Muffins! There's a monster on the interweb!
Seriously, this image is making the news rounds and causing lots of consternation. From New York Magazine:
Since its handsome mug appeared on Gawker on Tuesday afternoon, the beast has become something of pop icon: It has spawned several fans, was featured on Fox, and it's surely only a matter of time before it is approached by ABC about starring in a pilot. But no one can definitively say what -- or where -- it is.
Reminds me of this guy:
Seriously, this image is making the news rounds and causing lots of consternation. From New York Magazine:
Since its handsome mug appeared on Gawker on Tuesday afternoon, the beast has become something of pop icon: It has spawned several fans, was featured on Fox, and it's surely only a matter of time before it is approached by ABC about starring in a pilot. But no one can definitively say what -- or where -- it is.
Reminds me of this guy:
Amazing what a picture can do to spur monster rumors. Here's the story of this one, courtesy of Wikipedia. And it's quite the story:
One of the most iconic images of Nessie is known as the 'Surgeon's Photograph', which many formerly considered to be good evidence of the monster. Its importance lies in the fact that it was the only photographic evidence of a "head and neck" - all the others are humps or disturbances. The image was revealed as a hoax in 1994.
Supposedly taken by Mr Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London gynecologist, it was published in the Daily Mail on 21 April 1934. The photo is often cropped to make the monster seem huge, while the original uncropped shot shows the other end of the loch and the monster in the centre. The ripples on the photo fit the size and circular pattern of small ripples as opposed to large waves when photographed up close. Analyses of the original uncropped image have fostered further doubt. A year before the hoax was revealed, the makers of Discovery Communication's documentary "Loch Ness Discovered" did an analysis of the uncropped image and found a white object evident in every version of the photo, implying that it was on the negative. "It seems to be the source of ripples in the water, almost as if the object was towed by something," the narrator said. "But science cannot rule out it was just a blemish on the negative," he continued. Additionally, analysis of the full photograph revealed the object to be quite small, only about 60 to 90 centimetres.
In 1979 it was claimed to be a picture of an elephant. Other sceptics in the 1980s argued the photo was that of an otter or a diving bird, but after Christian Spurling's confession most agree it was what Spurling claimed - a toy submarine with a sculpted head attached. The details of how it was done have been given in a book. Essentially, it was a toy submarine with a head and neck made of plastic wood, built by Christian Spurling, the son-in-law of Marmaduke Wetherell, a big game hunter who had been publicly ridiculed in the Daily Mail, the newspaper that employed him. Spurling claimed that to get revenge, Marmaduke Wetherell committed the hoax, with the help of Chris Spurling (a sculpture specialist), his son Ian Marmaduke, who bought the material for the fake Nessie, and Maurice Chambers (an insurance agent), who would call to ask surgeon Robert Kenneth Wilson to offer the pictures to the Daily Mail.
The hoax story is disputed by Henry Bauer who claims this debunking is evidence of bias, and asks why the perpetrators did not reveal their plot earlier to embarrass the newspaper. He also claimed that plastic wood did not exist in 1934. He was wrong, because it was a popular DIY and modelling material in the 1930s.
Alastair Boyd, one of the researchers who uncovered the hoax, argues the Loch Ness Monster is real, and that the hoaxed Surgeon's Photo is not cause enough to dismiss eyewitness reports and other evidence.
__
I'm very curious to see what happens with the Montauk Monster. I like a shady beast, fake or not.
One of the most iconic images of Nessie is known as the 'Surgeon's Photograph', which many formerly considered to be good evidence of the monster. Its importance lies in the fact that it was the only photographic evidence of a "head and neck" - all the others are humps or disturbances. The image was revealed as a hoax in 1994.
Supposedly taken by Mr Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London gynecologist, it was published in the Daily Mail on 21 April 1934. The photo is often cropped to make the monster seem huge, while the original uncropped shot shows the other end of the loch and the monster in the centre. The ripples on the photo fit the size and circular pattern of small ripples as opposed to large waves when photographed up close. Analyses of the original uncropped image have fostered further doubt. A year before the hoax was revealed, the makers of Discovery Communication's documentary "Loch Ness Discovered" did an analysis of the uncropped image and found a white object evident in every version of the photo, implying that it was on the negative. "It seems to be the source of ripples in the water, almost as if the object was towed by something," the narrator said. "But science cannot rule out it was just a blemish on the negative," he continued. Additionally, analysis of the full photograph revealed the object to be quite small, only about 60 to 90 centimetres.
In 1979 it was claimed to be a picture of an elephant. Other sceptics in the 1980s argued the photo was that of an otter or a diving bird, but after Christian Spurling's confession most agree it was what Spurling claimed - a toy submarine with a sculpted head attached. The details of how it was done have been given in a book. Essentially, it was a toy submarine with a head and neck made of plastic wood, built by Christian Spurling, the son-in-law of Marmaduke Wetherell, a big game hunter who had been publicly ridiculed in the Daily Mail, the newspaper that employed him. Spurling claimed that to get revenge, Marmaduke Wetherell committed the hoax, with the help of Chris Spurling (a sculpture specialist), his son Ian Marmaduke, who bought the material for the fake Nessie, and Maurice Chambers (an insurance agent), who would call to ask surgeon Robert Kenneth Wilson to offer the pictures to the Daily Mail.
The hoax story is disputed by Henry Bauer who claims this debunking is evidence of bias, and asks why the perpetrators did not reveal their plot earlier to embarrass the newspaper. He also claimed that plastic wood did not exist in 1934. He was wrong, because it was a popular DIY and modelling material in the 1930s.
Alastair Boyd, one of the researchers who uncovered the hoax, argues the Loch Ness Monster is real, and that the hoaxed Surgeon's Photo is not cause enough to dismiss eyewitness reports and other evidence.
__
I'm very curious to see what happens with the Montauk Monster. I like a shady beast, fake or not.
Stumble Upon
Leave a comment