The 1933 Hugh Gray Loch Ness monster photo

[Andreas]

For some reason, I have a soft spot for the old cases—I guess I'm just burned out on all the CGI and AI-generated stuff floating around today. That's why the Calvine photo has kept my interest, and why I'm especially fond of the early Loch Ness "monster" photographs.

One that I'd really like to hear your thoughts on is the picture allegedly taken by Hugh Gray on November 26, 1933, where the river Foyers enters the loch. The Daily Record (December 6, 1933) ran the following:

"Yesterday, the Glasgow Herald published the following report about the Loch Ness monster: 'The Loch Ness monster has been photographed by Mr Hugh Gray, fitter, Aluminum Works, Foyers. The negative reveals a creature about 30 feet long with a head like a seal and an elongated body like an eel, with two lateral fins… Mr Gray was walking on the afternoon of Sunday, November 26, when he saw the monster in the loch at a distance of about 100 yards away. He had his camera with him and took five snapshots, only one of which has been successful."

The article then gets a bit muddled—Gray himself apparently said he couldn't really judge the distance, but the write-up suggests it might have been around 50 feet away, shot from above. The paper even notes that Gray was being offered large sums of money for the negative.

An "investigation" of the negative is mentioned too, supposedly involving two Kodak employees. Their verdict? The negative showed no evidence of tampering—though of course they made no comment on what the photo actually shows. They also showed the picture to Graham Kerr, professor of Zoology at Glasgow University. His reply is, frankly, gold:

"I see nothing in the photograph with a head like a seal, nor do I see a body like an eel, nor do I see two lateral fins, such as have been described by the photographer."

So what are we left with? For me, there are two main possibilities. Either a straightforward hoax or a photo of some ordinary object/animal, hopelessly mangled by motion blur, focus issues, long exposure, and the 1930s-level Photoshop (a.k.a. newspaper "enhancements" made to the negative).

Over the years, suggestions have ranged from Gray's golden retriever swimming with a stick in its mouth, to a swan mid-dive, to an otter. All possible—but also all unsatisfying, given the quality of the image. Personally, I lean toward hoax—quite possibly using a small model floating on the water. The "surgeon's photo" showed how cropping and perspective can make a tiny object look like a large monster. And if you look closely, this thing doesn't seem to be in the water so much as on it. Plus, the water is surprisingly calm—odd if we're supposed to be looking at a dog or otter thrashing around.

So, what do you think? Model, dog, swan, otter, stones, a boat—or something else entirely? Either way, it seems like yet another case of the "monster" being more in the eye of the beholder than in the loch. And perhaps just a low-paid metalworker trying to earn a few extra pounds for Christmas expenses.

 

[Mendel]

"I see nothing in the photograph with a head like a seal, nor do I see a body like an eel, nor do I see two lateral fins, such as have been described by the photographer."

That's pretty much what I thought as well.
Snakes can swim (and so can eels, obviously).

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qF4c5TXaBc&t=33

Conger eels can grow up to 3m (10 feet) long, and you have to throw them back if they're shorter than 91cm (3 feet).

Obviously the item in the photograph need not be animate.

 

[JMartJr]

When I look at the wavelets (or waves, depending on how big an area we are really looking at) my sense is that they do not seem to be impacted by the supposed object in the water at all. It is not creating ripples, ripples/waves are not bouncing off of it. Therefore, I am suspicious that there is on fact nothing in the water at all.

Absent something more definitive about an investigation of the negative, I suspect it is a flaw in the negative (perhaps a copy of the negative was made to produce a negative with the appearance of the flaw without the physical flaw itself?) or a tampered-with negative (the latter seeming a bit less likely to me as if I was painting "Nessie" onto a negative it would look more like... something. Not just a blob.

Now maybe I am completely wrong in trying to "read" the surface of the water in the pics. If so, IF it is really a picture of something in the water, I wonder if it might simple be a wave breaking over a rock.

 

[JMartJr]

PS: I was never able to see the "dog with a suck" until somebody made me an image like this... I can see it nw, but I think it's pareidolia. But here's what some folks see as the swimming dog... just his head and the stick...

 

[MapperGuy]

For some reason, I have a soft spot for the old cases—I guess I'm just burned out on all the CGI and AI-generated stuff floating around today. That's why the Calvine photo has kept my interest, and why I'm especially fond of the early Loch Ness "monster" photographs.

View attachment 83351
View attachment 83352

One that I'd really like to hear your thoughts on is the picture allegedly taken by Hugh Gray on November 26, 1933, where the river Foyers enters the loch. The Daily Record (December 6, 1933) ran the following:

"Yesterday, the Glasgow Herald published the following report about the Loch Ness monster: 'The Loch Ness monster has been photographed by Mr Hugh Gray, fitter, Aluminum Works, Foyers. The negative reveals a creature about 30 feet long with a head like a seal and an elongated body like an eel, with two lateral fins… Mr Gray was walking on the afternoon of Sunday, November 26, when he saw the monster in the loch at a distance of about 100 yards away. He had his camera with him and took five snapshots, only one of which has been successful."

View attachment 83353

The article then gets a bit muddled—Gray himself apparently said he couldn't really judge the distance, but the write-up suggests it might have been around 50 feet away, shot from above. The paper even notes that Gray was being offered large sums of money for the negative.

An "investigation" of the negative is mentioned too, supposedly involving two Kodak employees. Their verdict? The negative showed no evidence of tampering—though of course they made no comment on what the photo actually shows. They also showed the picture to Graham Kerr, professor of Zoology at Glasgow University. His reply is, frankly, gold:

"I see nothing in the photograph with a head like a seal, nor do I see a body like an eel, nor do I see two lateral fins, such as have been described by the photographer."

View attachment 83354

So what are we left with? For me, there are two main possibilities. Either a straightforward hoax or a photo of some ordinary object/animal, hopelessly mangled by motion blur, focus issues, long exposure, and the 1930s-level Photoshop (a.k.a. newspaper "enhancements" made to the negative).

Over the years, suggestions have ranged from Gray's golden retriever swimming with a stick in its mouth, to a swan mid-dive, to an otter. All possible—but also all unsatisfying, given the quality of the image. Personally, I lean toward hoax—quite possibly using a small model floating on the water. The "surgeon's photo" showed how cropping and perspective can make a tiny object look like a large monster. And if you look closely, this thing doesn't seem to be in the water so much as on it. Plus, the water is surprisingly calm—odd if we're supposed to be looking at a dog or otter thrashing around.

So, what do you think? Model, dog, swan, otter, stones, a boat—or something else entirely? Either way, it seems like yet another case of the "monster" being more in the eye of the beholder than in the loch. And perhaps just a low-paid metalworker trying to earn a few extra pounds for Christmas expenses.

The sepia tone and the black-and-white versions of the photo look surprisingly different. Far less detail, contrast and sharpness in the b&w.

The dark area in the upper right section of the sepia version looks like it could be a reflection of an object (building/mountain) on the far side of the water. No way of telling how far beyond the top of the photo the far shore is, could be miles or only feet.

The near side of the object would seem to be above water, nice sharp edge and the shading of the area immediately underneath. The far side appears to be submerged, becoming progressively less visible the deeper it is.

Some waterlogged object floating mostly submerged I would suspect.

 

[Bob Jase]

My vote is dog-paradolia on top of a swan, seen lots of swans feed in this position.

Note that this was pre-plesiosaur Surgeon's photo so no long neck was mentioned as it wasn't yet in vogue.

 

[Ann K]

When I look at the wavelets (or waves, depending on how big an area we are really looking at) my sense is that they do not seem to be impacted by the supposed object in the water at all. It is not creating ripples, ripples/waves are not bouncing off of it. Therefore, I am suspicious that there is on fact nothing in the water at all.

Or it could be something floating along with the current, therefore causing no significant amount of ripples. It is described as being where the river flows into the loch, so it could be any piece of detritus from upstream.

There are no features in the photo to provide a sense of scale.

 

[Ann K]

The dark area in the upper right section of the sepia version looks like it could be a reflection of an object (building/mountain) on the far side of the water. No way of telling how far beyond the top of the photo the far shore is, could be miles or only feet.

Here's the Google Earth photo of the mouth of the river as it enters Loch Ness. There are many trees in the area now on both shores which could have given dark reflections (although I don't know what it was like years ago), so his view may have been across the loch or merely across the river.

Edit to add: there's a scale bar on the lower right, so the nearest point on the far shore would have been a bit greater than a kilometer.

 

[Andreas]

Now maybe I am completely wrong in trying to "read" the surface of the water in the pics. If so, IF it is really a picture of something in the water, I wonder if it might simple be a wave breaking over a rock.

It could be for sure, but the surrounding water tells me it's probably not. It looks too calm to create such waves. There's an uncropped version circulating online. If it's genuine, it shows a lot more of the water. To me it looks like a close by object floating on the water.

I can see it nw, but I think it's pareidolia. But here's what some folks see as the swimming dog... just his head and the stick...

Yeah, I don't think it's a swimming dog either. Wouldn't a swimming dog affect the water, creating splashes and waves?

Some waterlogged object floating mostly submerged I would suspect.

I agree, the object doesn't seem to impact the water, and the near side of the object definitely seems to be above the waterline, casting a shadow under it. Some kind of junk floating around is a plausible explanation for sure. But I do think a lightweight model of a "monster fish" is a possibility as well. A lightweight model wouldn't affect the surrounding water that much either, I think.

 

[deirdre]

It looks too calm to create such waves.

most Nessie sightings (usually waves) are said to be during calm waters. In fact its such a thing in reports, calm waters, that many only look for her on calm water days. so..we can assume these odd Nessie waves occur on calm days.

add: but the odd waves dont need rocks.. theres all these weird underwater current events that happen on the loch. sorry i dont really want to look up the specifics again (we had a thread on this photo but like many old threads its not showing up in searches sorry)

 

[Andreas]

Edit to add: there's a scale bar on the lower right, so the nearest point on the far shore would have been a bit greater than a kilometer.

The object doesn't appear to be very far away, so I think we can rule out the idea that this was taken across the lake. However, it could definitely have been taken on the river, or perhaps close to the shore of the loch.

 

[deirdre]

It is described as being where the river flows into the loch,

as being near where. tim dinsdale said they walked like half a mile down the beach [EDIT: maybe he said "shore" it was a long time ago... so could be even further from river as that rock is only like a 1/4 mile!] to the spot (he visited gray in the 60s) so considering there is a big rock blocking the beach its probably around this point, likely that path we see above. < assuming we believe dinsdale.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Beastie+Boats/@57.2551471,-4.5049337,2a,16.7y,174.82h,92.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sydir3oh3V9cc7HUgUTdIug!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=-2.236218113362355&panoid=ydir3oh3V9cc7HUgUTdIug&yaw=174.82278255663346!7i13312!8i6656!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x488f16f12c062389:0x41024877aefdd6ce!2sFoyers,+Inverness+IV2+6XT,+UK!3b1!8m2!3d57.255584!4d-4.491138!16s/m/04n123l!3m5!1s0x488f1292a7daf33d:0x4afbe3674faee8d5!8m2!3d57.2585443!4d-4.4881087!16s/g/11ggdwzhrj?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgxOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

 

[Andreas]

most Nessie sightings (usually waves) are said to be during calm waters. In fact its such a thing in reports, calm waters, that many only look for her on calm water days. so..we can assume these odd Nessie waves occur on calm days.

That's an interesting observation. But could the "thing" we see in the photo really be a wave? Perhaps, if distorted by long exposure and focus issues. But the "object" in the Gray photo stands out strangely from the rest of the scene. And the shadow looks rather strange.

 

[Andreas]

as being near where. tim dinsdale said they walked like half a mile down the beach [EDIT: maybe he said "shore" it was a long time ago... so could be even further from river as that rock is only like a 1/4 mile!] to the spot (he visited gray in the 60s) so considering there is a big rock blocking the beach its probably around this point, likely that path we see above. < assuming we believe dinsdale.

This could very well be the spot, but since there are no landmarks in the photo, we can't know for sure. What I keep wondering is why Gray took the photo in the first place. Either he set out to create a 'Nessie hoax' for one reason or another, or he was actually photographing something else—maybe an animal or even a boat. But I find it hard to believe he was just wasting film by randomly shooting the empty surface of the loch. Did he perhaps see a wave and imagine it was the 'monster,' as many people have done both before and since? Possibly—but if so, he would have had to be very quick to capture the wave before it faded. To me, a prank involving some small prop still seems like the most plausible explanation. But sure, it could have been a wave.

 

[Ann K]

as being near where. tim dinsdale said they walked like half a mile down the beach [EDIT: maybe he said "shore" it was a long time ago...

I'm sure he said "shore" instead of "beach", because for the most part the shores of Loch Ness dive steeply into the water, leaving not much of a place for a beach. Think "finger lakes" for an American comparison.

 

[deirdre]

But the "object" in the Gray photo stands out strangely from the rest of the scene

i think its a blurry best of 5 photo where the whole thing is pareidolia. (or its a shoe horn and it is his body casting the shadow up the side).

i didnt say it was a wave, i said you cant dismiss a wave just because you think the loch looks calm.

 

[deirdre]

I'm sure he said "shore" instead of "beach", because for the most part the shores of Loch Ness dive steeply into the water, leaving not much of a place for a beach. Think "finger lakes" for an American comparison.

theres beach. in fact there is (now) a proper beach where they (tinsdale and gray) likely started off.

but my point was if he said beach that means he was walking on level with the water, where as if he said "shore" as in shoreline it could mean they were up on the path.

 

[deirdre]

just for readers fyi

 

[FatPhil]

just for readers fyi
View attachment 83365

The predicate isn't exactly clear: "zoom 150 feet", but things like this definitely existed:

link: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._1905.svg/640px-Busch_Bis-Telar,_1905.svg.png
via (.fr): https://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/Photo...ctifs_de_longue_focale_et_téléobjectifs[/img]

 

[Mendel]

For the object to be 30 feet long, at that angle, the vantage point would need to be higher up.
If the object is only 10 feet long (which I still think is plausible given the wave size), the camera wouldn't need to be that high.
If there was an escaped python around, I'd see an explanation.

The snakes in the videos I watched only make waves when swimming vigorously, so if it's an animal moving slowly or taking a break, you wouldn't necessarily see much.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray 'Nessie' Photograph

• August 2022
• Journal of Scientific Exploration 36(2):218-232

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362866103_Empirical_Analysis_of_the_Hugh_Gray_'Nessie'_Photograph

This seems like a good source that clarifies some facts about the photo itself, although I disagree with the author's conclusion. I think he's just as guilty of pareidolia as anyone else.

To save time and effort I've asked GPT 5 to summarize the article itself without adding any speculation or analysis.

GPT Summary of the Ronald Watson article

The History of the Negative and Photographic Alterations

The Original Negative

Hugh Gray's photograph was taken in November 1933 and published soon after in the Scottish Daily Record.

The original negative was examined by Kodak experts in 1933, who reported no evidence of tampering.

Unfortunately, the negative itself has since been lost; only prints remain
.

Newspaper Alterations

The version most people know is not the original.

The Daily Record (and later the Daily Telegraph) retouched the image to make it clearer for publication, a common practice at the time.

This "photoshop of its day" involved adding contrast, sharpening lines, and possibly using scalpels on the negative to emphasize the waterline and object's outline
.

As a result, the mass in the photo appeared more distinct—but also more ambiguous, encouraging dog-like interpretations.

The Cleaner Photograph

A superior copy resurfaced decades later. In 1933, glass lantern slides had been made for a man named E. Heron-Allen.

These slides, being direct contact positives from the original negative, avoided the retouching.

They eventually came into the possession of researcher Maurice Burton in the 1960s, and by the mid-1980s were released to the Fortean Picture Library
.

Why the Heron-Allen Image is Superior

It shows finer detail without the artificial hard edges and contrast of the retouched press version.

It reduces the likelihood of pareidolia (e.g., "seeing a dog") caused by newspaper enhancements.

It preserves natural wave patterns, spray, and tonal gradients, making technical analysis (e.g., reflections, ripple spacing) more reliable.

Researchers argue that many of the strongest "dog" interpretations stem from the altered newspaper print, not the Heron-Allen copy
.

In short:
The Daily Record retouched Gray's photo for clarity, unintentionally introducing distortions that fueled decades of "dog with stick" claims. The Heron-Allen lantern slide copy, made directly from the original negative, is the best surviving version and is regarded as superior because it is closer to what Gray actually captured, without editorial alterations.

My own thoughts

The camera has not been described. Focal length, shutter speed and f-stop are unspecified.

But given that Gray had a blue-collar job, and was not described as an advanced amateur photographer who would spend a big proportion of his income on a high quality camera, it's very likely he was using a rudimentary 1930s box camera, with a fixed focus, a small aperture, and a slow shutter speed.

It's likely that the lens was a wide angle lens.


The aperture is small to help give more depth of field. The slow shutter speed is meant to compensate for the small aperture. In addition, it's possible the camera was set up to allow flash photography. A slow shutter speed is necessary for flash photography.

The slow shutter speed would be something like 1/50.




GPT's summary of Gray's description. For the sake of argument I'm accepting this as an honest account.

Here is Hugh Gray's own description of the conditions, as quoted in the PDF (Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray 'Nessie' Photograph):

Setting:
"Four Sundays ago, after church I went for my usual walk near where the river enters the Loch. The Loch was like a mill pond and the sun shining brightly."

Appearance of the object:
"An object of considerable dimensions rose out of the water not very far from where I was. I immediately got my camera ready and snapped the object which was two or three feet above the surface of the water."

Details he noticed:
"I did not see any head, for what I took to be the front parts were under the water, but there was considerable movement from what seemed to be the tail, the part furthest from me."

Duration:
"The object only appeared for a few minutes then sank out of sight."

...there was considerable movement from what seemed to be the tail...

Given that the camera had a slow shutter speed there would be ample motion blur in any part of the object that was moving in the way Gray describes.


GPT summary

According to the PDF (Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray 'Nessie' Photograph by Roland Watson), Hugh Gray stated that he took the picture "on 12th November 1933 around noon, after church", near where the River Foyers enters Loch Ness
.

So the time and date given in the paper are:
12 November 1933, around midday.

The Loch was like a mill pond and the sun shining brightly.

Lighting conditions were favorable for a high quality camera which can be adjusted for exposure, but not so much for the kind of camera I think Gray was using. The scene would be brightly lit. There could also be "glitter" on the surface of the water... specular reflections of the Sun on wavelets. It's very likely that his negatives would be overexposed.

There were four "unsuccessful frames." It's likely that these negatives were overexposed and fatally washed out.

Motion blur from the object and possibly from camera shake would make it even worse. Ninety nine point nine percent of the adults on the Earth don't seem to have any intuitive sense of how to use a camera correctly. They let the camera move when they press the shutter release, and they often make a lunging movement with the camera toward the subject as if they were throwing a stick at it.

Gray was excited, so he may have been waving the camera around randomly and hitting the shutter release at the same time. (There's even a chance that the object wasn't in frame.)

Even his one "successful" frame would be a washed out negative. Any print you could make from it would have poor contrast and a reduced tonal range.

The mist above the object: I interpret this as spray from the movement Gray describes. The spray is brightly lit with specular Sun reflections and also motion blurred.

The object itself is also motion blurred. Or maybe just a part of it is. The water around it may be motion blurred. Possibly with glare from Sun glitter adding to the confusion.

Given the motion blur, the washed out negative and the poor resolution of any negative produced by this camera due to its inherent limitations, we're already talking about an ambiguous image on the original negative.

Even the best version we have is a lower resolution version.

My opinion: This photo image is too ambiguous to do anything with. It's a Rorschach ink blot.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Objections about the lack of ripples/disturbance are a red herring because:

-There are ripples

-If the thrashing was intermittent, the photo may capture a moment when the thrashing was happening, but the ripples had not had time to spread.

-Localized disturbance of the water around the object is obscured by motion blur, glare, poor resolution, poor contrast and reduced tonal range.

My feeling is that this was a living creature of some kind that Gray was misperceiving. We'll never know what.

The lighting conditions may have contributed to his misperception. I suspect the creature was in a glitter trail. Sparkly reflections of the Sun. But that may be idle speculation.

 

[JMartJr]

most Nessie sightings (usually waves) are said to be during calm waters. In fact its such a thing in reports, calm waters, that many only look for her on calm water days. so..we can assume these odd Nessie waves occur on calm days.

FWIW, a boat wake will propagate a long way, and if two cross you can get some classic "splashing humps racing across the water" Nessie-looking effects.

 

[deirdre]

10 feet long (which I still think is plausible given the wave size

or a couple (or trio) of otters "playing"

 

[Andreas]

This seems like a good source that clarifies some facts about the photo itself, although I disagree with the author's conclusion. I think he's just as guilty of pareidolia as anyone else.

Yeah, I've read that "analysis," but as you say, the writer seems pretty fixated on a single hypothesis—trying to pick out details in the photo that just aren't there. The supposed "mouth" and "eye" are, let's just say, a bit far-fetched…

I'm also curious about Mr. Gray's story. Apparently, he told reporters at the Glasgow Herald that the photo was taken on November 26.

But when talking to the a reporter at the Daily Record, he clearly states that it was taken "four Sundays ago", in other words November 12.

It's definitely possible that the first reporter messed up the dates, but inconsistency in the story isn't a good sign.

And then there's the story itself. Gray was a "repeat offender" who claimed to have seen the "monster" before. He wasn't just out for a casual stroll in nice weather; he was specifically out looking for the "monster". The actual event, though, is described in only a few short sentences in the newspaper.

It's hard to know what to make of his statement. We know that he not only believed in the "monster," but also claimed to have seen it before. On this occasion, he was deliberately out trying to capture a picture of it—and within minutes, he succeeded. He admitted having difficulty making sense of what he was looking at, struggling to determine its size and distance. This could suggest that Gray was a "believer," someone inclined to interpret any movement on the loch as the "monster." For a believer, an otter, a wave, or almost anything could be transformed into a mysterious creature. But just as likely, Gray could have staged a hoax to gain fame or money.

 

[Andreas]

or a couple (or trio) of otters "playing"

Here's another otter diving into a lake. If the object in the Gray photo really was an otter, then perhaps he simply misidentified it as the "monster." Otters can grow quite large, and size is difficult to estimate when looking out over water. But it's just as likely that he was originally simply trying to capture a picture of a cute little otter playing in the sunshine, and only later realized the image looked strange enough to be passed off as the "monster." Of course, we'll never know for sure.

 

[JMartJr]

Note that this was pre-plesiosaur Surgeon's photo so no long neck was mentioned as it wasn't yet in vogue.

The first mention of a long-necked Nessie that I am aware of predated this image by a few months -- and interestingly follows shortly on the release of "King Kong!"

George Spicer (1933)

Modern interest in the monster was sparked by a sighting on 22 July 1933, when George Spicer and his wife saw "a most extraordinary form of animal" cross the road in front of their car.[28] They described the creature as having a large body (about 4 feet (1.2 m) high and 25 feet (7.6 m) long) and a long, wavy, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant's trunk and as long as the 10–12-foot (3–4 m) width of the road. They saw no limbs.[29] It lurched across the road toward the loch 20 yards (18 m) away, leaving a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake.[29] Spicer described it as "the nearest approach to a dragon or pre-historic animal that I have ever seen in my life,"[28] and as having "a long neck, which moved up and down in the manner of a scenic railway."[30] It had "an animal" in its mouth[28] and had a body that "was fairly big, with a high back, but if there were any feet they must have been of the web kind, and as for a tail I cannot say, as it moved so rapidly, and when we got to the spot it had probably disappeared into the loch."[30] Though he was the first to describe the creature as a plesiosaur-like dinosaur, evidence suggested by researchers at Columbia University in 2013 proved his story to be fake. The university and Daniel Loxton suggested that Spicer's sighting was fictionalized and inspired by a long-necked dinosaur that rises out of a lake in King Kong, a film that was extremely popular in cinemas in his home city of London during August 1933, when Spicer reported the sighting.[31] Loxton and Donald Prothero later cited King Kong as evidently an influence on the Loch Ness Monster myth.[32]

...

Hugh Gray's photograph taken near Foyers on 12 November 1933

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

Illustration of Spicer's Nessie as it crossed the road ahead of his car:

Image source:
https://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2017/08/nessie-on-land-spicers-story.html

The bit on Nessie's shoulder there was described as being a deer (I have also seen it described as a lamb/sheep) but later it was often assumed to be the tip of a long tail draped back over the animal's shoulder, which makes even less sense.

Plesiosaur scene in King Kong, a rather snake like beastie...

Source: https://youtu.be/KdY5Sk2otv8?t=18




Sauropod on land from King Kong:

Source: https://youtu.be/0JVZ0bE8hpk?t=129


Note how the ails behind the creature is obscured...

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

View attachment 83373

Your post adds some good info as to his state of mind.

This attached article tells us that there was a Loch Ness Monster "Flap" going on at the time. This Flap was among local residents rather than tourists or "researchers." A local mass delusion.

Gray's state of mind: He was primed to see ambiguous things as a monster.

Very much in line with UFO flaps in which witnesses intentionally go out to see flying saucers... and see them.

Taking his camera out with him is in line with him being a casual snapshot taking kind of amateur, rather than an advanced amateur photographer with a high quality camera and know-how.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This is what the sky would have looked like at 1:00 p.m. on Nov. 12, 1933 on a day with a bright Sun in Inverness, Scotland. (The nearest town to Loch Ness which is on the Stellarium locations list.)

The Sun is just a bit under 14 degrees above the horizon. Low, in other words. It would be lower on a later date in Nov. as you'd be heading toward the Winter Solstice.

Do we know which way Gray would have been facing?

A low Sun is good for producing Sun glitter.

Glitter on a calm water surface, as Gray described the conditions.

The Loch was like a mill pond and the sun shining brightly.

Note that the ducks create Sun glitter around themselves by making ripples and wavelets.

This particular camera may have had a star effect filter fitted... but still...

 

[John J.]

The article @Z.W. Wolf linked to in post #21 ("Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray 'Nessie' Photograph", Ronald Watson) is interesting (thank you).

However, Watson doesn't really inspire much confidence as an unbiased commentator; as well as having a poke at

...insistent disbelievers who improperly call themselves 'skeptics'

he gives this rather condescending "advice",

Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that skeptical commentators refrain from publishing or otherwise disseminating dogmatic explanatory statements about anomalies without (a) offering direct evidence in support, or (b) emphasizing caveats about their untested speculations. Anything less could well undermine public education in science. It also causes one to wonder if pseudo-skeptics truly believe their own rhetoric or whether it is all a matter of getting rid of troublesome photographs and therefore that troublesome creature in a distant loch.

While he refers to "believers"

...difficulties include typically a highly polarized audience, i.e., confirmed believers versus insistent disbelievers who improperly call themselves 'skeptics.'

He has no useful tips for them.

Indeed, although he writes (without examples or evidence) that "It also causes one to wonder if pseudo-skeptics truly believe their own rhetoric..."
he had earlier written

A form of skepticism often confidently presents untested speculations and sometimes even levies ad hominem attacks.

Hardly unbiased, arguably personal opinion masquerading as content in an article supposedly about photo analysis and, I feel, a tad hypocritical.

The first paragraph of Watson's article ("Highlights") says

Detailed inspection of the best-quality version of an early photograph of the 'Loch Ness Monster' does not verify the presence of a swimming dog or other familiar object. This picture thus remains an intriguing piece of evidence that seemingly supports a biological mystery at this famed location in Scotland.

(My emphasis).

A more likely explanation would be that this picture "seemingly supports" a hoax. We know this unequivocally applies to the much more famous "Surgeon's photograph" of 1934 (see Wikipedia, Robert Kenneth Wilson) and "footprints" found in 1933 (of a hippopotamus; probably from a preserved foot used as an umbrella stand ("Birth of a Legend", Stephen Lyons, Nova website).

It must be very unlikely indeed that a large unidentified animal lives in Loch Ness, or did so in the 1930s, and with each passing year with no real evidence that possibility shrinks.
Though often described as remote, Loch Ness isn't remote in the sense that locations in e.g. the USA or Australia might be (or rural locations in Spain or Sweden for that matter). The northern end of the loch is approx. 6 miles/ 10km from the city of Inverness, population 63,730 (Wikipedia, Inverness). Inverness is the northern terminus of the A9, so its inhabitants have a direct road to Calvine if they get bored of Nessie.
Even ignoring the tourist industry that Nessie supports, small fishing/ pleasure boats are a regular feature, and other (modest) boats navigate the length of the Loch as it forms part of the Caledonian Canal (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loch_Ness).
A small number of villages/ hamlets follow its shores, mainly on the west; there's no reason I can think of why telephone / camera ownership might be lower than elsewhere.

"Our" photograph was supposedly taken 12 November 1933 by Hugh Gray. Ronald Watson writes

A further reference by Binns (1983) to an "A. Gray" from the 30 May 1933 issue of the Inverness Courier is also presented as evidence. This Gray was reportedly contriving to use hooks, fish bait, and a barrel to capture the monster at Foyers. Binns speculated that he may be the same Mr. Gray....

...so there was a story about a plan by a Mr. Gray to trap "the monster" in the Inverness Courier over 5 months before a Mr. Gray's photograph...
Ronald Watson's research leads him to conclude this doesn't imply that the photographer might have been a hoaxer,

However, apart from being a Mr. A. Gray instead of a Mr. H. Gray, the matter can be laid to rest here. ...it is likely that the A. Gray in question was Hugh Gray's brother, Alexander Gray...

-So in May 1933 a newspaper reports on Alexander Gray's plan to trap the creature, and in November his brother Hugh photographs it.
Ronald Watson doesn't seem to consider this as particularly unlikely (and coincidences do happen)

When writing, in his "Highlights", that Hugh Gray's 1933 photo is a "...piece of evidence that seemingly supports a biological mystery", Watson must have been aware of the BBC-sponsored search undertaken for a TV program, Searching for the Loch Ness Monster (2003);

In 2003, the BBC sponsored a search of the loch using 600 sonar beams and satellite tracking. The search had sufficient resolution to identify a small buoy. No animal of substantial size was found and, despite their reported hopes, the scientists involved admitted that this proved the Loch Ness Monster was a myth.

He must also have been aware of the findings of a DNA survey of the loch's water conducted by researchers from the universities of Otago, Copenhagen, Hull and the Highlands and Islands (Scotland), 2018:

...no DNA of large fish such as sharks, sturgeons and catfish could be found...
... Prof Neil Gemmell of the University of Otago, said he could not rule out the possibility of eels of extreme size, though none were found, nor were any ever caught. The other possibility is that the large amount of eel DNA simply comes from many small eels. No evidence of any reptilian sequences were found, he added, "so I think we can be fairly sure that there is probably not a giant scaly reptile swimming around in Loch Ness".

-The two quotes above are from Wikipedia, Loch Ness Monster.

Watson's "Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray 'Nessie' Photograph" was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (subheading, "Anomalistics and Frontier Science").
This is the same Journal of Scientific Exploration that published Jacques Vallee's "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples" (in vol. 12 (3), 1998.)

Wikipedia, Loch Ness Monster says of Hugh Gray's photo,

The original negative was lost. However, in 1963, Maurice Burton came into "possession of two lantern slides, contact positives from the original negative" and when projected onto a screen they revealed an "otter rolling at the surface in characteristic fashion."

Annoyingly I don't think we've got checkable evidence that might support Burton's account.
(I'd never heard of Burton, he was a zoologist at the Natural History Museum in London and a popular science writer).

At first glance I thought the Hugh Gray photo looked a bit like a squid's mantle; squid are often used as bait by anglers, but the "fins" (left of photo) seem to be slenderer and proportionately much longer than I've seen on squid (but I'm no expert!)

(Self-explanatory).

Or maybe it's a decapitated fish.

Gray worked for an aluminium company- maybe they made outdoor signs/ models for e.g. fishmongers, angling supply stores, fish-and-chip shops? This was just before fibreglass was in widespread use for that sort of thing. Perhaps the photo is of an incomplete (or redundant) showpiece.
Unlikely I guess (though more likely than a plesiosaur).

 

[deirdre]

but also claimed to have seen it before. On this occasion, he was deliberately out trying to capture a picture of it—and within minutes, he succeeded.

i dont see any of that in what you quoted (screenshot).. and you didnt give links so i cant see whole stories for myself. can you give links please.

 

[John J.]

It could be for sure, but the surrounding water tells me it's probably not. It looks too calm to create such waves. There's an uncropped version circulating online. If it's genuine, it shows a lot more of the water. To me it looks like a close by object floating on the water.

Looking at the ripples, I get the impression of a relatively small object. The ripples might indicate concentric rings (especially in the foreground/ lower half of the picture). We have no clear indications of scale (as @Ann K pointed out).
This guy's gone out with a camera, during what (if we were discussing UFOs) we might call "a flap", about five months after his brother has been in the local paper with some scheme to trap "the monster" in a barrel- and he doesn't think to take another photo to document the location.

However, this image can't be a faithful reproduction of one photograph. It must be unlikely Hugh Gray decided to take 1 photo of the left side of the "monster" and then another of the right, considering the "target" could easily be captured within either of the two frames that the above image appears to be composed of. I'd guess this has been copied from a book or magazine.

 

[John J.]

A different interpretation of it being Hugh Gray's dog... or another demonstration of pareidolia.

In fairness, it looks too elongated to be a dog... maybe Gray's camera had a delayed exposure, or overlapping exposures?
If it's a dog, it's more likely wading than swimming.

 

[Andreas]

i dont see any of that in what you quoted (screenshot).. and you didnt give links so i cant see whole stories for myself. can you give links please.

Oh sorry, I totally missed including that. Here it is:

If it's a dog, it's more likely wading than swimming.

It is rather dangerous to try to interpret patterns in such a blurry picture. A profile of a wading dog is an interesting idea. Otherwise, most people that propose the dog hypothesis seems to believe it's running towards the camera with a stick in his mouth, something like this:

A dog is certainly a possibility—much more likely, in my view, than this being some anomalous creature lurking in the loch. At the same time, there simply isn't enough detail in the photo to draw any firm conclusions.

Looking at the context, however, I find the dog hypothesis a bit hard to accept. At the time, numerous sightings of the "monster" were being reported in the press, which clearly inspired pranksters—just think of the hippo footprints or the "surgeon's photo." Gray was fascinated by all this; he spent his Sundays searching for the monster and believed he had even seen it before with his own eyes. (And if the claim is correct that "A. Gray" was Hugh's brother, then he too was a monster hunter, trying to capture the creature.)

In such an environment, Hugh might very well have snapped a picture of what he thought was the "beast," without realizing it was something entirely ordinary, like a wave or an otter. The other possibility, of course, is that Gray deliberately orchestrated a hoax to impress or outdo his fellow monster hunters. Perhaps he used a technique similar to the "surgeon's photo," floating a small clay model on the surface—or maybe even a carved wooden figure. He could have tossed it into the water and taken several shots; most turned out poorly, but one came out "good enough."

The idea of his dog playing in the water doesn't really fit the circumstances. Being out on a monster hunt and accidentally managing to photograph his own dog in just the right way to resemble a strange creature seems far less likely than a staged hoax. Looking more closely at the "object" in the photo, it appears quite consistent with a small, whale-like model placed near the photographer, motionless in the water.

We'll probably never know for sure what really happened—but to me, a deliberate hoax seems entirely plausible.

 

[Ann K]

The curve at the right end of the object strongly resembles a turtle's shell. That is a possible solution, but fairly unlikely.

Scotland's climate is characterized by cool temperatures, especially in the northern regions, and a lack of suitable habitats for turtles. Turtles prefer warm and tropical environments, with access to bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, or ponds. These conditions are not typically found in Scotland.

Despite this, there have been occasional sightings and reports of non-native turtle species in Scotland. This is often due to people releasing pet turtles into the wild when they are no longer able or willing to care for them.

https://petshun.com/article/do-you-get-turtles-in-scotland

Nevertheless, a number of breathless headlines appeared in 2021, quoting a scientist who proposed the turtle hypothesis:

Scotland's most famous mystery creature has recently been described as a kind of undiscovered sea turtle that became trapped in the Loch.

Professor Henry Bauer's research suggests the turtle may have become trapped in the Loch when water levels reduced at the end of the most recent Ice Age.

That time period was around 12,000 years ago.

The US scientist worked at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and doesn't believe Nessie was a dinosaur.

He thinks all the potential sightings and descriptions describe turtle-like behaviour, such as breathing air but living underwater.

Bauer is 89 and retired but has had his recent research published in a respected scientific journal, according to the Daily Record.

The publication reported that the Nessie expert believes creatures in Loch Ness are yet to be properly discovered and there could be evidence of a large unknown turtle similar to ones that live in our oceans today.

.........
The vast majority of scientists agree that there's no giant marine monster living in the lake.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/science/13783791/loch-ness-monster-ancient-sea-turtle/

His speculative story checks all the same boxes as we have seen before; unknown species, trapped in Loch Ness thousands of years ago, etc. Yet such a tale would require a breeding population to have survived those thousands of years, in icy water.

His "respected scientific journal", as far as I have been able to determine, is an essay (not a research paper) in what has been described as a fringe pseudo-science publication: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/download/1713/1033

From Wikipedia:

The Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is a group committed to studying fringe science.[1]​ The opinions of the organization in regard to what are the proper limits of scientific exploration are often at odds with those of mainstream science.[2]​ Critics argue that the SSE is devoted to disreputable ideas far outside the scientific mainstream.[2]​
........
The society's scientific journal, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, was established to provide a scientific forum for ufology, parapsychology, and cryptozoology, publishing research articles, essays, book reviews, and letters on those and many other topics that are largely ignored in mainstream journals.

The journal is peer-reviewed and was abstracted and indexed in Scopus.[4]​

The journal is edited by Stephen E. Braude.

The Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists says that the journal has reports about anomalies in science, particularly in the parapsychological and extraterrestrial fields.[5]​[6]​ Some academics have noted that the journal publishes on anomalous issues, topics often on the fringe of science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Scientific_Exploration

 

[NoParty]

A dog with a buoyancy jacket in 1933?!?

Honestly, if I were shown that image, with no context,
"Dog swimming with a stick" would have been my 8,953,226,538th guess...
right after "8 year-old Dick Van Dyke swimming with a stick"

 

[Andreas]

The curve at the right end of the object strongly resembles a turtle's shell. That is a possible solution, but fairly unlikely.

Yeah, it's not very likely that some mysterious turtle is roaming the loch. But there is the possibility of it being some kind of toy turtle. Still, I think the 'curve' is more likely an illusion caused by overexposure and shadows.

When increasing the contrast, one can make out the 'mouth' and 'eye' mentioned in the so-called 'empirical analysis' cited in a previous post. However, this is most likely either pareidolia or 'enhancements' applied to the negative by the Daily Record before publishing the photo. What we do see is a sort of geometric pattern (dark squares) in the area not completely washed out by overexposure. What should we make of that? Is it just an artifact, or something actually present on the surface of the 'object'?

 

[John J.]

His "respected scientific journal", as far as I have been able to determine, is an essay (not a research paper) in what has been described as a fringe pseudo-science publication: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/download/1713/1033

Yes, the Journal of Scientific Exploration got a mention in post #30,

Watson's "Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray 'Nessie' Photograph" was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (subheading, "Anomalistics and Frontier Science").
This is the same Journal of Scientific Exploration that published Jacques Vallee's "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples" (in vol. 12 (3), 1998.)

The turtle theory has the same problems as any other suggesting a largeish creature (catfish, sturgeon, giant eel, plesiosaur); Loch Ness has been regularly fished for centuries but no-one has caught such a creature, found any remains or other traces, e.g. eggs- particularly relevant for turtles, which lay eggs on land. -Did a quick check (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_turtle) this applies to all sea turtles (I wondered if some might be ovoviviparous).

We'll probably never know for sure what really happened—but to me, a deliberate hoax seems entirely plausible.

Agreed. The fact that the photographer's brother, Alexander Gray, got into the local newspaper with a scheme to trap the creature some five months before Hugh Gray's photo doesn't strike me as a likely coincidence, considering how rare reported sightings are/ were (even during the 1933-1934 flap).

Edited to add: I'm still a bit disappointed that Nessie probably doesn't exist, though. My favourite cryptid (maybe along with Black Shuck/ Tom Colley's dog, which are more folkloric/ supernatural in origin).

 

[Ann K]

Edited to add: I'm still a bit disappointed that Nessie probably doesn't exist, though.

That was the end of my childhood, sadly admitting that my national monster was unlikely to be real!

 

[RTM]

That was the end of my childhood, sadly admitting that my national monster was unlikely to be real!

You'll always have the haggis.