Anniversary of The Surgeons Photo taken at Loch Ness

Today, April 21, is the date for the publication of the famous "Surgeon's Photo" at Loch Ness in the London Daily Mail, in 1934.Since this is a famous photo and the first real milestone of the Loch Ness Monster becoming an object of international debate, I thought I should make mention of it on its anniversary.

 

Some years after people had been calling the photograph a hoax off and on, the news came out that the photo was the subject of a "Deathbed Confession" claiming responsibility for a hoax

Only there was no "Deathbed confession" and the "Confessor" had merely framed a claim of guilt against two other men. Who were supposedly acting under orders from the Daily Mail. And both of whom were already dead by then and unable to issue any statements in their own defense.. This was a dangerous thing to say especially since there was no confirming testimony nor yet any other real evidence to relate the photograph to the alleged team of hoaxers rather than to Kenneth Wilson, the London medical man who said he had actually made the photograph, and especially no good reason to involve Marmaluke Wetherell in the matter at all other than the statement itself.

Only the persons that were claiming a "Confession to a hoax" slipped up. They did not mention a second photo that was known to be part of the set, and the account did not make any allowance which could account for it. And the description of the supposed toy submarine model used was laughable, since it was unstable, top-heavy and could not remain afloat in an upright position such that it could actually be photographed. (The top part of the model is solid wood plastic but the toy submarine part was supposedly empty and full of air, with only a strip of lead on the bottom as ballast. In use such a model would tend to flip over to one side and stay that way) I am not saying it was not possible that a model could be made, set afloat and photographed on Loch Ness, only that the description as given in this allegation would not work in the way it was claimed to. Others have also stated that the materials claimed to have been used in the supposed model were not commercially available in 1934.

But it is not even necessary to defend anybody against the slanderous accusations and libel against the Daily Mail itself. It is unnecessary to mention that the alleged confession bungled in ignoring the second photo and in the description of the supposed model. The case for an actual incident of malicious action is void and there is no evidence that the alleged conspiracy to defraud by creating a hoaxed photo of the Loch Ness Monster ever took place. All we have is essentially
one person's say-so in a deposition which does injurious damage to the reputations of several private individuals as well as that of the Daily Mail, which is said to have overseen the affair. And the person supposedly making the alleged confession (to somebody else's guilt) was dead by then But ALL of the damage was done by the pair of researchers who have been pushing the story even though there were any number of problems and inconsistencies in it. If I were a legal expert of the Daily Mail I would sue them for accumulated damages in international media over the several years since the story broke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness_Monster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Surgeon's Second Photo

 

These two frames represent the two Surgeon's Photos of the set which came out of the developer, there were supposed to have been other photos which did not come through. I was recently asked how I could account for the object in the second photo being a reconfiguration of the object in the first one (Which would mean that it is impossible for a model built up on a toy submarine to assume both configurations as I contend) I did have this sketch added into my Cryptozoology group on Yahoo as of 2006 and taken from the copy of the photo in costello's book: it os only a suggestion but it dors seem that the darker spots at the surface could actually relate to one body showing partly through the murky water with part of the body and trailing tail the same in both photos, but the neck taken down in front in. the second shot. Below that is a copy of the full uncropped original shot.

 

 

The creature looks awfully small but upon comparison I make that out as the absolute visual size of a human being standing a short distance away, such as across the street or down the street a hundred yards or more. My guess is therefore that it should be the size of a normal human being. There is also a marked reduction of wave sizes that can be directly measured between the waves at shore and the waves at the location of the object itself.
My findings on this score only reinforce my conclusions that Christian Spuring had not a single clue as to what he was supposed to have been talking about. And that this is something much larger and more substantial than any bird, especially the submerged part of it.