The 1933 Hugh Gray Loch Ness monster photo

[Andreas]

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.

A reasonable assumption, then, is that this could indeed be an uncropped version—as claimed. At least, we have no clear indications that it isn't. Still, the horizontal placement of the "creature" dead center in the scene is somewhat remarkable for a photo said to have been taken in haste by an excited and stressed observer. We've had the same discussion regarding the Calvine photo. (Heck, the two stories are actually quite similar: a series of photos claimed to have been taken, yet only one remains; a scene without landmarks, making it impossible to determine the size of the "object"; and no way of knowing what the "object" actually is.)

Also, I'm not sure if I'm just biased, but when looking at the photo—especially the foreground water—doesn't the whole scene appear rather close? Far from the 100 yards or so that is often claimed.

 

[Ann K]

Still, the horizontal placement of the "creature" dead center in the scene is somewhat remarkable for a photo said to have been taken in haste by an excited and stressed observer.

Also, I'm not sure if I'm just biased, but when looking at the photo—especially the foreground water—doesn't the whole scene appear rather close? Far from the 100 yards or so that is often claimed.

The first point makes no sense. The natural response of a photographer, especially an amateur in a hurry, is to shoot straight at an object that's directly in the middle of the viewfield. It's not being well-composed as an art form; it's just the recording of one data point at one moment.

I agree with your second point completely. And on closer examination, the shutter speed must have been fast enough that the water motion is captured fairly well, but the object is more blurred. An animate creature? A piece of flotsam in the act of rolling over in the water? I don't know.

 

[Andreas]

first point makes no sense.

Well, I do think it makes at least some sense The thing is, photographs taken by amateurs often look kinda funky. When I flip through my parents' old photo albums, most of the pictures are crooked or off-center. Even portraits often look strange, with half the head chopped off, etc. In the case of the Gray photo, we're talking about a snapshot taken with an old box camera—maybe a Kodak Brownie or something similar—by someone who claimed he'd just spotted a "monster" and was in a rush to capture it. Even when people try to "shoot straight at an object," the results often come out differently.

the shutter speed must have been fast enough that the water motion is captured fairly well

Good point. This puzzles me a bit. The motion in the water seems fairly sharp with little motion blur to the waves.

 

[Andreas]

Looking closely at the "uncropped" photo, I get the impression that we might actually be seeing the edge of the shore down in the bottom right corner.

If that's the case, then the whole scene is indeed a lot closer than people usually assume. The little waves/curls at the front look like they're breaking against the shore, and that darker patch at the bottom could very well be the shoreline. For comparison, I've put a high contrast detail of the Gray photo next to one taken near Foyers, where the water does seem to stay fairly shallow by the shore.

As for the blurry white "mist" around the "creature," I could imagine it being caused by small waves slapping against something floating in the shallow water — say, a model that isn't moving much on its own. Even on a calm day, that could explain the effect. I know Loch Ness is deep with steep shores, but in this photo, taken close the Foyers, the water seems fairly shallow close to the shore.

Of course, the Gray photo is such poor quality that we're left guessing. Personally, it really feels like a close-up of something small rather than a huge creature out in the middle of the loch. Given that the Gray brothers were both really into the monster stories and clearly enjoyed the attention, a hoax doesn't seem far-fetched to me.

I guess it's difficult to get any further without a better picture to investigate. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread—it's been really interesting to hear your thoughts!

 

[Andreas]

I don't know, the idea of a swan just starting to dive seems like a good explanation.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I don't think the "compare" feature works anymore on the forum, but I'll try:

[compare]

[/compare]

Apparently not. Used to be able to move a slider back and forth on 2 photos to compare them. But, even just the 2 photos together are pretty revealing.

 

[Ann K]

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.

One problem with the swan hypothesis is that in the original photo, there's no significant water movement around the left portion, but in the swan photo, that's where all the action is. A swan's head ducking under is the part that's in motion and thus would be expected to create ripples, but in the OP it's not seen.

 

[Ann K]

When I flip through my parents' old photo albums, most of the pictures are crooked or off-center. Even portraits often look strange, with half the head chopped off, etc.

Absolutely true. As a child I was decapitated in a good many old photos. My father had an old bellows-type camera that unfolded from its case, and there was a separate viewfinder. But upon looking up SLR cameras, I see they were invented back in 1861, and I see no reason why a good camera should have been out of a hobbyist's reach in the 1930s. On the other hand, he may have just been more skilled in the use of the camera than my father was!

 

[JMartJr]

Also, I'm not sure if I'm just biased, but when looking at the photo—especially the foreground water—doesn't the whole scene appear rather close?

That is my strong impression too.

 

[Andreas]

One problem with the swan hypothesis is that in the original photo, there's no significant water movement around the left portion, but in the swan photo, that's where all the action is. A swan's head ducking under is the part that's in motion and thus would be expected to create ripples, but in the OP it's not seen.

I guess that depends a bit on the circumstances. When a swan ducks underwater, there will definitely be some movement in the water. But if it keeps its head submerged for a while, those small ripples soon disappear. And a swan can hold its head underwater for quite a while.

An interesting detail is the shadow/reflection in the Gray photo—it actually matches a swimming swan quite well, I think.

 

[Andreas]

Mmm…

 

[JMartJr]

This swan stuff is fascinating -- like the "swimming retriever with a stick," I'd heard it mentioned but never was able to see it in the picture, until somebody sketched it for me. Now I can see the swan. It's a nice fit.

But so was the dog face.

This picture is of such poor quality, I suspect there are a lot of things we can see in it, if we are clever enough and look hard enough. Assuming it actually shows anything that was there at all, and is not an intentional or accidental "whoopsie" in the film or in the developing process. It's a Rorschach photo, your brain can see all sorts of stuff there!

I think the most we'll ever be able to say here is, "Look, there are lots of things this blurry indistinct blob COULD be. It COULD be an unknown creature splashing about, or a wave, or a swan, or a dog, or a flaw in the negative, or any number of other things. Since that is true, it is not evidence of ANY one thing, particularly it is not evidence for something as extraordinary as a large prehistoric animal living in a lake in Scotland."

 

[Andreas]

Since that is true, it is not evidence of ANY one thing, particularly it is not evidence for something as extraordinary as a large prehistoric animal living in a lake in Scotland.

You're absolutely right. The photo is so bad it could be literally anything—which makes it perfect proof of… absolutely nothing.

What strikes me is how much the Calvine case and the Hugh Gray photo have in common: both are blurry, low-quality shots of something, which means they can be used by believers as "evidence" of anything.

Still, I can't help but love these old cases. They're like little time capsules showing us how superstition, media hype, and wishful thinking are brewed together to create modern legends. Digging through the newspapers of 1933 is fascinating—you can almost watch Nessie being invented in real time. Before that, most people had never heard of her outside of old folktales, and Loch Ness was by no means associated with a strange creature. But by the end of 1933, she'd gone from myth to "flesh and blood monster" that people thought they might catch or snap on film.

It's the same playbook we see today with UFOs, UAPs, or mysterious drones: hoaxers, dreamers, and newspapers cooking up a soup with no ingredients. The only surprise to me is that the Gray brothers aren't written about more often, given how much they seems to have contributed to launching one of the most famous cryptids of all time.

 

[Andreas]

One problem with the swan hypothesis is that in the original photo, there's no significant water movement around the left portion, but in the swan photo, that's where all the action is. A swan's head ducking under is the part that's in motion and thus would be expected to create ripples, but in the OP it's not seen.

If it's a swan (and I'm sure we'll never be able to say for certain), I don't think it's diving per se, but rather dipping its head under the water to look for food. In such cases, there are hardly any ripples.

But then again, we'll probably never know for sure what's in the photograph.

 

[Ann K]

Before that, most people had never heard of her outside of old folktales, and Loch Ness was by no means associated with a strange creature. But by the end of 1933, she'd gone from myth to "flesh and blood monster" that people thought they might catch or snap on film.

It's the same playbook we see today with UFOs, UAPs, or mysterious drones: hoaxers, dreamers, and newspapers cooking up a soup with no ingredients.

Nessie and UFOs have other similarities. They're money-making businesses, as any drive past the souvenir shops in the various towns along the Great Glen can tell you.

 

[Andreas]

Nessie and UFOs have other similarities. They're money-making businesses, as any drive past the souvenir shops in the various towns along the Great Glen can tell you.

Yes, indeed—it's a lucrative business. Even I have a tiny Nessie standing in my cabinet of curiosities, though I haven't contributed to the Scottish tourism industry, since I built her myself.

 

[Scaramanga]

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.

After looking at the image a number of times, it suddenly dawned on me that actually it looks just like something has been thrown into the water ( towards the camera ). The leading edge of the object is clearly starting to push underwater and push a wave back, and the bright streaks are actually the ejected water flying upwards...and not some camera defect or sun reflection. I suspect what you are seeing is the exact moment of a log being thrown into the water, and that only after it was developed did the photographer think ' hey...I could pass this off as Nessie'.

 

[Ann K]

Yes, indeed—it's a lucrative business. Even I have a tiny Nessie standing in my cabinet of curiosities, though I haven't contributed to the Scottish tourism industry, since I built her myself.

A popular favorite, often shown placed on a mirror:

 

[JMartJr]

A popular favorite, often shown placed on a mirror:
View attachment 83814

I have one!

 

[Andreas]

After looking at the image a number of times, it suddenly dawned on me that actually it looks just like something has been thrown into the water ( towards the camera ). The leading edge of the object is clearly starting to push underwater and push a wave back, and the bright streaks are actually the ejected water flying upwards...and not some camera defect or sun reflection. I suspect what you are seeing is the exact moment of a log being thrown into the water, and that only after it was developed did the photographer think ' hey...I could pass this off as Nessie'.

That is indeed a plausible explanation, and I've thought along the same lines myself. The only thing I can't wrap my head around is why Hugh would have taken a random shot of some object being thrown into the water. If it was a stick or something similar, then—considering the "monster-hunting" context—I really suspect it was a deliberate attempt to create a funky-looking effect that could be passed off as the "monster" splashing against the surface.

Let's say the Gray brothers, unable to prove the existence of the "monster" despite trying for several months, decided to create a fake photo. Alexander threw some suitable object into the water, and Hugh tried to capture the splash with his camera. As he later described in the Daily Record article, most of the photos turned out like garbage, but luckily one of them showed a splash that was convincing enough to be interpreted as the "monster."

Sorry for speculating, but given the lack of evidence in such a poor-quality photograph, it feels almost inevitable.

 

[Andreas]

Another rather crazy idea I haven't been able to shake off: we know Hugh's brother was a "monster hunter," trying to capture the beast with a homemade trapping device. According to an article in the Inverness Courier (May 30, 1933), the trap consisted of "a sealed barrel to which was attached thirty to sixty yards of strong wire." The article also notes that Alexander was unsuccessful but intended to continue his attempts later.

Could the object we see in the photo actually be that barrel, with some nets and wires attached? A crazy idea, I know—impossible to prove or disprove—but still a tempting one. Taking a picture of the "monster trap" seems like something one might do, and the shape is at least somewhat barrel-like.

 

[Sharon Hill]

Nessie and UFOs have other similarities. They're money-making businesses, as any drive past the souvenir shops in the various towns along the Great Glen can tell you.

All paranormal things have associated commercialism. Paranormal tourism is a huge thing.

 

[Sharon Hill]

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".

I don't think referring to others who hold believer views as "them" is a good tactic. It's belittling. Sure there are those that hold extreme views, but lumping people with labels like that isn't conducive to understanding.

I think it's a matter of wording.

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.

Adding "claims" is an improvement. But I deliberately didn't use "cryptozoologist" because that's seriously problematic. Even Meldrum doesn't call himself that and even objects to the term because of its poor rep.

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.)

I assumed a well informed crowd would know of these fair minded scholarly researchers of UFO history (though Watson is not an academic.) I'm interested in the reaction to skeptical commentators by the believer communities and how it works or fails. It's tough to be recognized and listened to. I haven't seen a great way of characterizing skeptical research without using the word "skeptic" which is just as problematic as "cryptozoologist" in a way. I already know what mostly fails - being obnoxious, dismissing and insulting.
So, nevermind then.

 

[Ann K]

I'm interested in the reaction to skeptical commentators by the believer communities ....... I haven't seen a great way of characterizing skeptical research without using the word "skeptic" which is just as problematic as "cryptozoologist" in a way.

You've recognized the two camps of opposites here; in other words, "us" and "them". That's a simple acknowledgement of facts, and the existence of many undecided people doesn't change the fact that for the most part, those most skeptical about fringe claims are the ones who seek out rational explanations instead of jumping to the irrational and uncritical conclusions that are often seen among the believers.

I don't find "skeptic" to be problematic. It is only used as an insult by the same people who fall into the group that do not want their interpretations to be questioned.

 

[Mendel]

You've recognized the two camps of opposites here; in other words, "us" and "them". That's a simple acknowledgement of facts, and the existence of many undecided people doesn't change the fact that for the most part, those most skeptical about fringe claims are the ones who seek out rational explanations instead of jumping to the irrational and uncritical conclusions that are often seen among the believers.

so where do you put the "we have credible evidence that warrants further research" people?

it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy

and Metabunk aims to be a place to talk about evidence regardless of what you believe, so that's all "us"

 

[deirdre]

I'm interested in the reaction to skeptical commentators by the believer communities and how it works or fails.

so did you learn that reposting another skeptic using mocking words like "pokemon-like" is a fail?

 

[Trailblazer]

According to the Daily Record, Gray claimed he took the photo on Sunday, November 12, 1933, at "about one o'clock." He's also quoted as saying, "the loch was as still as a mill pond and the sun was shining brightly." I don't know how to find historical weather reports for Scotland, and I'm no expert in determining the sun's position at that time of year over Loch Ness. Maybe someone with the right skills could help me out here.

The relevant Met Office Daily Weather report is here: https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_35c3ef14-887c-48b4-a97d-1249926f08c2/

Chart and forecast could agree with the description: light winds, rising barometer with Scotland in a "col" on the afternoon of the 12th. Cold and bright.

However the observations don't match.
The nearest observation in the report is from Dalwhinnie which is 24 miles south-southeast of Foyers. And there is an observation at 1pm:

Key to the letters and numbers:

So at Dalwhinnie the weather was described as "generally cloudy" (c) with a very light northerly wind (force 1) and a temperature of 40ºF (4ºC). The cloud was described as cumulo-nimbus at low level (3) and thick altostratus and medium level (2); the dash for high-level cloud suggests that the sky was not visible at all above medium level. That is confirmed by the cloud amount column which shows 7-8 tenths of cloud cover at low level and 10/10 total cloud cover, with a base of 1,500 feet.

Certainly not clear and bright at Dalwhinnie, but the loch may well have been millpond calm. And it's worth noting that at Aberdeen, 90 miles east of the loch, it was virtually cloudless at the same time, so there was clearly a lot of variation in cloud cover over Scotland.

 

[Trailblazer]

And for completeness, here are the reports from Nov 26 seeing as that was apparently the date originally quoted.

Clearer skies but a much fresher wind (force 4 at Dalwhinnie).

 

[Andreas]

Certainly not clear and bright at Dalwhinnie, but the loch may well have been millpond calm. And it's worth noting that at Aberdeen, 90 miles east of the loch, it was virtually cloudless at the same time, so there was clearly a lot of variation in cloud cover over Scotland.

Thanks a lot! This was really informative and helpful. But as you say, it's difficult to draw firm conclusions from the observations, since we don't know the actual weather in Foyers. And given that cloud cover seems to have varied greatly across Scotland that day, it's certainly possible that the sun managed to break through over Foyers even if Dalwhinnie was under total cloud cover.

Regarding Gray's description of the weather, I've always found it remarkable that he used almost exactly the same words as the couple who reportedly made the first modern Nessie sighting in May 1933. When it was reported in the Inverness Chronicle, the water was described as "calm as the proverbial mill pond." For someone interested in monster stories, it's not far-fetched to think Gray might have been heavily influenced by that first sighting.

 

[JMartJr]

Moments like this, you suddenly realize "Man, life of a debunker is sure easier when there are satellite weather images and you can SEE where the actual clouds are..."

Re: "Freshening wind" referenced in those:

When the term freshening is used in conjunction with wind means that the wind speed will significantly increase from a low value. The term is not used to describe further strengthening of winds that are already strong.

and

The term fresh also shows up in the Beaufort wind scale to describe a range of specific wind speeds, as in fresh breeze for winds of 19-24 m.p.h.

This can cause a bit of confusion -- "freshening" does not necessarily mean increasing to "fresh."
https://wgntv.com/weather/weather-blog/what-does-it-mean-when-a-forecast-indicates-that-winds-will-freshen/

On the Beaufort Scale, a Moderate Wind (or Breeze) is in the 13-19 MPH range, and described as

Small waves becoming longer; fairly frequent white horses Raises dust and loose paper; small branches moved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale
Mentioned since "Moderate wind" is mentioned in a few places in the scans above. And because I found the reference to whitecaps as "white horses" to be charming, and evocative of the Scottish "water horse" legends which may have helped stimulate the Loch Ness myth.

 

[silverado]

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

I am a bit late to this discussion, but I would correct some things mentioned by "John J.".

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.

Those comments above were added in a "Discussions" section by another person and not me. Okay, you weren't to know that, but I would agree with the basic premises behind some of the statements made. Certainly the idea of an "unbiased" author I would challenge in more ways than one and I would apply that to people on either side of the debate.

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).

Logically, one does not follow from the others. The Wilson photo and fake footprints originate in one person - Marmaduke Wetherell. So they should be treated as one and not two points of argumentation. The hippo footprint was actually an ashtray owned by Wetherell and not an umbrella stand.

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.

So I would link your "more likely explanation" further up to your "very unlikely indeed" here. You do not believe there is a large unidentified animal in Loch Ness (or assign a probability so low as to equate to unbelief) therefore the Hugh Gray photograph cannot carry any information to that end. That is not a criticism, it is a natural and logical conclusion and it will influence your deliberations on the image. Neither does it imply there must be information in the photograph pertaining to a large creature. I believe there is a large creature in the loch and that will likewise influence my deliberations on such images. However, like you I will take a position on an image being a hoax where I think the evidence supports it - such as the Wilson photograph (which was exposed as such by someone who also believed in a large creature).

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)

Sandy Gray was an experienced angler who scaled up his normal baiting of Loch Ness fish to something somewhat bigger. There is no suggestion that this was a joke or staged event, he was serious about it. So I am not sure if your statement is a deduction or a speculation?

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);

I am aware of a lot of things about Loch Ness ...

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.

Therein lies a potentially bigger discussion, but I will stick to Hugh Gray for now.

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.)

... therefore ... ?

...

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).

Yes, I would think it unlikely as well, they tended to ship their product out as ingots.

 

[Mendel]

Welcome to Metabunk! It's always good to discuss with people well versed in the facts of a case.

Those comments above were added in a "Discussions" section by another person and not me. Okay, you weren't to know that, but I would agree with the basic premises behind some of the statements made.

The paper at https://www.researchgate.net/public...Analysis_of_the_Hugh_Gray_'Nessie'_Photograph lists Roland Watson (presumably, you?) as the single author; it would be concerning if you did not agree with your own paper, at least at the time.

The paper states:

The sociopolitical difficulties include typically a highly polarized audience, i.e., confirmed believers versus insistent disbelievers who improperly call themselves 'skeptics.' There is a notable lack of engagement between the two groups, let alone any constructive adversarial collaboration as seen in other areas of mainstream academia and edge science (e.g., Bateman et al., 2005; Cowan et al., 2020; Honorton & Hyman, 1986; Laythe & Houran, 2022). A form of skepticism often confidently presents untested speculations and sometimes even levies ad hominem attacks. Rather than make a sustainable case that the evidence presented by proponents is inconclusive or incorrect, such critics insist that believers are simply wrong and thereby assert certainty where there is none (Bauer, 2014).

I think we all would like to see Metabunk as a venue for "constructive adversarial collaboration", so again, welcome!

 

[John J.]

Hi Silverado, welcome.

Those comments above were added in a "Discussions" section by another person and not me. Okay, you weren't to know that, but I would agree with the basic premises behind some of the statements made.

The paper lists one author. It is common for academic/ research papers to have a discussion section.
Unless it is clearly stated otherwise, the reader will be under the impression that the discussion section is written by the author of the paper.

If another person has contributed substantial content to a paper (which is not a quote or citation but part of the main narrative) they should be listed as a co-author- certainly if they wrote the discussion section.

In the discussion section it states

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.

I disagree. It expresses a "recommendation" that people who are sceptical of an extraordinary claim shouldn't publish or "otherwise disseminate" their views without "direct evidence". It comes across as a desire for "a chilling effect" (to me, anyway).
People should be free to express their views (with some necessary exceptions) with the understanding that others are free to criticise those views.

The paper makes no similar recommendation for claimants of extraordinary events and their supporters.
Often the evidence they put forward is anecdotal or (as is the case of the photo discussed in Empirical Analysis of the Hugh Gray Nessie Photograph) ambiguous.

I don't have evidence that benevolent alien visitors didn't tell Billy Meier that "gypsies" will be a problem for the rest of humanity in the future.
We don't have evidence that there aren't aliens and reverse-engineered FTL drives and free energy machines at Area 51, it's difficult to prove a negative (and few of us will have access to Area 51).
We don't have evidence that George Adamski photographed models of flying saucers, other than his photos resemble the lid of a gas lantern. It might be a coincidence. And even if we had that evidence, that isn't evidence he didn't meet a Venusian who took him on a trip to see life on the far side of the Moon.

Should people who don't believe these claims follow the paper's recommendation and not "...publish or otherwise disseminate their views without "direct evidence"'? Because advocates for the reality of alien abductions, remote viewing, mediumship, huge undiscovered hominids in North America, and beliefs that vaccination programs are part of some malign conspiracy, will not be following that advice.
However, scepticism about UFOs/ poltergeists/ psi etc. etc. is perhaps less likely to "undermine public education in science" than not addressing those claims.
Looking at the threads on this forum, sure people make mistakes or misinterpret stuff, and many tentative explanations for extraordinary events are questionable, incomplete or can be shown to be incorrect (I've got many things wrong). But generally there's a respect for scientific methodology, an understanding of the importance of testable evidence and (where possible) replicability. I've learned lots from other posters here.
From evidence posted here and elsewhere, we know that some photos of e.g. UFOs, ghosts, Nessie are misidentifications or hoaxes. This isn't in doubt. But there are no photos that are broadly accepted as unambiguously demonstrating the existence of UFOs, ghosts or Nessie.
There is no convincing testable evidence that suggests these things exist.

I'd like there to be a large mysterious beastie in Loch Ness, and when I was much younger I believed there was.
But sometimes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. With Nessie, it's not because of any lack of effort in trying to find her.
The photo in "Empirical Analysis..." is highly ambiguous. We can't be confident of the size of whatever is in the photo, and we can't be sure where the photo was taken. It might not be a swimming dog, it might not be a swan, it might not be a sturgeon although we know these things exist. It might not be the Loch Ness Monster, which we don't know exists. It might be a photo of something else misidentified as a possible LNM, or it might be a hoax. We know misidentified objects/ creatures, and hoaxes, exist.