Much has been made, mostly be the mainstream media, of Nessie being a relic plesiosaur. I have a real problem with this stubborn popular image. Regardless of whether I think the Loch could support a viable breeding population of these creatures for millions of years (certainly debatable), let’s look at how this candidate stacks up against what is seen in the photo.

The reason for the long neck in plesiosaurs is often debated and not completely understood, but some research into the vertebral structure of the neck has suggested that the flexibility and range of movement of these long necks were somewhat limited. There is evidence that it is likely the natural position of the plesiosaur neck was actually downwards, with a curve towards the sea bed, and that the neck was useful for sifting the bottom for small invertebrates and crustaceans (much as is the case with ducks and geese). Fossilized remains of the contents of plesiosaur stomachs have shown a good amount of shells, which supports this hypothesis. The findings suggest that it is likely that the swan like posture so common in images of Nessie and these photos, would be impossible for these animals to achieve.

Even if the animal is not a plesiosaur (which by most accounts it most certainly is not), there is still a problem with the neck held high over the water like that. To do something like this would take a whole slew of physical adaptations above and beyond a long neck. A fully aquatic animal as large as this, with a neck that long, is going to need some impressive musculature and vertebral structure in that neck to be able to lift its head entirely out of the water in the fashion seen in these photos. Under water, the long neck is possible because it is an environment that provides some protection from the full effects of gravity, hence the huge sizes that creatures such as whales and marine arthropods are able to reach.

Ok, fair enough, but you may point out terrestrial animals that have very long necks held high. Well remember that we are talking about an aquatic animal. On top of what I mentioned, the body would have to be adapted to have the bouancy, strength, and balance, to maintain its position underwater while the long neck is raised completely over the surface of the water. No small feat. This is compounded by the reports of these animals actually swimming along while doing this already impressive display. Physics are going to provide challenges to doing this.

Fully aquatic animals, in particular large ones, that we know of just aren’t designed to do this. Any animal of this size that is able to do what is claimed with Nessie, lifting its long neck and head out of the water while remaining submerged, and especially swimming while doing so, would have to have gone through a good deal of evolutionary development to incorporate the various physical adaptations needed to do this. What is the need that would drive such drastic physiological change in an aquatic animal like this? As cool as it looks, really what would make the ability to lift the head out of the water and swim like that a viable evolutionary route necessary for the animal’s better survival in this environment? It would be pretty amazing to find such a creature in general, let alone in Loch Ness.

It just seems to me that the idea that these photos, and sightings describing similar things, were hoaxed seems perhaps more likely than that we have a totally unknown aquatic animal in the Loch that displays the ability to raise such a long neck and head out of the water while remaining submerged. This trait, if in fact present, would probably be limited at best.

For these reasons, and not based on any confessions, I find the idea that the “swan like” photos like this are of an actual animal to be questionable. If there is a large, unknown creature in the lake, I think it is quite probable that it does not display this ability, or at least not to the extent seen here.

“Spurling, then 90, admitted he’d been approached by Duke Wetherell to build a fake monster. Construction was done with plastic wood over the conning tower of the toy submarine. The neck, estimated by some from the photograph to be over three feet high, measured 8 inches.”

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe plastic wood existed before the Second World War.

However, I tend towards the hoax explanation for two reasons. First, I have seen a new photo using a replica “monster” based on Spurling’s account and it looks virtually identical to the original head and neck photo.

Secondly, the original photos do not look like they where taken from the same location or angle and not with the same conditions on the loch. These facts would mitigate against the idea that Wilson took photos, seconds apart and from a single location, of an otter.

Also, the charm of the head and neck photo is that it looks swan like or what one might imagine a “sea-serpent” to look like. (Imagining to imaging= a hoax.) And it doesn’t really look like the tail of a diving otter to me. (For one thing, the tip of the “tail”, the “monster’s head”, seems to be at such an improbable angle as to suggest the poor otter had a broken tail).

As to why skeptics would accept Spurling’s account and be less generous with Nessie sightings, the answer is simple. We know people manufacture hoaxes. We know people believe hoaxes. We do not know Loch Ness is home to relic plesiosaurs, remnant ancient whales, a Great Orm, unclassified giant otters or unknown long neck seals, supernatural kelpies, gigantic eels, or monstrous slugs. In fact, we do not know Ness is home to any large animal unknown to scientific knowledge.

Since I have not read the book on this subject (it’s published in Britain), I do not know what the evidence is in favor of Spurling’s story. On its face, it is believable. I do wonder why one would want to save the appearance of Wilson’s account, even if it no longer supports the notion of a cryptid in Ness.

The head always seems too small to be on the end of a creature, especially in light of all the other descriptions. Now I know that it is often described as having a smaller head, or smaller than what people expect, but still, in the photos, it just doesn’t look quite right to me.

Other people who have seen it have described distinct eyes and mouth, and from that photo, I cannot see how one could pick out decent sized eyes, unless the photo depicts a youth, female, etc.

So, I guess personally, I have always just tucked the surgeon’s photo back in there with the rest of the vault of sightings of Nessie and just left it floating out there, until better or legit pictures came along.

Incidentally, does anyone know or have info on the supposed film that was shot in 1938 (think it was 38), supposedly showing a creature swimming across the field of view of the camera for several seconds? Loren, maybe you can help on this one. What I have heard is that the footage is several minutes long, but it was sealed in a vault in London somewhere. The owner decided to keep it shut away from public eyes until such time as there was more belief in the creature. And I believe the owner of the footage is dead without other relatives so it may be sitting in estate.

Just curious.

Yes, I love how debunkers question any sighting that comes along, no matter how realistic, detailed, or credible a witness is, but the minute someone makes a declaration that jibes with the debunker’s belief, it is taken as fact without ever checking into the validity of the confession, the chronicler, or the real data.

That’s called trying to have your cake and eat it too…or in the case of lake monsters, having your stick and floating it too…