was being a jerk besides being so much of a coward that they could not sign their own name to their message. At any rate, Dick Raynor had attempted to leave a message in reply to this posting, deleted it, and then this one was left immediately thereafter, all of this activity taking place within the span of ten minutes.

  5. Hello Dale,
    I posted the first comment, and this one, but none of the others. I don't know how this particular blog software works but I would imagine it might show commenters' IP addresses to confirm this.
    Your banner reads "Dale A. Drinnon has been a researcher in the field of Cryptozoology for the past 30+ years" and so I was naturally surprised that you posted material referring to a famous researcher in your field (and my old friend) in the present tense, when he actually passed away over three years ago.

    Your wrote "...because you firstly did not even bother to see who posted the photo..." however, this is your blog and you are responsible for its content, regard of who authored it, and unless you share your admin details readers can only assume that you posted it.

    I am aware that Scott researches Lake Champlain but I have never communicated with him (as far as I can remember) nor seen any email address for him, so there is no obvious way to "take them to Scott Mardis". If material only appears here, readers can only comment here.

    Best Wishes, Dick Raynor

    PS I am still hoping to read your list of "holes in Spurling's evidence" when you are fully recovered.

  6. I have already indicated to you the nature of the holes in Spurling's testimony, namely that he is basically repeating a folkloric pattern of narritive which essentially means he is taking the form of a legend, replacing the particular details in it and claiming it as his own. This is a well-known process in the field of Folklore and the "First person narative" is well documented as a Folkloric form masquerading as lawful testimony. The most obvious criticism is that there are multoiple competing claims to be "The man behind the surgeon's photograph", all of them different, but the basic structure of the narritive remains the same.

    In the case of the messages posted here, I receive the notices of pending comments as they are registered, including the circumstance if they should be subsequently deleted by the author. In this case I have two abortive messages under the name "Dick Raynor", the last one as described, within ten minutes of the posting that went up and including one important phrase in common between the two postings I would suggest that it is not you, then you most certainly must have a hacker that is posing as you.
    As to contacting Scott Mardis, you can certainly contact him by sending me or the CFZ a message and have it forwarded. Or you could contact him on Facebook, which is where I contact him. If you wish to go the route with less fanfare, I suggest you use the CFZ.

    As to my responsibility for what is posted, you must surely realise that is not standard Journalistic proceedure fopr any of the standard outlets. The source wose name is cited is the source that is responsible for the material. I suggest you educate yourself on the protocols about such matters before you try to make any further disrespectful comments which shall reflect badly upon you. End of line.

  7. BTW, part of the information in this affair as it was given to me was that Dr Rhines was alive and had an account on Facebook. Obviously this was also a misrepresentation. I am still awaiting an explanation of that part. In the meantime, we (Scott and Dale) are tracking down the individual who is responsible for posting this photo in the first place: We know his screen name at this point but we do not have any more information.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

  8. I have known Mr. Raynor for close to 8 years now, and I can assure, he has been nothing but a gentleman at all times. For anyone to even suggest he would make an anonymous post just to belittle someone, is ridiculous.

  9. Kindly allow me to repeat myself: I am simply citing the records which Blogger has placed at my disposal.
    Firstly: Dick Raynor's name appears as the author of a message that was signed but subsequently not posted, it was deleted by the author. Secondly, I retain the text of that posting automatically because Blogger sent me the copy before it was deleted. Thirdly, a key passage in Dick Raynor's message appeared in the subsequent Anonymous message with virtually the same wording, and Fourthly, the Anonymous message in question was written and posted within ten minutes of Dick Raynor's message, and the deleted message was deleted in the meantime.

    Now basically you can say whatever you want to at this point, I have already said what that looks like to me. Again, I am basing my statement on facts within my possession, not on any opinion or feelings that this is so, and I can back it up with the records that Blogger has on file and has shared with me as part of our regular business.

    In other words, your statement is ridiculous, unless you can afford good proof the account has been hacked.

  10. Hello Dale,
    I have asked for information about the visibility of un-submitted comments on the Blogger forum and the reply I received suggests that the situation you described is not possible. The discussion is pasted below. I look forward to your comments.
    Regards, Dick.

    Dick Raynor via Blogger
    Feb 11 (1 day ago)

    to blogger
    On the owner wrote " I am simply citing the records which Blogger has placed at my disposal.Firstly, Dick Raynor's name appears as the author of a message that was signed but subsequently not posted, it was deleted by the author. Secondly, I retain the text of that posting automatically because Blogger sent me the copy before it was deleted."

    Can this be true?
    Does Blogger store comments as they are being composed?


    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Blogger" group.
    To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
    To view this discussion on the web visit

    Nitecruzr - Blogger Top Contributor via Blogger
    2:51 PM (2 hours ago)

    to blogger

    If the commenter never published the comment, it's not visible to anybody but himself.

    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Blogger" group.

  11. You are quite incorrect and you misunderstood what I said. The comments awaiting moderation are sent to my email as notices to methat there are comments awaiting moderation. Therefore my email account retains the original anonymous posting, which was deleted and Blogger can verify the deletion and time of the deletion, along with your subsequent posting, plus the times for each. And it would be better to simply drop the matter at this point. I have been in and out of the hospital in the week since then and the matter is not of any further interest to me (I am keeping the records for my own protection, however)

  12. To Stooshie and Dick Raynor: you have not got the slightest notions as to what you are saying nor yet have you understood what I have posted last. What I have posted here is that I have the records in my email and I have retained the records in my email. That is no cause for your rejoycing because what I said before still stands: there was an anonymous posting that night which was deleted by the poster and within ten minutes of the first message's posting, Dick Raynor posted under his own name repeating one of the key phrases.I havevthe record of that and Yahoo email can at least verify the times which they have posted on those messages. Now both of you should still feel like jackasses because I not only did not recant that information, the two of you were both fool enough to think that I HAD.

    Now once again, Scott Mardis is a guest blogger of mine. I provided him with a platform to publish while I had a period in and out of the hospiotal. I printed a disclaimer several times saying that I did not necessarily endorse his views and I doid not necessarily agree with them. What is so incredibly difficult for you two to understand about that? It is the standard editorial statement. Now unless you two have anything further to say WITHOUT being spiteful, hateful and insulting about it, this case is closed and you shall NOT be allowed to post any more of your tripe on this entry!

  13. As you decline to apologise and retract, nor accept that you have published incorrect statements I have no choice but to reproduce parts of this blog, together with those comments of mine that you did not publish, on my own web site for all to see. The webpage will take a little time to compile and check but will be

    I will also offer to publish relevant comments from other investigators that you did not publish, if they wish to send them to me for inclusion.

  14. And I insist that you include the link to this blog if you do, so that you readers will be able to see that you have misread and misinterpreted each individual statement I have made here, that I still have the records of the disputed postings in question and the record of the times that they were made, and that you have consistently failed to recognise that I have stated that I do not necessarily agree with the opinions of this poster and that I cannot be held responsible for the claims made, which is the standard editorial policy in all such cases. I wish for ALL of your readers to know THAT in particular.

  15. That photo was taken in the 1975 expedition,but,as it showed a kind of giant salamander (the neck being the tail),it was left apart.IT'S NOT A HOAX.They wanted to find prehistoric plesiosaurs,not sturgeons or giant salamanders.

  16. I'm not trying to get involved or anything, but I noticed that Dick Raynor wrote somewhere that he didn't write that comment, since it was written at a time that he was assuredly not at his computer. However, I just want to note that Blogger uses Pacific Time, so it might not be as accurate if he lives in a separate time zone, which I think he does (I think he lives in the UK, although I'm not exactly sure).


This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.