In 1934, the most famous photo of the Loch Ness Monster was printed in The Daily Mail. The beasts long, serpentine neck, and small head, can clearly be seen pointing out above the surface of the waters. But is all as it seems?
Is it a legitimate photo of a long thought, extinct creature, an as yet unclassified species, or a misidentified animal?
Or a hoax, cooked up by a big game hunter, his son and a London gynaecologist?
Is it a legitimate photo of a long thought, extinct creature, an as yet unclassified species, or a misidentified animal?
Or a hoax, cooked up by a big game hunter, his son and a London gynaecologist?
The Most Famous Photograph of 'Nessie'
The Surgeon's photo. The Monday 23 April Edition of The Daily News (Perth WA) ran the following story:
LOCH NESS MONSTER PHOTOGRAPHED BY LONDON SURGEON
(Special to 'The Daily News')
LONDON, April 22.
The 'Daily Mail' publishes photographs of the Loch Ness monster, which were taken by the West End surgeon, Dr. Robert Wilson.
The photographs disclose several feet of snake-like neck with a smallish head, corroborating the previous eye-witnesses' statements.
Dr. Wilson says that he saw a commotion in the water, and the head appeared long enough for him to take four snapshots.
The Curator of the London Zoo says that the photographs end the theory that the monster is a grey seal. If the photographs had been taken in mid-ocean he would say that it was a sea-serpent.
The Curator, however, cannot see how a sea-serpent can have entered a fresh water loch.
(sourced from Trove)
This was the first news Australia received, about what would become the “Surgeon’s photo”. This, along with a photo taken the year before, reignited the search for the fabled Loch Ness Monster.
Early reports of the monster dated back to the 6th century by the Irish monk Saint Columba.
LOCH NESS MONSTER PHOTOGRAPHED BY LONDON SURGEON
(Special to 'The Daily News')
LONDON, April 22.
The 'Daily Mail' publishes photographs of the Loch Ness monster, which were taken by the West End surgeon, Dr. Robert Wilson.
The photographs disclose several feet of snake-like neck with a smallish head, corroborating the previous eye-witnesses' statements.
Dr. Wilson says that he saw a commotion in the water, and the head appeared long enough for him to take four snapshots.
The Curator of the London Zoo says that the photographs end the theory that the monster is a grey seal. If the photographs had been taken in mid-ocean he would say that it was a sea-serpent.
The Curator, however, cannot see how a sea-serpent can have entered a fresh water loch.
(sourced from Trove)
This was the first news Australia received, about what would become the “Surgeon’s photo”. This, along with a photo taken the year before, reignited the search for the fabled Loch Ness Monster.
Early reports of the monster dated back to the 6th century by the Irish monk Saint Columba.
A History of Sightings
Saint Columba and his companions came across a burial along the River Ness. The man being buried had been attacked by a water beast and dragged under. Saint Columba, upon hearing this, sent one of his followers into the river, and when the beast appeared, Saint Columba made the sign of the cross and commanded the beast to come no further. At this, the beast fled.
Not much else was spoken about the Loch Ness Monster until 22 July 1933, when George Spicer and his wife saw an 'extraordinary animal' cross the road in front of their car. They lost sight of the animal when it reached the loch.
The following, month a motorcyclist had a similar experience. A creature crossed the road and disappeared into the loch. Both parties described the beast as looking half way between a seal and a plesiosaur, with the motorcyclist giving the description further credit by being a veterinary student.
On the 12th November, 1933 Hugh Gray took a photograph of something in the Loch. The image showed a creature with a long tail and thick body, splashing about in the water. However, this picture would get nowhere near as much publicity as the Surgeon's Photo.
Dr Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London Gynaecologist, was looking out across the loch when he saw the monster. It was enjoying a nice, leisurely swim, and Wilson had time to grab his camera and fire off a quick succession of five photos. When the photographs were developed, only two were clear enough to show any substantial image, with the classic Surgeon's Photo being the earlier of the two.
The photos were dubbed 'The Surgeon's' photo, due to Wilson refusing to have his name published in the 21 April 1934 Edition of 'The Daily Mail'.
Although criticisms were soon forthcoming, it was not fully and closely analysed for forty years.
In 1975, the Sunday Telegraph revealed the photo was a hoax, perpetrated by a employee of The Daily Mail.
Not much else was spoken about the Loch Ness Monster until 22 July 1933, when George Spicer and his wife saw an 'extraordinary animal' cross the road in front of their car. They lost sight of the animal when it reached the loch.
The following, month a motorcyclist had a similar experience. A creature crossed the road and disappeared into the loch. Both parties described the beast as looking half way between a seal and a plesiosaur, with the motorcyclist giving the description further credit by being a veterinary student.
On the 12th November, 1933 Hugh Gray took a photograph of something in the Loch. The image showed a creature with a long tail and thick body, splashing about in the water. However, this picture would get nowhere near as much publicity as the Surgeon's Photo.
Dr Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London Gynaecologist, was looking out across the loch when he saw the monster. It was enjoying a nice, leisurely swim, and Wilson had time to grab his camera and fire off a quick succession of five photos. When the photographs were developed, only two were clear enough to show any substantial image, with the classic Surgeon's Photo being the earlier of the two.
The photos were dubbed 'The Surgeon's' photo, due to Wilson refusing to have his name published in the 21 April 1934 Edition of 'The Daily Mail'.
Although criticisms were soon forthcoming, it was not fully and closely analysed for forty years.
In 1975, the Sunday Telegraph revealed the photo was a hoax, perpetrated by a employee of The Daily Mail.
Why The Hoax?
The uncropped version... In the early 1930's a big game hunter and employee of The Daily Mail made the claim that he had found footprints left by the Loch Ness Monster. However, when experts took a look at the footprints, they turned out to be those of a Hippopotamus... a prankster had left them on the banks of the Loch, and Marmaduke Wetherell looked a fool for having not recognised them. He was ridiculed in the newspaper he worked for, so clearly, revenge was in order!
The story and details of the 'Surgeons Photo' hoax were given to the press by Ian Wetherell, the son of Marmaduke Wetherell. Although this made it out into the media, it was not until twenty years later that the story of the hoax was given any credibility: Alastair Boyd an avid student of Loch Ness Lore came across the 1975 article, and decided to do some following up on the hoax claims
The story and details of the 'Surgeons Photo' hoax were given to the press by Ian Wetherell, the son of Marmaduke Wetherell. Although this made it out into the media, it was not until twenty years later that the story of the hoax was given any credibility: Alastair Boyd an avid student of Loch Ness Lore came across the 1975 article, and decided to do some following up on the hoax claims
How the hoax was accomplished. Ian Wetherall had died by this time, but his step brother Christian Spurling still lived. 93 year old Spurling, now close to death, admitted to being part of the hoax. Spurling had, in fact, been the person responsible for the model of the monster - a simple sculpture attached to a toy submarine. When the model had been placed into the loch, Marmaduke Wetherell, and his son Ian, took the now famous Surgeons Photo.
Wetherall convinced a friend, Dr Wilson, to present the photo as his own, so the Daily Mail would not cotton onto the possible revenge plot. The photo was accepted, and became the most famous photo of the monster.
When one looks at the heavily cropped and published version the object looks quite large, but when examining the original uncropped version, it is clear to see the object cannot be as large as the beast is said to be.
Not everyone believes the story, that the photo was part of an elaborate hoax. Many people attempt to point out inconsistencies.
Regardless, the fact that this photo is almost certainly a hoax, does not disprove the possible existence of a potential prehistoric relic, still living in the Loch. There have been many expeditions made to prove the beasts existence, with each finding their own pieces to add to the mystery.
Wetherall convinced a friend, Dr Wilson, to present the photo as his own, so the Daily Mail would not cotton onto the possible revenge plot. The photo was accepted, and became the most famous photo of the monster.
When one looks at the heavily cropped and published version the object looks quite large, but when examining the original uncropped version, it is clear to see the object cannot be as large as the beast is said to be.
Not everyone believes the story, that the photo was part of an elaborate hoax. Many people attempt to point out inconsistencies.
Regardless, the fact that this photo is almost certainly a hoax, does not disprove the possible existence of a potential prehistoric relic, still living in the Loch. There have been many expeditions made to prove the beasts existence, with each finding their own pieces to add to the mystery.
Ashley Hall 2013
RSS Feed
