Comments on: 75th Year: Famous Surgeon’s Photo of Nessie

By: sonofthedestroyer

sonofthedestroyer — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:51:12 +0000

I can’t be certain if the Surgeons photo is real or not.
I can’t say case closed because someone claimed to have created the ‘hoax’.
Anyone can come forward and claim ‘they made the hoax’.
And sightings occur all the time. Only a few people have the guts to report it, and only a few within that few are taken seriously by the authorities.

By: Dr. Strings

Dr. Strings — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:50:50 +0000

I too love the whole Nessie legend and would be happy if it was proven to be true, but calling the into question the hoax of the “Surgeon’s Photo” because the media hyped up Spurling’s confession, or that Wilson was at the Loch with his mistress, or getting into semantics over toys and plastics seems like a reach. Anybody linked to Weatherell must be looked at as suspicious, when it comes to legitimate evidence of any strange creature in the Loch, as he’s a proven fraud more than once. In all the reading I’ve done, the submarine was always described as a “toy submarine” and not a plastic model kit, so that’s 100% believable. I have not seen any article where the submarine was referred to as a “plastic model kit”, and Spurling himself called it a “toy submarine”. And whether he talked openly about it before 1994 really seems to have no bearing on the veracity of his claim. When doesn’t the media sensationalize something? The claims are also that the neck and head were made from plastic wood, which was available then and was used commonly in modeling in the 1930s. Plastic was already in widespread use in the 1920s in the form of bakelite, the first viable and affordable form of what we know as modern plastic.

At the end of the day, it’s a photo that’s too good to be true. You would think that if the creature in that photo existed, at least one other photo or video of a head, neck, and body would have surfaced(no pun intended) since 1934, but all we’ve seen are hazy, blurry, unclear, and wildly ambiguous pictures and videos, with many of them hoaxes. It’s gotten to the point where sightings are almost nil and we’re starting to debate whether or not something that has never been proven to exist has died out and that’s the explanation to the lack of sightings and evidence in the new millennium.

By: KristyBeast

KristyBeast — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:15:44 +0000

I try to stay skeptical in matters such as this. But honestly, Nessie has been my favorite legend since I read my first “Unsolved Mysteries” book in the 5th grade.

I see the logic behind the hoax theory in this particular case. But I don’t want to believe it. =( It’d be nice if someone could find solid proof.

By: jerrywayne

jerrywayne — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:05:28 +0000

To reply to cryptidsrus…

I think the decaying floral mass scenario is meant to explain certain types of sightings, but not all. Sightings of an object suddenly appearing on the surface of the loch with accompanying water “boil” or disturbance, only to disappear again, may be explained by the known affects of decaying, submerged tree limbs or trunks (the Log Ness Monster).

Water fowl at a distance, otters, standing waves, even boats at a very great distance, mirage, etc., may account for other aspects of the Ness phenomena.

On the issue of Ness photos: Is there one still photograph taken at Ness that advocates today rally behind as good, indisputable evidence for the existence of “Nessie”? When I was a kid, there seemed to be three or four photos the “monster” enthusiasts always relied upon to present their case. Now, I wonder if there is even one.

By: Rogutaan

Rogutaan — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:03:15 +0000

Heaven forbid this happens, but the only way we’ll ever find out about whether Nessie is real or not is by introducing Zebra Mussels into the Loch. The water is so murky, we’ll never find anything. Zebra Mussels have made the Great Lakes in America crystal clear. Unfortunately they propagate pretty darn fast and quickly become a nuisance invasive species.

By: korollocke

korollocke — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:20:27 +0000

What got me was it was a modified plastic model kit. They didn’t have plastic model kits back then, and plastic wasn’t a common consumer item then either.

By: pTerryH

pTerryH — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:07:42 +0000

Having looked at both pictures many times, my suspicion remains that they show a near-silhouetted waterfowl, probably one of the three species of Diver (US: Loon) native to Scotland. Consistent with the oft-deduced size of the object being "2 to 3 feet", Divers are quite large (for British birds at any rate) - the Great Northern (Gavia immer) can be up to 40" long, the Red-throated and Black-throated (G stellata and G arctica) can approach 30" - and swim low in the water, sometimes with their backs nearly submerged. Although I've seen flat dismissals of the bird hypothesis, the reasoning was never explained. Why R K Wilson might have taken them is anyone's guess - maybe he was just testing the camera. At any rate, their low quality and ambiguousness would have fitted them well for hoaxing a presumably not insignificant sum out of The Daily Mail. (First post after several years lurking, by the way. Love this site.)

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:27:19 +0000

I must say—

I’m willing to keep an open mind but Dr. Maurice Burton’s theory of Scots Pine being the possible reason for the sightings is too WAY out there even for me.

Fermenting Scots Pine? Really? OK. I did not know decaying pines could move their “necks” about and submerge and reemerge at will. I’d rather believe in the default “otter” theory than this.

Just my two cents. Feel free to “set me right” if it could be right, folks. Which I doubt.

By: indyDonna

indyDonna — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:13:44 +0000

“• In 1969 a model monster was used for the film The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes.

It sank into the loch while being towed by the submarine Pisces. ”

Why might this not be showing up on any modern radar? What was it made of?
Any ideas?