Friday’s Monster Mash

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.