The 1933 Hugh Gray Loch Ness monster photo

[JMartJr]

Indeed. And you don't even need bodies of water for shape-shifting spirit myths. Four legs useful on desert plains, fins/flippers useful in water, the folk tales will incorporate whatever device is situationally appropriate.

Worth noting that before the "long necked plesiosaur" description really solidified, there were reports of Nessie as a four legged beast, and even a cast of a footprint, a la Bigfoot, "found" be the wonderfully named Marmaduke Arundel Wetherell which turned out to have been made using an umbrella stand built out of a taxidermied hippo foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._Wetherell

In the 1930s, Marmaduke went to Loch Ness to look for the Loch Ness Monster. Wetherell claimed to have found footprints, but when casts of the footprints were sent to scientists for analysis they turned out to be from a hippopotamus; a prankster had used a hippopotamus-foot umbrella stand.[6] As a result, Wetherell was publicly ridiculed by his employer, the Daily Mail. To get revenge on the Mail, Wetherell perpetrated the hoax "surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster...

(All this is mentioned in another thread about Nessie already, https://www.metabunk.org/threads/loch-ness-monster-swimming-elephant.12365/post-268392, but worth noting in this one, I think. Though not to the extent of the "usual gang of suspects" in UFOlogy, there may have been an inordinately large part played by a few people in getting the Nessie bunk up and running...)

 

[Andreas]

The earliest written reference to a monster in Loch Ness is a 7th-century biography of Saint Columba, the Irish missionary who introduced Christianity to Scotland. In A.D. 565, according to the biographer, St. Columba was on his way to visit the king of the northern Picts near Inverness when he stopped at Loch Ness to confront a beast that had been killing people in the lake.

https://www.history.com/articles/loch-ness-monster

Yeah, but let's put old religious myths and ancient folklore aside and focus on the modern Nessie myth, which was undoubtedly born in the early 1930s. Before this, Loch Ness was not widely known as the home of a mysterious creature.

As for St. Columba: the book often cited when discussing early "Nessie sightings" recounts various miracles said to have been performed by him. One can read about numerous wonders, including how St. Columba raised his hand to slay wild beasts as well as wicked men. But nowhere can we read that he encountered a beast in the loch—the alleged encounter took place in the River Ness. So, the roaring beast with an enormous mouth, mentioned in St. Adomnán of Iona has little to do with the Loch Ness monster. In other words, while it's easy to find old tales of monsters and beasts, using them when investigating modern sightings is by no means a sound approach.

 

[RTM]

Not to mention Saint Columba slaying a serpent type beast sounds like one of those stories where serpents represent pagans, similar to Saint Patrick driving snakes out of Ireland.

 

[Andreas]

Worth noting that before the "long necked plesiosaur" description really solidified, there were reports of Nessie as a four legged beast, and even a cast of a footprint, a la Bigfoot

Though not to the extent of the "usual gang of suspects" in UFOlogy, there may have been an inordinately large part played by a few people in getting the Nessie bunk up and running...)

I have been digging through British newspaper articles and came across an interesting one that deals both with the four-legged "amphibian" you mentioned and also gives a hint that some people (including the Gray brothers) might have played an important role in fueling the Nessie hype.

The article features Alexander Gray, the brother of Hugh who took the famous photo. Published in The Scotsman on December 29, 1933, it is particularly interesting because it gives us a glimpse of what kind of person Alexander was and also sheds light on the "monster hype" of 1933. In a recent post, I suggested that Alexander seemed a bit "obsessed" with the monster, though I admitted I didn't have enough proof to support that claim. In this article, however, we can clearly see a side of Alexander eager to tell a good story.

In the Scotsman article, one can read:
"Mr. Alexander Gray, the driver of the Foyers bus, who observed the animal in the early summer and tested its speed by following it on the road on a parallell course, saw it or one of them as far back as 1914, off Red Point, between Foyers and Dores. He was then impressed by the bulk of what showed above water and estimated its weight at something like 15 tons. It had a back some six feet broad. He and others saw it from a boat, and when it sank suddenly it left a vortex on the surface of the water. He recalls an incident which occurred when he was a boy, 40 years ago. His uncle and others were working a salmon net from the shore and were drawing it in when something resisted. The hauling ropes were suddenly drawn out five or six feet. There was a pause while fishers held on grimly. Then the nets were pulled resistlessly from their grasp, went off to the depths of the Loch, and were never seen more. Another incident that bears on the problem is recalled by Mr Gray. He was out in a boat with salmon fishers when they saw a large salmon jump clear into the air, a little distance off their boat. It entered the water and immediately jumped clear again, coming in the direction of the boat, and next they saw it close to the surface, as it went bellow the boat. It was remarked that the fish must have been pursued by some large animal to make it behave that way." (The Scotsman, December 29, 1933)

I'm not sure what to make of this, and it's probably not directly relevant when analyzing the Gray photograph. But it's quite clear that Hugh's brother was deeply interested in the monster stories, and he was featured several times in various newspapers, telling his stories. He claimed to have seen the creature on multiple occasions, the first time as early as 1914, when he was only 14 years old. The stories Alexander told sound rather embellished. Believing in a 15-ton monster and associating a jumping salmon with a monster lurking under the surface does seem rather imaginative.

 

[NorCal Dave]

But i might be jaded from watching River Monsters, where it seems men are really into -for some odd testosterone reason-catching the biggest of the big ass fish.

Easy now! My wife loves catching big fish.

 

[yoshy]

See GIF of the changes to the "Battle of LA" photo here: #65

I've never seen that GIF before, thanks! Perfect demonstration

 

[Giddierone]

I've never seen that GIF before, thanks! Perfect demonstration

OT but I think they modeled the finished product on this illustration called 'Zeppelin Attack on the suburbs of Paris, WW1, 1915'
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...paris-world-war-i-1915-a-news-photo/463905425

 

[Mendel]

Has anyone considered that the Grays may be aliens?

ba-dumm pshhhh

 

[Sharon Hill]

Were anyone to utter the phrase "... is one of the top 2 or 3 most qualified UFOlogists in the world", or "... is one of the top 2 or 3 most qualified ghost hunters in the world", I'd make exactly the same comment. These are not phrases that should be used, even if said people may be the best qualified to address the questions raised in those marginal fields - their qualifications are not in those fabulatory fields. What you perceived as snark is merely a humourously-worded call for precision; no offence was meant.

So how would you refer to David Clarke, Greg Eghigian, Nigel Watson? (I don't know if @Mick West would call himself a Ufologist.) But all research ufo claims. I've never seen Naish call himself a cryptozoologists (nor do I) but I do research in the subject area. I deliberately did not use that word "cryptozoologist".

I feel strongly that a reasonable response should be published in rebuttal of poor claims. So, how would you not say you are a researcher?

 

[Ann K]

So how would you refer to David Clarke, Greg Eghigian, Nigel Watson? (I don't know if @Mick West would call himself a Ufologist.) But all research ufo claims. I've never seen Naish call himself a cryptozoologists (nor do I) but I do research in the subject area. I deliberately did not use that word "cryptozoologist".

I feel strongly that a reasonable response should be published in rebuttal of poor claims. So, how would you not say you are a researcher?

I think if I were a serious researcher studying the people holding a controversial view, or the reasons for their beliefs, or the contradictory evidence, I would want to make it plain to colleagues that I'm studying it from the outside looking in rather than from the inside looking out. In other words, to say "I'm not one of them".

 

[NorCal Dave]

I feel strongly that a reasonable response should be published in rebuttal of poor claims. So, how would you not say you are a researcher?

I think it's a matter of wording. As pointed out, Naish was introduced by you as:

Paleozoologist Darren Naish, one of the top 2 or 3 most qualified cryptozoology researchers that exist in the world,

I've read enough of your blogs and heard you on various podcast discussing cryptozoology and cyptozoologists that I immediately lumped Naish in with Krantz, Meldrum, Ketchum and others in the Bigfoot/cryptozoology world upon reading the above introduction.

Yes, you called him a paleozoologist, but one can also say: "Anthropologist Jeff Meldrum is one of the top cryptozoology researchers." Same description, totally different meaning.

It's tough when many of the terms have been co-opted by people that believe in various creatures despite lacking any physical evidence. To my cynical and skeptical ear, maybe just the addition of the word "claim" changes the context:

Paleozoologist Darren Naish, one of the top 2 or 3 most qualified researchers of cryptozoological claims in the world...

Same with Mick, I don't think of him as a UFOlogist or UFO researcher as those are loaded terms that denote UFO believers. He researches UFO claims.

Just a thought.

 

[deirdre]

I've read enough of your blogs and heard you on various podcast

then you should have known that's not what she meant. i've only heard her on MB and i knew that wasnt what she would mean.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

To recap, I think this photo is so ambiguous as to be a Rorschach ink blot. That is supported by how many different "definite" interpretations have been made. But I think we can talk about the lighting conditions.

I'm using a video of a swimming deer as an example of the effects of shooting into the Sun and what it would look like. Not saying it was a deer. (But that's one possibility)

You can face in any direction relative to the Sun and get some Sun glitter on the water - specular reflections of the Sun on ripples/wavelets. You must be facing the Sun to get a true glitter trail.

These are screen captures from a video of a swimming deer. The camera at this moment in the video is facing the Sun.

The deer is in a glitter trail. To me this lighting condition best matches what we see in the Gray photo. The body of the animal is dark because it's the side facing away from the Sun. The water is mottled with bright and dark patches.

Gray photo. The body of the animal, or the inanimate object, is dark because it is in shadow - the side away from the Sun. The water is mottled with bright and dark patches.

I interpret the bright "mist" as backlit spray. It's also motion blurred.
This would mean that it was either a living creature thrashing about - rather than swimming as in the deer video - or is an object being towed.

We can't tell for sure which side the spray is coming from. It could be coming from the near or far side, so we can't really tell which way the animal was thrashing or the object was moving at the moment.



The head of the deer is blocking the sunlight and casts a shadow on the water. The water is dark on the near side. The body of the animal in the Gray photo is casting a shadow on the water. The water is dark on the near side.

This would mean that there is an inconsistency. Gray is supposed to have been facing generally north, but if I'm right in my interpretation, the camera was facing generally to the the south - toward the Sun.

This situation is dependent on the reported time of the sighting/photo being correct. If the time isn't right Gray could have been facing generally east in the morning or generally west in the afternoon.

In any case, this situation would lead to an overexposed negative. If I'm right that Gray was using a basic 1930's box camera, the shutter speed and aperture was fixed. It was fixed to an exposure that would be a compromise between a very brightly lit scene and a poorly lit scene.

Most snapshots would be taken in an ordinary, mundane situation. A picnic during the day... a guy standing next to his new car... the wife and kids at the side of the house. The exposure would be acceptable.

In this situation the negative would be blown out.



Deer video

 

[JMartJr]

I interpret the bright "mist" as backlit spray. This would mean that it was either a living creature thrashing about - rather than swimming as in the deer video - or is an object being towed.

I'd suggest two additional possibilities:

A wave/wake breaking over something in the water.

Somebody chucking rocks and such at a (hopefully not living) object in the water to create splashing.

 

[Ann K]

A wave/wake breaking over something in the water.

Yes, that was always my thought. Look closely: there are two white stripes going across the object which do not look at all like water, which makes me think it's a man-made object, the remains of something like a bent section of an orange crate, or the curved back of a broken chair. (Or it's just one stripe, an image repeated due to slow shutter speed.) Water causes it to be reflecting a glare in places. The wide dark band may just be part of the object.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think a wave is very low probability.

It would have to be breaking over a something large - most likely stone - just beneath the surface. We would see it. Or at least the lighting on the surface of the water would be affected.

A wave at the beach crashing into rocks will send up spray. But a natural wave on a lake or a boat wake? Doesn't seem credible that a low energy wave would send up spray. This is much more consistent with a thrashing animal.

And the shape doesn't seem consistent with a boat wake or natural wave either. I'm talking about the sinuous shape, that has two sharply defined ends.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, that was always my thought. Look closely: there are two white stripes going across the object which do not look at all like water, which makes me think it's a man-made object, the remains of something like a bent section of an orange crate, or the curved back of a broken chair. (Or it's just one stripe, an image repeated due to slow shutter speed.) Water causes it to be reflecting a glare in places. The wide dark band may just be part of the object.
View attachment 83702

Additionally, there is also a (vague) pattern visible in the image. I accentuated what I mean:

 

[Andreas]

To recap, I think this photo is so ambiguous as to be a Rorschach ink blot.

When looking at old newspaper articles from 1933, it becomes clear that at least some of the reported "monster" sightings were likely caused by otters or seals. In some cases, the "creature" was even described as being on the shore before gracefully sliding into the water: "…a long gray-black shape gliding from the land into the loch" (The Scotsman, December 29, 1933). It also seems that many witnesses misjudged the size of what they saw. Hardly surprising since it's almost impossible the tell the size of you can't estimate the distance.

Strangely, there appears to have been a general belief at the time that seals couldn't be found in the loch. In another 1933 article, the Inverness Courier (May 3) described a sighting where the witnesses claimed it was "either a very large seal, a porpoise, or, indeed, the monster itself!" Oddly, the journalist concluded that "neither seals, nor porpoises have ever been known to enter Loch Ness." This was inaccurate at least regarding seals, and for some reason, otters weren't even mentioned as a possible explanation.

With this in mind, could the "object" photographed by Hugh have been an otter or possibly a seal? It seems like a plausible explanation. Still, I would call this case a hoax, since it seems reasonable to assume Hugh knew he wasn't photographing the "monster." As you've pointed out, something is off with the placement of the sun. And perhaps most importantly, there's the angle of the scene: we're looking down at the water, and we can't see the far side of the loch. For this to be possible with a traditional 1930s box camera, the scene must have been captured fairly close to the shore, assuming it wasn't captured from a great height.

 

[Andreas]

Additionally, there is also a (vague) pattern visible in the image. I accentuated what I mean:
View attachment 83706

Exactly. I asked about this in a previous post, but apparently no one had anything to say. Is it an artifact caused by the camera, or could it be a clue to what we're actually looking at? At first glance, it looks like the traces of a small "monster model."

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

With this in mind, could the "object" photographed by Hugh have been an otter or possibly a seal? It seems like a plausible explanation.

It's absolutely credible. And deer are surprisingly good swimmers. You can see YT videos of deer swimming offshore in the ocean as a matter of fact.

Red Deer (Cervus elaphus scoticus) are known to swim in Loch Ness.

That's just limiting it to mammals. My feeling is that it was a living creature thrashing about. I really don't think it was a constructed object as in the Surgeon's Photo. If it were a model, clear photos would have been produced. The idea of just towing a stick and getting a vague photo doesn't seem credible to me.

But we'll never know.

I think Gray was telling porkies about when and where this photo was taken. I have a notion that he invented a story that sounds more reputable and normal than what he was really doing - which was obsessively scouting for the creature at all hours of the day.

Getting a snapshot on the way back from church seems like something normal. It's just on the inside of the line to carry a camera in situation of that kind... just in case you should happen to see something.

Obsessively staking out the lake might seem to be eccentric in a disreputable way. You'd be deemed an unsteady eccentric at best. The culture at that time and place was very sensitive to that kind of thing,.

In the US, present day, people have normalized the outlandish. You can be a UFO nut and be an ER doctor at the same time now. Female elementary school principals are tatted up. (I'm trying to imagine a tatted up teacher in my elementary school in 1965 California... Jesus.)

Can you imagine going to even a blue collar job in Inverness Scotland in 1933 with a nose ring for example?

At the time your reputation would be shot if you wore tweed in the summer or white in winter... on your own time - not even at work. Now you can dress up like a leprechaun if you really want to.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My second choice would be a log caught on a snag. Water was moving past it and piling up against it. The moving water would be the result of a seiche and can move against the wind. But it's hard to reconcile that with the visible spray.

The visible spray might be a red herring. It might not be spray at all.

If the water were piling up against a log we may not see the log itself. Just the piled up water.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Additionally, there is also a (vague) pattern visible in the image. I accentuated what I mean:
View attachment 83706

More faces in the wallpaper?

 

[deirdre]

Still, I would call this case a hoax, since it seems reasonable to assume Hugh knew he wasn't photographing the "monster."

well as you said earlier, it was several weeks before the photo was developed and he wouldn't even be sure which picture on the roll went with which camera shot. Not to mention memory is bad often right after an event, esp a high stress event.. but weeks later? How changed is that memory?

and i know it's annoying how often i bring this up, but it seems people assume 20/20 vision. it's amazing how many things you can misidentify when you dont have 20/20 vision. just today i saw an orange fire in the woods, but when i got my glasses to confirm it was just nearby sun glint on wet leaves.

I personally dont doubt he "thought" he saw something important in the loch. and with all the stories around, his mind jumped to "it may be the creature!". I bet if i went looking for ghosts, in a place with ghost reports, i'd have little trouble convincing myself i saw a ghost. <well not really i'm an ultra skeptic, but you get my point. a large proportion of the population who is less skeptical could convince themselves they saw a ghost.


my friend still swears we played chess with a made up board and household items. i have no recollection of this, and frankly there is no way in hell i would remember if the cheeto was my knight or my rook etc. so it's impossible. she is insistent. i could see us playing checkers that way as all my pieces would be a cheeto, but not chess. memory is funny.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If this is an animal, there's a possibility that we are not seeing any part of the animal's body. We're just seeing the water piled up against the near side of the animal. The water is piled up because the animal is thrashing.

 

[John J.]

Obsessively staking out the lake might seem to be eccentric in a disreputable way. You'd be deemed an unsteady eccentric at best. The culture at that time and place was very sensitive to that kind of thing,.

I'm not so sure. 20th century Britain was maybe fairly accepting of eccentrics.
Alexander Gray seemed happy to discuss his plans to capture the monster with newspaper reporters.

People who might nowadays be considered eccentric were drawn to investigate,

In the 1930s, big-game hunter Marmaduke Wetherell went to Loch Ness to look for the monster. Wetherell claimed to have found footprints, but when casts of the footprints were sent to scientists for analysis they turned out to be from a hippopotamus; a prankster had used a hippopotamus-foot umbrella stand.

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

Wetherell doesn't appear to have been ridiculed for looking for the monster, but for being fooled by (or maybe for perpetrating) a hoax;

As a result, Wetherell was publicly ridiculed by his employer, the Daily Mail. To get revenge on the Mail, Wetherell perpetrated the hoax "surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster with his son Ian...

Wikipedia, M.A. Wetherell

(I hadn't realised before reading this that there was a connection between the hippopotamus footprint hoax and the "surgeon's photograph" of 1934).
The Inverness Courier's coverage of Loch Ness monster stories isn't particularly dismissive or censorious.

Just some general musings about Loch Ness:
Loch Ness is set in a picturesquely rugged rural setting, but it isn't particularly inaccessible and the surrounding communities are not unusually deprived or culturally insular.

Inverness, some 6 miles north of Loch Ness, had a railway to Aberdeen, the 3rd largest city in Scotland, from 1856 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness_and_Aberdeen_Junction_Railway) and a more direct route south to Perth from 1863 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness_and_Perth_Junction_Railway). Perth was already connected to the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, both in turn with lines (now called the West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line) that terminated in London.
Similarly, a road was built connecting Inverness to Perth (and so routes further south) by 1730; when major motor traffic roads were systematically numbered in 1923, the Edinburgh-Inverness route became the A9.
School education of all Scottish children 5-13 was made compulsory in 1872, a little earlier than most US states (the leaving age raising over time).

By the 1930s, ownership of radios, receiving national (e.g. BBC) programs, would have been widespread, and telephones would have been widely accessible (if not necessarily a feature of most homes),

The first British trials of long-distance telephony were conducted between London and Norwich and between Inverness and Wick in 1877, using existing telegraph lines... ...Although it was relatively slow to become accessible to all social classes, the uses of the telephone in Scotland had stabilised by the end of the First World War.

"The Telephone in Scotland", Sean F. Johnston 2009, in Transport and Communications. Publications of the European Ethnological Research Centre; Scottish life and society: a compendium of Scottish ethnology (8), Veitch, K. (ed.), John Donald, Edinburgh https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/24894/1/id24894.pdf
As already mentioned, as Loch Ness forms part of the Caledonian Canal (completed in 1822) it is regularly traversed by modest boats travelling its length (the loch is 36.2 km/ 22.5 miles long but only 2.7 km / 1.7 miles across at its broadest point).

Author Ronald Binns has described the supposed or implied isolation of Loch Ness, in the context of monster reports, as

..."the myth of the lonely loch"...

(Wikipedia, Loch Ness Monster) and I think there's some truth to this.
It's easier to believe a cryptid exists in a 'remote' lake if we're not aware of (or told about) the regular pleasure boat traffic, fishing expeditions, the boat hire and angling businesses and the well-educated locals with cell phones.
(None of whom take any precautions against attack by a monster).

 

[JMartJr]

A wave at the beach crashing into rocks will send up spray. But a natural wave on a lake or a boat wake? Doesn't seem credible that a low energy wave would send up spray.

I gotta disagree. Depending on how small or large we think the "object" in this image is, smallish waves could indeed be splashing over it. This video claims to be from Loch Ness, and I have no reason to doubt the -- but it does not really matter, it is the sort of waves you get on a windy day on a large lake -- not ocean waves, but pretty decent waves that splash when they hit things, like this non-submerged rock:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/50bM9vhXvh4?feature=share


Now this is not a fine spray, but could a more solid splash like this blur out into a "mist" in a longish exposrure (long compared to how long the splash takes!)

Just another good pic of wind-generated waves on the Loch:

VisitScotland - Your Scotland Facebook page

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10160091324646363&set=gm.2067441983704684&idorvanity=418077438641155

Boat wakes can do this as well, and there were some good sized boats traversing the Loch after the Caledonian Canal opened in 1822. Not big ships, but decent sized boats with decent sized wakes.

The canal runs some 60 miles (100 kilometres) from northeast to southwest and reaches 106 feet (32 metres) above sea level. Only one third of the entire length is man-made, the rest being formed by Loch Dochfour, Loch Ness, Loch Oich, and Loch Lochy.
...
The canal finally opened in 1822.

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

I cannot nail down the year of this picture but the ship, the PS Glengarry sailed the Loch earleir than our picture, and is seen here kicking upa good sized wake:

The PS Glengarry was a paddle steamer which often sailed around the Loch, from Inverness to Fort Augustus. Initially when when it started sailing the Caledonian Canal in 1847 it was called Edinburgh Castle, but it was renamed in the 1870s. ... From 1895 the Glengarry was primarily used for a mail run between Fort Augustus and Inverness. The Glengarry was notable for having a very long lifespan for a steamer, being broken up after 83 years of service.

Photo collection of the Glenurquhart Heritage Group: https://www.ambaile.org.uk/asset/22683/

The site notes that the canal and loch(s) became less important for transport once more roads were built along the route and bus service became common.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Look at the water surface of everything you've presented. Does it resemble the water surface in the Gray photo?

 

[Andreas]

Alexander Gray seemed happy to discuss his plans to capture the monster with newspaper reporters.

Indeed, he did—speculating about 15-ton monsters lurking in the loch. He was frequently featured in newspapers, eagerly sharing his stories. Hugh also contacted the Daily Record to tell his tale and provide the photo, agreeing to be identified by name and occupation. It seems quite clear that they enjoyed the attention.

Now this is not a fine spray, but could a more solid splash like this blur out into a "mist" in a longish exposrure (long compared to how long the splash takes!)

Found this old postcard of the Falls of Foyers. I'm not sure what year it was taken, but the long exposure creates some fascinating effects, making the moving water appear almost like a solid body. It's also easy to spot a bit of pareidolia in this photo.

 

[Andreas]

More faces in the wallpaper?

Probably, yes. It's just something about the part of the scene that isn't overexposed—it gives the impression of some kind of solid object floating on the water, rather than just splashes and waves. The shadow near the waterline looks a bit like the shape of a small boat to me, but I'm not sure how a boat could account for the rest of the effects.

 

[JMartJr]

Look at the water surface of everything you've presented. Does it resemble the water surface in the Gray photo?

Valid point -- I'd say the picture of the ship leaving a wake potentially could , if it were closer to the water, as boat wakes happen whatever the surface of the water otherwise would look like. It is also worth noting that I selected pictures looking for very visible waves, to illustrate that waves of some size happen in the Loch; from other angles and under other lighting conditions the waves might not be so visually prominent in the photo and I would not use such pics to illustrate waves... ^_^

But yes, I'd agree that the surface of the water in the pic does not appear particularly rough while there appears to be a swell coming from the upper right. (I'm looking at this version of the pic.)

 

[NorCal Dave]

I don't know, the idea of a swan just starting to dive seems like a good explanation. The head has just gone under the water leaving the neck visible to the left. The wings are folded back over the tail and we can just see the top of the leg as it goes into the water. The legs would normally be completely under the swan, but IIRC from my hunting days, when waterfowl duck under water their legs kinda splay out to help them get completely inverted or ass up.

In this case the swan may be starting to dive or invert itself, or just looking around under the surface to see if there's anything worth diving for. Getting fully inverted may include some thrashing about, but at this point it may be moving around just enough to create some blurry artifacts:

Or maybe just my version of pareidolia.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Swan?

Admittedly, that's a good one.

If it is true, it supports the idea that the camera is facing the Sun. The body of the animal is casting a shadow... or there's a dark specular reflection of the body on the water surface. And the water surface is bright - a glitter trail.

Similar to this situation in which the head of the deer is casting a shadow on the water... or there's a dark specular reflection of the deer's head.

 

[FatPhil]

So how would you refer to David Clarke, Greg Eghigian, Nigel Watson? (I don't know if @Mick West would call himself a Ufologist.) But all research ufo claims. I've never seen Naish call himself a cryptozoologists (nor do I) but I do research in the subject area. I deliberately did not use that word "cryptozoologist".

I feel strongly that a reasonable response should be published in rebuttal of poor claims. So, how would you not say you are a researcher?

The question "how would [you/I] refer to [them]?" is predecated upon me referring to them. As such, it has no answer, as I've never referred to them because I haven't got an [elided] clue who they are. Ask a better question, and you'll get a better answer. (And, clearly, your final question was even worse than the prior one.)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

An alternative explanation for the lighting in the Gray photo...

This is a screenshot from a video of swans. It's titled Swans on a Loch. It doesn't say which loch. Although this features swans, it's meant to be a discussion about lighting.

In this scene, the bright areas on the water are a specular reflection of the sky and the dark areas are a specular reflection of the surrounding landscape - mostly trees. The dark patches on the near side of the animals are dark specular reflections of the animal.

Does this kind of lighting condition match the lighting we see in the Gray photo?

I don't think so. I think the glitter trail scenario is the better match. The mottled surface of bright and dark patches in the glitter trail situation is more consistent than the more discrete, separate and well bounded areas of dark and light patches in the specular reflection of sky and trees situation.


The video

 

[John J.]

Off-topic, maybe some of us wouldn't describe those who investigate claimed UFO sightings from a prosaic/ sceptical perspective as "UFOlogists", unless they use the term to describe themselves; the term seems to have become associated with people who accumulate what they believe to be evidence of the behaviour/ appearance of anomalous flying craft.
Similarly, perhaps some of us wouldn't describe people who comment on cryptozoological claims (as Naish has) as cryptozoologists unless they have adopted that term. Cryptozoology is associated with the belief that unlikely claims about dramatic undiscovered creatures- aquatic monsters, dinosaurs in the Congo, Yetis, "alien" big cats in Britain- might be correct. It isn't concerned per se with the discovery of new species, e.g. a newly-described shrew in Vietnam.

While some of us (inc. me) might not have chosen @Sharon Hill's choice of words, her intent was clear and I hope she continues to contribute here.

 

[Andreas]

(I'm looking at this version of the pic.)

In the "uncropped version," there's a bit more water visible. The picture itself looks pretty poor—likely scanned from a book, judging by the appearance of two separate pages cut together—but it does give us quite a lot of extra water in the foreground to look at.

And a brief observation, though: this is hardly a truly uncropped version, since it appears to be a double-page spread and the proportions most likely matched those of the book. Assuming the film had an aspect ratio of 1.44:1, the photograph must have been trimmed slightly on each short side.

Also, as with the Calvine photo, it almost looks as if the photographer deliberately tried to hide the location and surrounding landmarks. By placing the "creature" high in the scene, he may have cut away the far shore. Had the picture instead looked something like this, we would have had a rather cute little "monster" to speculate about:

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

About the original aspect ratio...

We don't know what it was.

If Gray used a basic box camera, the two most likely ratios would be: 2:3 or 1:1.

But lot's of other possibilities.

Without measuring, it looks to me like the "uncropped image" you posted is 1:1. Square. Pretty believable this is the original aspect ratio.

 

[Andreas]

About the original aspect ratio...

We don't know what it was.

If Gray used a basic box camera, the two most likely ratios would be: 2:3 or 1:1.

But lot's of other possibilities.

Without measuring, it looks to me like the "uncropped image" you posted is 1:1. Square. Pretty believable this is the original aspect ratio.

The "uncropped" photo has an aspect ratio of approximately 1.3:1, which suggests it was probably cropped at least slightly.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Some box cameras that used 127 film produced negatives in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

Question to the mathematicians here. Does 1.3:1 = 4:3? I think it does...

 

[John J.]

Question to the mathematicians here. Does 1.3:1 = 4:3? I think it does...

Approximately; 1/1.3= 0.769, 3/4= 0.75, so an approximate ratio of 1.3 to 1 might indicate an actual aspect ratio of 4:3.