The
creature commonly appears in Western media where it manifests in a variety of
ways. The scientific community regards the Loch Ness Monster as a phenomenon
without biological basis, explaining sightings as hoaxes, wishful thinking, and
the misidentification of mundane objects.
"Surgeon's
photograph" (1934)
The
"surgeon's photograph" is reportedly the first photo of the
creature's head and neck. Supposedly taken by Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London
gynaecologist, it was published in the Daily Mail on 21 April 1934. Wilson's
refusal to have his name associated with it led to it being known as the
"surgeon's photograph". According to Wilson, he was looking at the
loch when he saw the monster, grabbed his camera and snapped four photos. Only
two exposures came out clearly; the first reportedly shows a small head and
back, and the second shows a similar head in a diving position. The first photo
became well-known, and the second attracted little publicity because of its
blurriness.
Although for a number of years the photo was considered evidence of the monster, sceptics dismissed it as driftwood, an elephant, an otter, or a bird. The photo's scale was controversial; it is often shown cropped (making the creature seem large and the ripples like waves), while the uncropped shot shows the other end of the loch and the monster in the centre. The ripples in the photo were found to fit the size and pattern of small ripples, unlike large waves photographed up close. Analysis of the original image fostered further doubt. In 1993, the makers of the Discovery Communications documentary Loch Ness Discovered analysed the uncropped image and found a white object visible in every version of the photo (implying that it was on the negative). It was believed to be the cause of the ripples, as if the object was being towed, although the possibility of a blemish on the negative could not be ruled out. An analysis of the full photograph indicated that the object was small, about 60 to 90 cm (2 to 3 ft) long.
Since
1994, most agree that the photo was an elaborate hoax. It had been accused of
being a fake in a 7 December 1975 Sunday Telegraph article which fell into
obscurity. Details of how the photo was taken were published in the 1999 book,
Nessie – the Surgeon's Photograph Exposed, which contains a facsimile of the
1975 Sunday Telegraph article. The creature was reportedly a toy submarine
built by Christian Spurling, the son-in-law of Marmaduke Wetherell. Wetherell
had been publicly ridiculed by his employer, the Daily Mail, after he found
"Nessie footprints" which turned out to be a hoax. To get revenge on
the Mail, Wetherell perpetrated his hoax with co-conspirators Spurling
(sculpture specialist), Ian Wetherell (his son, who bought the material for the
fake), and Maurice Chambers (an insurance agent). The toy submarine was bought
from F. W. Woolworths, and its head and neck were made from wood putty. After
testing it in a local pond the group went to Loch Ness, where Ian Wetherell
took the photos near the Altsaigh Tea House. When they heard a water bailiff
approaching, Duke Wetherell sank the model with his foot and it is
"presumably still somewhere in Loch Ness". Chambers gave the
photographic plates to Wilson, a friend of his who enjoyed "a good
practical joke". Wilson brought the plates to Ogston's, an Inverness
chemist, and gave them to George Morrison for development. He sold the first
photo to the Daily Mail, who then announced that the monster had been
photographed.
Little
is known of the second photo; it is often ignored by researchers, who believe
its quality too poor and its differences from the first photo too great to
warrant analysis. It shows a head similar to the first photo, with a more
turbulent wave pattern and possibly taken at a different time and location in
the loch. Some believe it to be an earlier, cruder attempt at a hoax, and
others (including Roy Mackal and Maurice Burton) consider it a picture of a
diving bird or otter which Wilson mistook for the monster. According to
Morrison, when the plates were developed Wilson was uninterested in the second
photo; he allowed Morrison to keep the negative, and the second photo was
rediscovered years later. When asked about the second photo by the Ness Information
Service Newsletter, Spurling " ... was vague, thought it might have been a
piece of wood they were trying out as a monster, but [was] not sure."
No comments:
Post a Comment