Nessletter - No 121 - 1994

Magazine Overview

This issue of the NESS INFORMATION SERVICE NESSLETTER, number 121, dated February 1994 (with a cover date of April '95), focuses on the controversial 'Surgeon's Photograph' of the Loch Ness Monster. The main article, titled 'SURGEON'S PHOTOGRAPH', presents a detailed critique by Richard Smith, a journalist and researcher, of claims made by Alastair Boyd and David Martin. These claims suggest that the photograph, taken by R.K. Wilson in 1934, was a hoax involving a toy submarine, based on information from Christian Spurling.

Surgeon's Photograph Controversy

Richard Smith expresses his dissatisfaction with how Boyd and Martin have handled the allegations, feeling they have accepted Christian Spurling's story at face value without sufficient critical analysis. Smith respects Alastair Boyd's work but believes that many Loch Ness researchers, including Boyd and Martin, tend to recycle old data and armchair hypotheses. He feels Boyd and Martin have overlooked the 'crucial context' of the alleged hoax, dismissing his concerns with 'ex cathedra arguments'.

Smith argues that the 'Surgeon's Photograph' was not taken in a small bay or inlet as Spurling claims, but rather shows a 'vast expanse of the loch with opposite shore some kilometres away'. He contends that the 'internal evidence of the image totally contradicts Spurling's story'. Smith questions how Spurling explains this discrepancy and suggests that if he cannot, his story 'simply cannot be accepted as evidence to refute Or Wilson's claim that the picture was a genuine image of a so-called Loch Ness Monster'.

Smith also discusses a second, lesser-known photograph, which proponents interpret as showing the monster's head submerging. He notes that the angle of the head and neck differs from the more famous image, and that the object does not appear to be made of 'unbending metal and plastic'. He highlights that Spurling was vague about this second photo, suggesting it might have been a 'piece of wood' used as a test for the monster model. Smith proposes a simpler explanation: that there was no hoax and Spurling was unfamiliar with the object.

Smith further scrutinizes the details of the alleged hoax, questioning the seaworthiness of a toy submarine modified with plastic wood and lead weights, suggesting it would likely sink. He also points out discrepancies in size estimates between Christian Spurling and his stepbrother Ian Wetherall regarding the model's neck, and notes that these differ from scientific analyses by LeBlond/Collins and Steuart Campbell.

Smith challenges Boyd and Martin to explain how their interpretation of the hoax accounts for the distinctive disturbance patterns around the object in the photo, which he believes are inconsistent with a toy boat. He also questions the authors' intent to photograph a one-foot model to replicate the Wilson photos, suggesting it would be an 'extremely interesting experiment'.

Regarding the alleged sinking of the model, Smith finds it improbable that the water bailiff, Alex Campbell, would have been in the vicinity at the precise moment the hoaxers sank the model, especially given the vastness of Loch Ness.

Smith also addresses the alleged copying of the 35mm film to quarter-plates, questioning the process and whether it would have resulted in distortions or shadows indicative of amateur photographic techniques. He concludes that the 'many contradictions show there really was no hoax'.

Historical Context: The Hippo Footprint Hoax

The article revisits the 1933 hippo footprint hoax, orchestrated by Marmaduke Wetherall. Smith notes that this event had a 'disastrous effect on serious research' at Loch Ness, creating a 'widespread inclination to take sighting reports as hoax'. He mentions that the Daily Mail abruptly ended Wetherall's expedition, possibly due to impatience with the lack of results, and that Wetherall's son Ian recalled his father saying, 'All right, We'll give them their monster.' This led to the famous photo that deceived many.

Boyd and Martin's Response

Alastair Boyd and David Martin respond to Richard Smith's criticisms, stating that Smith should be writing an apology for his 'insulting accusations'. They assert that their research has been conducted properly and that Smith's claims are 'outrageous'. They clarify that they supplied BBC Wildlife with prints of the full-frame and cropped versions of the 'Surgeon's Photograph' for an article, and that the cropped version was used due to space limitations. They suggest Smith might have missed the familiar full-frame version.

Boyd and Martin defend their work, stating that their investigations have not ignored evidence. They explain that David Martin's initial research into Marmaduke Wetherall's antics began in February 1991, and he and Alastair Boyd interviewed Christian Spurling in June 1992. From that point, they became convinced the story was genuine and began analyzing Spurling's account and conducting further research. They mention that their work has been constrained by time and energy, with Martin fitting research around his biological work, and that they have suffered from M.E. (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis).

They address the 'minor error' concerning the transfer of the image to quarter-plate, calling it a simple mistake that does not affect the truth of the story. They reiterate that the suggested motive for the hoax was Marmaduke Wetherall's revenge on the Daily Mail.

Boyd and Martin express their belief that Smith is still clinging to illusions about the photograph, even after the truth has been revealed. They mention that they are planning to produce their own booklet/pamphlet covering all aspects of their investigations into the Wilson photographs.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the critical examination of evidence and allegations surrounding the Loch Ness Monster, particularly the 'Surgeon's Photograph'. The editorial stance, as represented by the NESSLETTER, appears to be one of encouraging thorough research and skepticism, while also providing a platform for different viewpoints. The issue highlights the challenges of investigating historical cases where key players are deceased, relying on speculation and interpretation of existing evidence. The publication emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific standards and the need to address internal contradictions in accounts. The editorial also touches on the impact of past hoaxes on the credibility of genuine research in the field of cryptozoology.

FAQ

• What is the main controversy discussed regarding the 'Surgeon's Photograph'? The main controversy is whether the famous 'Surgeon's Photograph' of the Loch Ness Monster was a hoax, as alleged by Christian Spurling, or a genuine image, as claimed by R.K. Wilson and defended by researchers Alastair Boyd and David Martin.

• Who is Richard Smith and what is his stance on the 'Surgeon's Photograph' controversy? Richard Smith is a journalist and researcher who questions the hoax allegations made by Christian Spurling. He believes Alastair Boyd and David Martin have overlooked crucial context and that Spurling's story contains significant inconsistencies.

• What historical event related to Loch Ness research is mentioned? The 1933 hippo footprint hoax, orchestrated by Marmaduke Wetherall, is mentioned as having a disastrous effect on serious research at Loch Ness.

• What are the main arguments against the hoax theory presented by Richard Smith? Richard Smith points to inconsistencies in Christian Spurling's story, the lack of clear evidence for a toy submarine hoax, and the fact that the original full-view photograph does not match Spurling's description of a small inlet.