Tuesday, August 28, 2012

A Beast With Two Backs - The Gray Photo Deconstructed

In his landmark book The Monsters of Loch Ness (Swallow Press, 1976) University of Chicago Professor Roy P. Mackal wrote of the 1933 Hugh Gray photograph:

"I believe the picture is probably a genuine photograph of one of the aquatic animals in Loch Ness.  However, objectively, nothing decisive can be derived from this picture.  There is no apparent basis for determining which is front or back, and any such decisions must depend largely on what preconceptions one may have.  Nevertheless, the two protuberances along the waterline may well represent appendages (fore and hind limbs), and the outline at the waterline appears to show a horizontal sinuous undulation.  The importance of providing photographic evidence of these possibilities is not to be underestimated."

A distinguished research biologist, as well as being the first scientist to apply computer based statistical analysis to Loch Ness phenomenon data, Mackal was no easy pushover.  In his analyses of the Loch Ness "monster" surface photos then extant, he awarded his "positive evidence" rating to only three, including the Gray Photo, while ruling out even that most famous of Nessie pictures, the Surgeon's Photo by R.K. Wilson, a photo widely accepted as authentic by many people of the time.

Mackal's observations about the Gray photo were astute, but also rather remarkable considering the poor quality of the image he and every other researcher had to work with at the time.  Here is a scan of the Gray photo as it appeared in Mackal's book:


References to the Gaelic water horse tradition, and specific mentions of the Each Uisge or kelpie of  Loch Ness, the loch most frequently cited in conjunction with  the tradition, are scattered throughout historical texts written from the 16th century and forward.  A Pictish gravestone dating from between the 7th and 9th centuries depicts the creature, as may some earlier carvings.  The earliest recorded sighting of a "monster" in Loch Ness (or at least the River Ness, depending on one's source) details an encounter with the animal made by Saint Columba, while traveling through Scotland in the late 6th century on a mission to convert the Picts.  For a full account of the long overlooked historical tradition behind the Loch Ness mystery animal, I heartily recommend reading Roland Watson's book The Water Horses of Loch Ness (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011).

Despite the ancient and deeply rooted tradition that large, unidentified animals lived in the depths of Loch Ness, it's unlikely that few people outside the Highlands of Scotland would have paid the matter any attention if it had not been for one invention: the camera.

Around Sunday noon on the date of November 12, 1933, while strolling home from church, a local resident named Hugh Gray spotted something rise in the Loch, thrashing its tail and making a considerable splashing about 100 yards out from the spot where the river Foyers enters Loch Ness.  Gray's sighting was only one of many over the centuries, but what distinguishes it from all that came before was that he was carrying a camera, and used it to take the first known photograph of the animal.  He took five pictures in total, unsure if any would turn out amidst all the splashing and spray.  One photo did turn out, and along with Gray's story it was submitted to The Daily Record and Mail.  The Daily Record had the fortuitous presence of mind to submit the negative to several experts, including Kodak, all of whom agreed there was no sign of any tampering.  Of course it would have been highly difficult in those pre-Photo Shop days for Hugh Gray, a local aluminum company worker, to have engaged in trick photography, but it is all the better for us that the provenance of the original photograph and negative was being firmly established at this early point, re-enforced in subsequent years by the findings of those researchers who visited Gray.  Interviewed over the years by the likes of Constance Whyte, Ted Holiday, and Tim Dinsdale, Gray never waivered in the details of his story, and must be considered a highly reliable and even reluctant witness.

The Daily Record published the Gray Photo in December of 1933.  It was quickly picked up and repeated in The Daily Sketch, The Daily Telegraph, and newspapers across the world.  In modern terms, the story "went viral", and the modern, press-driven era of "The Loch Ness Monster" and its nickname "Nessie" had begun


The various versions of the picture as published by the press of the day can be found all over the Internet, and generally look no better than this:

And it was from reproductions like these, made from the original negative first being converted to half-tones, and then having had their contrast considerably tweeked upwards to darken and "solidify" the images for newsprint publication -- processes which inevitably subtract all fine detail -- that Loch Ness investigators have had to work for the past eight decades.  Back in the early nineties when I originally became interested in seeing if I could work out the morphology of the Loch Ness animal for myself, I put one of my first computers to work scanning images of the various photos from books, another process which in itself can lead to further lost detail and the introduction of visual artifacts that weren't part of the original photo.  One result was the reproduction of the Gray Photo from the Mackal book, found at the very top of this article.  The fact is that if you tweek and photo-shop any photo enough, you might start seeing Labrador Retrievers in anything, including the Mona Lisa.  (That Gray photographed a dog is a ludicrous and lamentable idea that itself went viral in the early days of popular Internet usage, and some renditions of the Gray photo floating around appear further retouched to deliberately bolster that ridiculous notion.)

Looking at these newsprint and book reproductions leaves little wonder why Mackal wrote "There is no apparent basis for determining which is front or back, and any such decisions must depend largely on what preconceptions one may have."  And yet there is enticing detail in even these images.  Coupled with Gray's testimony there can be no doubt we are looking at an animate, living object.  The part on the left is the clearest element of the image, and caught in the act of undulating as Hugh Gray described the tail to be doing.  There's not one but two pointed, fin-like structures arising from the top of this tail, if it's the tail, at the point it meets the main body, but then these fins appear to diverge into different directions -- which seemingly makes no sense.  This particular mystery is most evident in the higher contrast versions:

But if this is the tail, then where is the neck and head?  If one is working from the preconception that there has to be a long neck, then perhaps this is the neck, and perhaps those dorsal fins, if relaxed and hanging, would account for the occasional reports of a mane?  Following an assumption this is the head and neck, then the head is small indeed, absolutely miniscule in proportion to the overall size of the animal; it appears completely undifferentiated from the "neck" here, although there may be a couple minute features visible that could be eye slits or even little stalks (except that they only appear at the highest contrast and when the image is taken from a book; on this small scale they may only be artifacts of the printing process).

Also, if this is the neck, then the tail (which must be quite developed to serve as Nessie's means of reputed rapid propulsion) must be at the right hand end of the object, but there's no sign of it; could it be flexed down at an acute angle and fully below the waterline?  Conversely, if this element in the image detail above is actually the tail, then it's the neck bent acutely below the waterline at the right end of the object; that might make some sense if Nessie is floating on the surface dangling its neck below the waterline like a fishing line intent on snagging prey.  But if that were the case, all the splashing and tail thrashing Gray reported seems counterproductive to sneaking up on fish.

Other intriguing details in the total picture are the two white dots along the waterline where one might expect appendages to be.  F.W. Holiday studied the Gray Photo intensely, was one of the interviewers of Hugh Gray, and visited the spot from which the picture was taken.  In The Great Orm of Loch Ness (W.W. Norton and Co., 1968) he states his conviction these are indeed the parapodia of the Loch Ness animal.

And here is pretty much where further analysis of the Gray Photo was stalled.  There wasn't enough detail in any of these newsprint photos and their circulating reproductions to answer these questions.  Unfortunately whatever became of the original negative is unknown.  After nearly 80 years of study, not much more could be said.


In 2011, Loch Ness researcher and author Roland Watson wrote the definitive analysis of the Hugh Gray Photo in his article The Hugh Gray Photograph Revisited.  It is published at his blog, and it is mandatory reading for anyone interested in the Loch Ness animal, and the Hugh Gray photo in particular.  To quote Mr. Watson:

"It is best in these cases to get the most original image and as luck would have it another print came into the hands of Maurice Burton in the 1960s which were made from glass lantern slides in 1933 for E. Heron-Allen. Importantly, these contact positives were made from the original negative and represent the best untouched picture of what Hugh Gray saw that day."

Watson obtained this all-important picture, made from the original negative, from the Fortean Picture Library.  The full image used in Mr. Watson's analysis may be viewed in his blog article mentioned and linked to above.  In commenting on Watson's analysis, Aleksandar T. Lovchanski furnishes the information that Steuart Campbell deposited the glass lantern slide print with the FPL after obtaining it from Burton.  Therefore the provenance of the Heron-Allen version is rather well established, stretching back to the original negative.  It is only regrettable that this more definitive version of the Gray Photo was overlooked by so many researches for so long.

The Heron-Allen image contains all the detail lost in the press reproductions and their overwhelming contrast adjustments, and upon studying it Roland Watson made what few would contest must be the most important discovery in Loch Ness research in many years.  He found the head!  And it is on the right.

Having stared at the Gray Photo in books, having scanned it, enlarged it, filtered it, sketched it, and looked at it every way possible for about 40 years, I'm still a bit thunderstruck by this revelation.  But I am convinced that what Watson has identified as the head is indeed just that: our only known picture of the head of the unidentified species in Loch Ness.

At first this struck me as creating more problems than it solved, as like many I took it that Nessie had a long neck and a small head.  While I never subscribed to the Plesiosaur theory, I assumed that convergent evolution had resulted in an amphibian with an anatomy that followed the long-necked, fish-chasing body plan of a Plesiosaur.  Nature does not discard proven templates, and it was a design that served many species of aquatic reptiles quite well for millions of years.  But that has not proven to be the case in Loch Ness.  The Gray Photo is hard evidence that Nessie has a short neck, and a relatively large and fish-like head.

So swallowing my pride (and abandoning a pet theory of my own, which I might detail in a later post for nostalgia's sake) I set about having my own closer look at the Heron-Allen image. After all, if I'd been overlooking the head for 40+ years, the important question became: what else had I (and everyone else) missed?  If the details of the poor, over-contrasted press releases of the Gray Photo had been so enticing, how much more might we learn from the Heron-Allen version?  It needs to be taken apart and put back together, a project I decided to tackle soon after learning of Watson's find.

The first and most important contribution I spotted is the reason for the title of this post.


There are not one, but two specimens of the Loch Ness animal captured in Hugh Gray's photo.  (For the best look at the Heron-Allen image I again link you to an article by Roland Watson, The Forensics of the Loch Ness Monster.  You may click on his image there for a full-sized zoom on the Heron-Allen image.)

There are two backs (or dorsal lines) to follow if you trace your finger across the image from left to right, with the clearest example of this being between the two bright water sprays.  You may note that the back of the topmost or further animal becomes the top of the head Watson discovered.  This animal, the one furthest away, is also about one head's length ahead of the nearer animal, and the head of the nearer animal is hidden in the spray.

If you are using an LCD monitor such as on a laptop, start with the screen almost vertical and then slowly tilt it back while viewing the Heron-Allen image -- that's how I first spotted the second dorsal line.  Below is a smaller version of the image onto which I've drawn an overlay for comparison with the original.  I use hyphenated lines in the two places where spray obscures the dorsal line of the front-most animal, where the head of the front-most animal is hidden behind spray, and where the anterior appendage disappears below the waterline:

Let's examine, from left to right, what is visible here but has not been previously noted or explained by the high contrast press releases of the Gray Photo.

First is the tail.  Unlike Mackal, whom we quoted to begin this article, we now do have a basis for identifying the leftmost part as the tail, because the head has been identified by Watson on the right.  The caudal fins (not fin) were actually more evident in the high contrast prints.  If you capture the image and increase the contrast yourself, you can turn the Heron-Allen image into an exact replica of the press version minus the scratches (another bit of proof we're dealing with the original photo here.)  Turning up the contrast does increase some detail on the left side of the picture, like the caudal fins in my earlier close-up, while simultaneously ruining details such as the head on the right hand side.  But now that we've identified two separate backs, the reason for the mystery in my earlier look at the fins becomes evident:  there are two apexes to the "fin" because it's actually two fins belonging to two separate tails, one behind and slightly ahead of the other.  What may even be the tip of the second tail is visible protruding just left of the caudal fin of the front-most animal.

Working our way right, the next element of interest is the posterior appendage.  We now know it to be the posterior one, because we know which end is which.  In the original press publications of the photo both appendages appeared as mere white dots, but here we have quite a bit more to look at.

There actually appears to be a motion-blurred after-image of a flipper-shaped posterior appendage in the spray, making it look for all the world that this fountain of water was cast up by the rear appendage of the front-most animal.  What may be the edge of the appendage itself, slapping the water, appears at the waterline.  Alas this is not a great view of the appendage itself, but it's almost incontrovertible from this that Nessie has posterior appendages -- or at least this one does.

Moving further right along the waterline we come to the anterior appendage.  Second only to the head, this may be the detail most improved in the Heron-Allen image.  Instead of just a white dot, we have the upper joint of a limb meeting the body at approximately a 90 degree angle, then flexing downwards and sweeping back at a second joint point just before dipping below the waterline.  We cannot say if the termination point of the appendage is a flipper, a webbed foot, or another form because the end is below the waterline.  The few witnesses that have reported appendages in their sightings over the years have varied in their descriptions of flippers, webbed feet, and even hoof-like forms.

Accounts have also varied as to whether Nessie has both front and back appendages, but in this photo there is clearly a back appendage of some kind tossing up water.  Oddly though, whereas the anterior limb joins the body clearly above the waterline, the joint of the posterior appendage does not appear at all.  This is a mystery.  The animal (the front one) might be twisting a bit on its longitudinal axis -- there is considerable flexing in the body from the curvature in the waterline, a feature also less evident in poorer quality images.  The animal be turning its head towards the animal beside it.  Perhaps in the process of twisting its front half to the left, the attachment point for the right front limb is lifted higher than the attachment point for the posterior counterpart, which is hidden just below the waterline at that moment.

It may be worth mentioning at this point that aquatic amphibians, being neotenic and only completing partial metamorphosis do not always have equally developed front and back limbs, or at least do not always have equally developed appendages until the latter stages of growth.  In aquatic urodeles the second pair of limbs may be fully developed, partially developed, or totally absent in members of the same species (Mackal, 1976).

It must also be mentioned that, while the left-most spray of water appears to be created by the posterior appendage slapping the water, the same cannot be said for the right-most flash of spray; that must be coming from the left anterior appendage of the second or furthest animal, tossed towards us and over the head of the nearer animal.  That the two beasts are alternating front and rear water slaps like this is in itself quite interesting; water must be flying continuously; Hugh Gray reported considerable splashing, which must be taken to mean ongoing splashing, not just one instance of spray.

We end our tour of the Heron-Allen image at the right hand end, with Nessie apparently looking right back at us.  In making this discovery Roland Watson points out that even if the eye is not an eye, even if the mouth is not the mouth, the body of the animal clearly ends here in a blunt, conical shape above the waterline, and it casts a definite shadow of its own on the water.  Again I recommend his article on this, but for my part I'm fully convinced the Gray Photo is showing us the head of Nessie.

And I'm equally certain we have been looking at a photo of two of the animals all along.  But is this mating behavior?  Social behavior?  Some salamanders engage in a courtship dances when preparing to mate that consist of rubbing sides, splashing with their limbs, and thrashing their tails side to side.  Such behavior is strikingly similar to what Hugh Gray witnessed and photographed.  This is obviously one area where we'd like to know much more.


At this point I can imagine skeptics protesting the likelihood anyone could be so lucky as to photograph a pair of Loch Ness Monsters at one go, as it's so notoriously difficult to get photo evidence for even a single such animal. Yet real animals often travel in pairs and small groups.  Even the most solitary creatures have to pair up on occasion if the species is to continue.  In fact the many reported sightings of multiple and varying humps are most easily accounted for by multiple animals.  If genuine, the P.A. MacNab photo taken in 1955 is most likely a picture of two animals as well (otherwise we're faced with a specimen over 50 feet long, which would be much less probable than two animals of 20 or 30 feet each.)

The strongest evidence that the creatures swim in small groups comes from the University of Birmingham expeditions (1968-1969) and their sonar experiments headed up by Professor D.G. Tucker.  On multiple occasions, the Birmingham researchers tracked large animate objects they estimated to be 20 feet long moving between the bottom of the Loch and mid-water, but never any higher.  Contacts included at least one pair, and on one occasion a group or pod of what they estimated to be at least as many as five animals moving together for an extended period.  They also clocked the diving speeds of the animals to be too great to be accounted for by fish.

(In all fairness it should be pointed out that there are other interpretations of the Birmingham sonar data.  Specifically that during some of the most pertinent readings, the thermocline was at its most reflective, and a surface craft had indeed passed through the area, the wake of which could have caused some spurious sonar reflections.)

The hardest thing about accepting the Gray photo as two animals was that Gray himself never said anything about seeing more than one.  He did however say that he never had an unobscured view due to the considerable disturbance the animal was making in the water (Nicholas Witchell, The Loch Ness Story, Penguin Books, 1975).  Now Gray estimated the animal to be 100 yards away, and his own height from the bluff on the shoreline to be 30 feet.  Some accounts quote Gray as giving the distance as 200 yards; but he also said it "rose out of the water not so very far from where I was"; based on his wording I feel more inclined to trust the 100 yard quotes.  Researchers visiting the site since then have also stated the elevation to actually be 40 feet, with F.W. Holiday even calling it 50.  I think 40 is the safer estimate for us to consider.  So going with 100 yards out and 40 feet above the waterline, this makes Gray's elevation relative to the animals a mere 8 degrees, with his view nearly broadsides; the photo supports both those conclusions.  Under these circumstances the silhouette of the nearer animal would almost completely mask or hide that of the second.  It would have indeed been difficult for Gray to tell it was two parallel animals.

We have the luxury of staring at an enlarged, static photo for as long as we like, whereas Hugh Gray only had a few minutes, and was dealing with his camera and probably looking through the view finder while snapping his five attempted photos.  Then there's all the thrashing and spray to obscure what he was watching.  Still, he says the "object of considerable dimensions" moved about a great deal for "a few minutes", and minutes are not seconds.  So if it's a pair, they must have stayed in close tandem for the minutes Gray watched them moving, for if they had separated by any distance he'd have noted it was two independent objects.  Unless we apply an even simpler explanation:  the second animal could have been on the surface at the start, been caught in the photo, but then submerged.  Then Gray, setting aside his camera, continued to watch the single remaining animal for the final minutes before it too submerged.

Let's look at the Heron-Allen image geometrically.  As stated above, Gray's line of sight was only 8 degrees above the water level.  In the diagram below I've placed two floating objects of equal size and shape next to each other, here viewed in cross-section.  Since we already have the angle, the actual height of the objects doesn't matter at this point, but Gray estimated the animal's height to be 3 feet above water, and so I have indicated the same.  The question is, would the camera be able to capture any noticeable separation of the two dorsal lines, and if so, how much?  We can see here that the back or top of the nearer object would appear one foot below the top of the further object.  The actual number of feet doesn't matter, as it's the ratio of the visible part of one animal to the visible part of the other animal we're trying to measure, and in this case the ratio is a clear 3:1.  That is, Gray's camera would capture an image, from the top down, consisting of 1/4 rear animal, and 3/4's front animal.  See the insert in the lower right corner of the diagram, where I've rotated the whole view slightly to make this more obvious:

This turns out to be extremely consistent with the amount of the further animal that is visible above the back  of the closer animal in the actual Gray Photo.  It's exactly what we'd expect in the photo, given the distance, the height of the observer, and assuming the two animals are of nearly equal size.  (Personally I think the nearest animal is the slightly larger of the two.  The distance between the apexes of the caudal fins is a bit larger than that between the front ends of the animals, which makes the rear one slightly shorter than the other.  But given that these are moving animals with sinusoidally flexing bodies, thrashing tails, and turning heads, it's impossible to be exact about which one may be longest.)

That there have been two animals present all along has an added benefit to us, as it answers not one but two of the unexplained problems previously related to the Gray Photo.  One of the first criticisms of the picture has always been that the body looked too "baloonish" or buoyant, and that a real animal wouldn't float that high in the water.  It only appeared this way because in the high contrast press images, two bodies had been lumped together vertically.  As soon as the second dorsal line is recognized and drawn in for the closest animal, and the viewer becomes aware of looking downwards at side-by-side animals, then Nessie's proportions get a lot sleeker.

Secondly, the parapodia Holiday recognized are no longer too low on the body to be accepted as appendages, because the height of the body above the waterline was never what it seemed.  The appendages are right where they belong, and always have been.


Having taken the entire picture apart element by element earlier, it seems only fair to put it back together in the end. The overlay I drew for the Heron-Allen image makes for a good starting point:

One must guess at the features below the waterline.  I have ventured to assume the tail is vertically symmetrical, thus adding a ventral fin.  A laterally flexing, keeled tail makes for a powerful swimming appendage, which seems necessary to account for the great speed (as much as 10 knots) that's been reported for the animals.  Also, or perhaps I should say inevitably, that's the normal tail configuration for aquatic salamanders.

The exact size and shape of the appendages must remain conjectural.   I've gone with webbed feet here, but more flipper-like appendages are certainly possible; the posterior one could be a true flipper even if the front limb is more of a webbed foot.  Also the true girth is conjectural as well, with the body being perhaps a bit thicker than I've shown here.

Having recreated the front-most of the two animals, we now give a copy of that image an open mouth to yield an otherwise identical second animal, and lastly we place them together side by side with the further animal one head's length ahead of the other.  The final result is my recreation of the Gray Photo as we would see the animals if we could take away the water and fountains of spray:

As a bit of a reality check, I made one more rendition with the glare and water sprays manually airbrushed over the final reconstruction, to compare side by side with the original photo.  Not a perfect match, but sufficient I hope to demonstrate that, once the water is removed and precious few blanks filled in, we have two of the same animal present in the original Gray Photo:

Morphologically, the animal captured in the Hugh Gray Photo doesn't look very much like a fish in my opinion, but instead bears an exceedingly similar form to many aquatic salamanders.  But those of similar form and similar size are unknown outside the fossil record.  Within the fossil record though, they are quite well known.  When it comes to living forms, the Chinese Giant Salamander, Andrias davidianus, is recognized as the largest amphibian in the modern world, reaching a length of six feet.  The Loch Ness Giant Salamander seems to have that beaten by a factor of at least three, if not four or five.

This brings us to the taxonomy of the unidentified species in Loch Ness, and the related issue of how it came to populate the Loch in the first place.  I'll address both these items in a subsequent post article.

(If you are outside the posts thread, click here to view Part II of this article.) 


  1. Interesting analysis indeed. I am still a bit partial to long necks though which constitute 20% of sightings in Dinsdale's analysis.

    If not a classic head-neck, then what ...?

    1. I knew someone would have to ask that, so I've already put some work into a post to address exactly that. It'll be ready and published ahead of the article on taxonomy. But one clue is: Mackal already had the answer in mind.

  2. This is absolutely ridiculous.

  3. Great to see another Nessie blog, I've been following Roland Watson's blog for some time now, and found yours through a link on his latest post. When reading Roland's analysis of the Hugh Gray photo, my first thought was exactly yours - in fact I posted that it looked like an axolotyl to me. But since then I've wondered - isn't the creature/s too high in the water? - seems it would almost need to be floating/entirely above the water line for it to be what it appears to be. Is that possible? Could an animal maintain this with very little of its body below the water for minutes at a time? Do we know the depth of the water where the photo was taken?
    Congrats on another well thought out and researched article.I'm still not entirely convinced though. I lean toward an amphibious creature of some type myself, but to say that we 'know' anything based on this photo (and Roland's daughter spotting the 'head') is not quite right - it's still an assumption isnt it? - dru

    1. Thanks Dru - If I've picked the correct promontory on the bathymetrical survey map, 64 feet right off shore, rapidy falling to 139 feet just a little further out. Either way, plenty deep.

      Floating too high above the waterline was one of the "knocks" against the picture for a long time. But that was taking the entire vertical part as one animal. The second dorsal line I overlayed on the photo shaves 25% off the height above water of each animal, which I think slims things down considerably, leaving a larger *percentage* below the water. In my own sketch though I may be guilty over over-slenderizing, and drawing the hind regions too high up for the waterline in the actual photo.

  4. This is an excellent post, and I look forward to following this blog! I found my way here through Roland Watson's blog, and I thought I was on the right path when I commented on his post revealing the head in the Gray photo: "Have you ever considered that there may be 2 creatures in the photo, one attacking the other? This would explain the "considerable movement" Gray mentions, and the point of attack would be the area obscured by spray and motion blur-- the "dog's head," in other words. Unfortunately it would also mean that the face you point out would be gasping its last." I hadn't even considered the idea that it was 2 of the same creatures. I'm glad there are people like you and "Glasgow Boy" doing all this research!


    1. Thanks John, and you're correct: you beat me to the punch with your 2 creatures comment on Roland's blog! I remember seeing your post the same day I was writing him about the sketches I was working up that turned into this article.

      I prefer to think the animals were doing something other than trying to kill each other -- maybe that's just the romantic in me. Actually male salamanders do skirmish with each other when vying for mating privileges with a nearby female, as is true of so many species of all kinds, but at least with salamanders I'm not aware of these being more than shoving matches, not contests to the death.

  5. This salamander theory got me thinking about the diver who said he saw a “very odd looking beastie ... like a huge frog” in the Loch. Of course a salamander's face can be frog-like.

    1. Indeed - have a look at the head of Cryptobranchus alleganiensis at

      If all you saw was the head, you'd think that was a picture of a frog.
      If Duncan MacDonald did run into a 20+ foot version of that animal on his dive in 1880, who could blame him for never diving in Loch Ness again!?

    2. I agree with this as well. If Nessie is some sort of giant salamander, living in a cold inland lake, its reasonable that it has a very low metabolism. It would make sense that it may be an ambush predator, which many aquatic reptiles, and fishes, are. They simply find a good spot, lie and wait for food to come close enough.

      I don't recall how large the gent said this creature was on his dive, but he may have been a some risk if he too close.

  6. Steven,
    Do you thing we seeing part of the body(s) under the waterline, or is that a reflection of the part above the water?

    And how can the creature float with so much of its body above the water? It looks almost bird-like to me.

    Thanks, Isaac.

    1. Nothing below the waterline can be visible; at 8 degrees of elevation all anyone could possibly see is reflections of what's *above* the water. That's just the physics of refraction I'm afraid -- to see objects underwater one has to be all but directly over them (and have clear water and enough light too of course). This is why I made sure to mention the ventral part of the tail fin and the webbed feet in my sketch are conjectural, as would be the actual girth (belly), because these things cannot be visible in the photo, although we wish they were!

      As to floating too high, are you referring to my sketch or the photo itself? If the photo, see my reply to Dru 4 posts back. If the sketch, then see my reply to the next comment.

  7. I appreciate another Loch Ness Monster blog as well as the effort to stay on the logical path, but this theory on the Gray photo takes it to the far reaches of the lunatic fringe. To now claim the photograph shows TWO of the creatures, let alone one, when in honesty it's nothing more than a shot of a dog and nothing less than an indecipherable mess stretches the boundaries of rational thought beyond repair.
    Clearly, the claimed dorsal and spray areas show transparency that cannot be ignored or explained
    away. Beyond that, the alleged spray looks nothing like actual spray would or should. However, the thing that is most incredulous is the drawings you came up with show the supposed creatures swimming ON TOP OF OR ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE LOCH!! How is this possible? Your statement that shaving a portion of the dorsal area puts the creatures further below the surface doesn't hold water either. The fact is that as postulated the alleged animal is still above the surface, no matter how you attempt to circumvent that truth.
    I'm a longtime believer, but I've always subscribed to the notion that you prove monsters out of photographs which don't contain them, as opposed to finding ways to explain monsters INTO photographs in which they simply don't exist.

    1. Dear Anonymous,

      If you can have ANY photo of Nessie at all, then you can certainly have a photo of two, unless you believe it's been a single, solitary, non-reproducing immortal animal all this time, which truly would be a fringe position to take.

      That it could be a dog (in my opinion) shouldn't even require debunking, but as luck would have it Roland Watson has gone to the trouble of doing just that in a fine bit of (rational) analysis in his blog article here: http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2011/06/hugh-gray-photograph-revisited_26.html

      Please go ahead and zoom in on a copy of the Heron-Allen image (from the glass lantern slide made from the original negative). Zoom in tightly on the dorsal area. Look at the pixels. Pan left and right. The texture and grain of the waves pixels *ends* where the dorsal line begins, and vice versa. Without doubt. This is difficult to do with a scan of a newsprint or book copy because the half-tone process that printed those versions introduces it's own artificial pixelation at that level, although you can still see it in even these inferior printings if they were large enough to begin with.

      If that isn't enough for you, I'll draw your attention to something else: there's a complete shadow on the water on our (Gray's) side of the object, following the same contours as the dorsal line, tail, and head. Transparent objects do not leave solid shadows!

      Now here is where I do err a little in my article, loosely using the term "spray" in both reference to any mist in the air AND what tossed up water has already landed on the animals back and sides. Here we need to go back to what Hugh Gray said as well (see the transcript and quotes in Witchell's book) the skin was grey *except* for where the spray was landing on it; the wet skin where the splashes landed glistened brightly. And that IS exactly what the photo is showing. Look at that posterior spray streak in particular and you will note a perfect discontinuity in the wet, shining areas at the dorsal line of the FRONT animal -- the water has been thrown up and landed at an angle relative to the viewer, not straight at you, resulting in a portion of DRY back still visible on the further animal, right behind brightly glistening wet back on the front animal. To back up a point, THIS dry spot on the back of the further animal is what forms the dark area that some people take to be the right eye of the "dog" - the "dog" that has no left eye to go with it!

      Lastly, please note I have drawn no waterline at all in my sketch, so your criticism of where I located it doesn't make any sense. I'm afraid I'm only an amateur artist, and that rendition was as close as I came. I have the back more arched than in the actual photo, and I haven't placed the two animals close enough together. Also I've inadvertently got the long axis tilted a bit too clockwise, relative to the photo. Oh well, I'll have another go at it sometime. If it makes you happier, please feel free to download it, rotate the image about 10 degrees left, and draw in a waterline just above the appendages. I'm sure that will float your boat.


  8. I have been saying since Ivan Sanderson's revision of Ted Holiday's Great Orm theory (which I should suppose you would call the Great Orm II theory, the amphibian rather than the invertebrate one) that a lot of the European descriptions of several kinds of Lake Monasters (or even dragons) specify they are talking about crocodile sized-and-shaped salamanders, using that term specifically, and meaning especially reaports in Ireland and in Wales. And I am one of the ones who has not discounted the possibility that the Grey photo was of one (they must be either narly asore or something to be that high out of the water) Hewever owing to the measurements involved in taking this photograph being off (as I see you take note of on this blog), the estimated length has got to be half of what you indicate, and very likely much less.

    Now you seem to have fallen into the same trap as everybody else: Just because an unknown animal is reported at Loch Ness does not mean ALL if the reports are of the SAME species of animal We are not talking about the resence of any species which is confined ONLY to Loch Ness and we are not talking about anything which necessarily lives there REGULARLY: we are only talking about different reports which eminate out of the one geographical area during the recent period over the last several decades. My feeling is that there are land animals which are going into the water together with one or two species native to the British isles but very rare, plus an occasional vistor from the sea (or two or three-it does not matter how many if they are all only there randomly) Because of that it is a fundamentally flawed argument to say all of the "Loch Ness Monster" reports describe the same thing: the giant salamanders might wewll be seen sometimes but also might be something very different from the larger creatures reported in the 20, 30 or 40 foot long range. Two things anout Mackals book I suppose you's be mentioning: he thinks the long-necked reports could be the giant salamander tail-end-up. In several cases this is clearly impossible And he also speaks of all of the longer "string of Buoy" sightings as being due to a standing wave effect. I very definitely agree with him as to this last conclusion.

    I will be wanting to reprint part of your blog on my blog if possible, and I shall be giving you full credit with a link which goes back to this blog.

    Best Wishes, Dale D.

    1. Hi Dale, and thanks for some good observations. Please feel free to quote me at your blog and link to mine. I think I've been to your blog but to be sure I have the right one could you send me the link?

      I've avoided giving any explicit size estimate for the animals in the Gray Photo because we don't know to what extent the picture has been cropped. That it has been cropped is certain, as none of the versions (at least the ones I've looked at recently) are the correct proportions to have come from an uncropped piece of what Gray's camera could have produced. More work needs to be done on this as well. (The hand-drawn illustration I used in the article did have a "scale" at the bottom of the page, but that should be thought of as mere artistic license at this point.) Even Gray backed off giving any estimate of size when pressed in interviews. Because the photo wasn't taken from very far away (well under 100 yards we now know) it could be smaller thank folks have guessed. But because it does come close to filling the frame, if the cropping was minimal then we are back to looking at something bigger.

      But even an exact measurement of the two animals in the Gray Photo would only tell us the size of those two specimens. Were they full grown adults? Half-size juveniles? No way to know, so no way to extrapolate the average size of the species from this photo alone.

      It would be virtually impossible for large animals 30 or 40 feet long to travel between the Loch and sea without being observed. And all known species of modern amphibians are fresh water species only, so if our Loch Ness creatures belong to a modern order or family of salamanders, then they can't tolerate salt water. It's my assumption they must live their entire lives in the Loch.

      The odds are so much against there being TWO unrelated species of unidentified, large animals in Loch Ness that I choose not to entertain the notion -- but if recognizing the principle of Occam's razor is considered falling into a trap, them I am guilty as charged. It's not that it's impossible, it's just highly improbable. Mackal had a good point when he organized neck and tail sightings into the same column in his table. In most cases they were seen from too great a distance to objectively identify them as one or the other. But I'll have more to say on this point in what will probably be the next article.


  9. I don't have much of an opinion on this. A lot of it might be wishful thinking and pareidolia. But, if I were you, I might point out that the tail morphology in your reconstruction looks a bit like the disputed flipper photo (at least in that it has a rhombus shape). Just a thought.

    1. That might be a good thing if the famous flipper photos were real depictions of an animal, but alas they are not. For a better explanation of that than I could possibly give, there's a great analysis of the flipper photos at this page of Dick Raynor's website:


      In my reconstruction of the tail I'm only assuming the ventral tail fin is as triangular as the dorsal one appears to be. It's even possible there is no ventral counterpart!

  10. A giant salamander is scientifically plausible, the Chinese Giant Salamander can reach 6.6ft (2m) in length and weigh 145lbs (65kg). The analysis of the Grey Photo suggests a specimen four times in length, which is not that unbelievably impossible, as that family of salamanders is almost exclusively aquatic, a large size and weight is not a hinderance. Also the family of salamanders can respire through their skin, called cutaneous gas exchange, so long as the water is sufficiently oxygenated. This means they can remain submerged as long as they can draw oxygen through their skin. Loch Ness, below its thermocline (~100 ft, or 33m), the water is highly oxygenated. Most often they still possess gills and lungs, and can gulp air to get extra oxygen when needed, either their activity as suggested in the analysis, or lower oxygen in the water. Colder water contains more dissolved gases then warmer, oxygen included. Loch Ness does contain plenty fish, clams, crayfish, and insects, all of which are eaten by these salamanders. Additionally all these food sources peak during the July and August months.

    1. Insanity, I agree with you and Steve about the giant salamanders theory ; I kept axolotls (neotenic larva of the tiger salamander) and they never goes out of water..... they are strictly aquatic. if the water is cold and oxygenated they use the skin and the gills to breath ; rarely they gulp at the surface.About the length , the chinese is said to reach 1m80 and the japanese,1m50 , maybe more in the past.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. And the third member of the family, the American hellbender, had a 10 foot long ancestor living in the northeastern US just before the last Ice Age (and it probably spread there from Europe, coincidentally enough, through Scotland). Once you're talking a real animal 10 ft long in the water, you are looking at something certainly big enough for amateur observers to reasonably label "a monster".

  11. Thanks for stopping by, Insanity.

    That's my gut feeling exactly: these creatures take advantage of the salmon runs, fattening up for the rest of the year like bears do. My guess would also be that reproduction then occurs shortly after these months, when energy reserves are highest. The known giant salamanders swallow their prey whole, so I'm not sure even the largest of the known ones, the Chinese Giant Salamander can tackle full grown salmon. But there would be the impetus for evolving an even larger form of aquatic salamander, to exploit salmon, which are such a rich food source the extra size needed to prey on them could pay for itself.

    There are fossil forms among the extinct Amphibia several times larger than the Chinese Giant Salamander, even as much as seven times larger going all the way back to the subclass of Labyrinthodonts, so having a 20 to 30 foot Urodela isn't even a record breaker. Size is no obstacle, especially among the aquatic forms.

    Cold-water amphibians do have very low metabolisms, and with char and other species available when the salmon aren't around I do think Loch Ness can support giant salamanders in permanent residence.

  12. When I initially got into reading about Nessie, at the time I had subscribed to the plesiosaur hypothesis, up until I read Roy's book.

    Among reptiles and amphibians, amphibians endure cold waters dramatically better then reptiles. I seem to recall the reasoning is that most reptiles lack a diaphragm, and lung ventilation is achieved by the axial musculature. This is the same muscle group used for locomotion.
    Most amphibians, particularly these salamanders, have multiple features to achieve respiration, and the cutaneous gas exchange process requires very little, if any, effort on their part. Simply being submerged in sufficiently oxygenated water is enough for them. Granted it cannot provide sufficient oxygen in the blood when highly active, hence most of them retain fully or semi-fully functioning lungs, and sometimes gills.

    Going with the giant salamander species hypothesis, if the monster does exist, it's likely a ambush predator, maybe a scavenger (many predators are also opportunistic scavengers). I think if someone were to serious go out 'hunting for the beastie', similar methods used for live trapping alligators would work best.

    Just some ramblings.

  13. I agree wholeheartedly, except for my reservations that an alligator trap would work. I think I saw a picture somewhere of an oversized one someone built and tried at Loch Ness many years ago -- had it worked, I assume we'd have heard about it! The key to catching one will be understanding their behavior well enough to know when and where to put such a trap, and then infinite patience. Trouble with monitoring any trap system long-term is that it will cost something, and no one is showering money on LNM research. My guess is our best, albeit slim, chance for getting a specimen would be the case of one making its rare appearance on land, and somehow getting lost or cut off from it's route back to the water -- perhaps a sick specimen that doesn't make it back, or one that's unfortunately struck by a car. Had the Spicer or Grant land sightings gone just a little differently, the latter might have already occurred.

    You point out a very key difference between reptiles and amphibians I'll echo in a future article. Reptiles have to burn calories continuously to breath, moving air in and out through muscle activity (just as we do). They can colonize arid environments, which opens a lot of territory to them, but in moist or aquatic environments the amphibians have a leg up on them: respiration costs nothing, or very little, meaning they can make do on less energy than reptiles in the same environment. The trade-off is that amphibians are still restricted to very moist environments.

    In hot aquatic environments there's enough thermal energy for both types of exothermic animals, but less oxygen in the water, so reptiles have a big advantage. We don't find giant salamanders where crocodiles are thriving. But in progressively colder aquatic environments, while the diminishing thermal energy available to both forms is the same, the oxygen content of the water goes up and the energy-free respiration of the cutaneously breathing amphibians tips the scales in their favor. We don't find crocodiles (or any plesiosaurs) where giant amphibians are thriving.

    Loch Ness is quite obviously the latter environment.

  14. Thanks for the feedback.

    Concerning Nessie traps in the loch, this is what I found.


    Several were basically scaled up eel traps.
    One was a dredge, really meant to find bones more then live specimens.

    Not certain if a large eel trap would permit a giant salamander to enter?

    From the info there, doesn't sound like many if any of the large eel traps were of sufficient size for the proposed dimensions of the giant salamander, and thus properly were noneffective.

    I am not sure if the scaffolding cage was deployed or not.

    The Vladivar trap is more along my thoughts. While probably of sufficient size (60ft by 20ft), the time of year it was deployed was at the end of August, which we have seen is the end of the peak in food sources cycle. Going with the giant salamander, and its activity peaking with the warmer summer months and increased food supply, this was probably a less then ideal time to deploy it. The trap remained in place until early October.

    While the plan was to lower it to 30m, it does not say to what depth it actually was lowered.

    Again, going with the giant salamander, the area of highly oxygenated water is below the thermocline, which starts around 30m, so its possible that this was also less then ideal placement.

    I am not aware if other traps were ever built, but from these, it seems the best possibility would have been the Vladivar trap, but it seems that perhaps it was untimely deployed and positioned at the incorrect depth.

    As you mentioned, the best chance is understanding the behavior, and from what we've discussed, this plan, for whatever reason, did not take that consideration.

    If this was to be attempted again, I would suggest at the end of June and below 30m, and keep it there through the end of August. Ideally there would be some way to know if something was caught before that.

    Again, just more ramblings.

  15. the 1923 Alfred Cruickshank land sighting describes an animal that "didn't seem to have much of a neck". Pg. 92 of Nicholas Witchell's The Loch Ness Story 2nd edition also adds "The most discordant detail in Mr. Cruickshank's story is the absence of the characteristic long, slender neck". perhaps the salamander theory rings true...

  16. My dear Anonymous, you must be psychic. I had my copy of Witchell, 2nd edition, out on the desk to go looking for that sighting, and you gave me the (correct) page number. Thanks for the goosebumps!

    The next article has to deal with just such "discordant" details. Just learned of a nearly identical sighting in 1965 I's never heard of before, I'm sure you'll find interesting. Go to the following page and look for the Firth of Tay sighting, the third or fourth article on the page:



    1. must have been kismet. thanks for the info. they seem to be describing a snail or a slug ie the "pointy ears" and no legs. just a thought...

    2. Appendages aren't seen or go unmentioned in some of the land sightings at Loch Ness as well (ie, Spicer sighting). Two other similarities with land sighting reports from Loch Ness are overall size (20') and vertical undulations, as in caterpillar movement. And a small percentage of surface sightings at Loch Ness mention horns or stalks. So the Firth of Tay sighting is identical to Loch Ness land sightings in so many ways, I doubt this can just be a coincidence. Where they do differ is that the second Tay witness reported a large, 2' head -- presumably that wasn't seen at the end of a long thin neck, so we're once again looking at a morphology more like a salamander then anything built like a plesiosaur.

      A snail that large wouldn't be able to move at all on land -- that's the hole in Holiday's invertebrate hypothesis that he himself acknowledged.

    3. on pg. 14 in my copy of Peter Costello's 'In Search Of Lake Monsters', there is a reference to a Alexander MacDonald. " About 1880 an Abriachan mason named Alexander MacDonald often used to see the strange animal playing on the loch in the early morning. He travelled daily by steamer between the Abriachan Pier and Inverness, and was known to arrive at the pier in subdued excitement after seeing what he called 'the salamander'. The crew and skipper of the steamer also saw the animal on occasion, though they said it was a furry animal with legs and not an amphibian." Don't know if this helps-I just found it kind of interesting.

  17. Very, very interesting article! I had never noticed the "head" before, and it really does look like an amphibian head! There is always the possibility that Gray had hoaxed the photo by taking a close up of a fish head, but I doubt it with the way the water looks and is spraying in the photo. I have been a heavy skeptic of the LNM recently, but I feel like you may be on to something!

  18. Ridiculous!!!!!! If two salamanders were that much out of the loch surely hugh gray wud of seen them. If u can see a head and body in a photo then gray would clearly have seen this. More ridiculous rubbish written bout nessie

    1. My good Anon, I'm quite sure I addressed your problem with this in the text of the article itself. Perhaps you only skimmed:

      "The hardest thing about accepting the Gray photo as two animals was that Gray himself never said anything about seeing more than one. He did however say that he never had an unobscured view due to the considerable disturbance the animal was making in the water (Nicholas Witchell, The Loch Ness Story, Penguin Books, 1975).... Gray's elevation relative to the animals a mere 8 degrees, with his view nearly broadsides; the photo supports both those conclusions. Under these circumstances the silhouette of the nearer animal would almost completely mask or hide that of the second. It would have indeed been difficult for Gray to tell it was two parallel animals.

      "We have the luxury of staring at an enlarged, static photo for as long as we like, whereas Hugh Gray only had a few minutes, and was dealing with his camera and... all the thrashing and spray to obscure what he was watching."

      Take from this what will,

  19. A little reluctant to wade in among all these scholars and experts. But, a question is just bugging me. I don't know anything about cameras of the period, but as I read this fascinating piece, I kept wondering -- is it possible that it's one animal, but that the camera exposure was slow enough that it picked up "two images" of the fast-moving animal? Thus, making it look like two.

    1. Thanks for writing J.

      Only a few of either weigh in here, so have no fear :) And for myself I've hung on to my amateur status as an armchair investigator.

      Many of those old box cameras were prone to double exposures, in fact I inherited one from my Dad and as a kid using it I often got unintentional double exposures. If you forgot to turn the knob to advance the film after you took a picture, your next shot would be taken over the first one.

      It's been proposed by others here and there that it's also the case with the Gray photo. The reason that we know it is NOT a double exposure is because the waves in the two shots would have to be out of phase with each other, creating a pretty uniform grey blur. But that's not what we have at all: the waves are clear and the ripples sharp. Therefore it is a single exposure, and two dorsal lines means we had two objects in the photo at the same time.

    2. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't really thinking of a double exposure per se. More like just a long exposure, or a blurred photo. Kind of like what you would get on an old SLR if you didn't set the shutter speed fast enough. Things that are still or moving slowly look ok, but something moving fast gets blurred.

      With all the photography experts who've looked at this thing, I'm guessing if that was the case someone would have established it by now. I just couldn't help but wonder.

    3. Wow - you might have a good refutation there of my two-animal interpretation, enough so that I had to go back and study the photo again.

      The shutter speed would have to be slow enough on the one hand for a single animal to move far and fast enough to give us a second image of itself during the one exposure, while on the other hand still fast enough to give us the waves and ripples with the clarity they have in the photo. I'm no photography expert so answering whether it's possible is way over my head.

      But here's a clue. If it's the same animal exposed twice, moving left to right, it should appear to be the same length in both images. Now the animal further away appears to be one head-length ahead (further right) of the head of the nearer animal. But what I take to be the tail-tip of the further animal appears to be TWO head-lengths right of the tail-tip, the tail that clearly belongs to the nearer animal.

      Not sure you'll see what I mean, but have another look at the 4th picture in the article, where I show the Heron-Allen version of the picture twice, both with and without my outline drawn around the anatomical parts:


      If I'm right about the termination of the further tail, then these objects are not the same length -- the nearer of the two animals is a head's length longer than the other one. Again making it two animals, not two motion-blurred images of the same one.

      Motion blur does seem very apparent though in the area of the rear appendage. It looks as if a flipper-shaped object cut through the bright spray. I'd venture to say the fastest moving element in the photo was the rear appendage, which slapped the water and actually threw up that spray between the start and end of the exposure.


    4. Also, it it were a single animal that had jerked either left or right to get itself on the same frame twice, then there would have to be evidence of a disturbance in the water, a wake at one end and a bow wave at the other. The neat, concentric ripples emanating where the tail dips into the water would be obliterated.

      And had it been the camera that jerked instead, during a time exposure or low shutter speed snap, then once again the same waves and ripples would have been photographed twice and appear as an out-of-phase blur, which they don't.

      So once again I'm convinced what we have in Hugh Gray's photo is TWO animals of the same, yet unidentified species.


  20. This article is either a complete spoof or you are utterly barking mad.

    1. An interesting choice of word, "barking" mad -- does this make you a supporter of the Labrador Retriever Theory? Are you prone to seeing the Virgin Mary in your toast as well? I'll hope not, as there's nothing I can do to treat your case of pareidolia. Perhaps you could locate a psychiatrist with a secondary degree in optometry?

      As you're in no position to prove or disprove my sanity, perhaps we should limit this to a debate of your first accusation: if my article is as you say a "spoof", then what do you think it is a spoof of? There has to be an object being spoofed, just as there should have been an object to the preposition ending the previous sentence. Your accusation is just as incomplete, until you tell us where you see a parody in my work. What's the punchline? Where do you see a joke?

      If you want to critique the article, go right ahead. If you just posted to babble non-directional insults, bring that up as well when you see that psychiatrist.

  21. Hi steve. Surely if this is 2 salamanders on the water then you would see these more often. They would be doing this for some reason. Why is it a one off? And why didnt hugh gray see these creatures if they were so high out of the water. To be frank i think its incredible you have come to this conclusion and even more incredible people agree with it. In 80 years of sightings ive never heard of anyone seeing 2 big creatures so high out of the water together like this. Its absurd steve sorry. But each to their own i suppose.

  22. Once again sorry for being blunt. Too.much alcohol pmpl. But to put it more mildly steve i think you are seeing something that is not there. Hugh gray would have spotted 2 large creatures sitting so much out of the water , lets not forget a naked eye is closer than an old camera. And if this is 2 amphibians doing this then why no more sightings of this in all the years. Sorry steve its madness! ! ! But i do admire your blog and your knowledge on ampbibians and it is a great read. Cheers Sid

  23. The creatures are not that high out of the water -- read part 2 of the article. For that matter re-read part 1 without the alcohol in your system :> I deal quite explicitly with the differences between what Hugh Gray stated and what he photographed -- there is no mystery there.

    Glad you're enjoying the blog!

  24. But they are high out of the water in your diagrams. Its as if they are sitting there. Im sorry all i see is a blur. I agree people see what they want to see like the dog and the stick, but this also goes for the two amphibians: i like the large head at the front though ! Personally i think hugh gray made the story up, and like i said steve if ou can see two large amphibians then he certainly would of seen them too: Sid

  25. We do have the advantage of blowing up a static picture and zooming in all we want. Hugh Gray saw a splashing, frothing mess and was busy trying to snap it with an old box camera.

    If you google for photos of whales you'll find some of them completely out of water, apparently levitating! Could they be that buoyant? Are they magic whales? Are they fake photos? Of course not, what you're seeing is a frozen frame of an animal in vertical motion. In a still photo, hang time becomes infinite. In real life, things bob up and down when they are busy in the water. And Gray testifies they (or 'it' as he perceived it) were in a great commotion. In any event when you adjust the profile of the front most object for Gray's approximate elevation, as I do in the follow up article, we get a much flatter result.

  26. Strange how mr Gray took 5 phtos and only the last one showed something. Why wasnt anything on the first 4 ? If he saw a commotion and then took 5 photos there would of been something on the first ones not the last one with first ones blank.

    1. I'd dearly like to see what he got too, no matter how badly they came out (if they came out at all). I inherited a nearly identical camera from my father, used it a lot as a kid, and believe me reliability wasn't a strength. If you "shoot from the hip" you're likely to completely miss what you thought you'd aimed at. Keep you eyes down on the viewfinder (which was located on TOP the camera) and all you're seeing is a postage stamp size ghost of the full field (hardly spotting the detail you would with the naked eye).

      One intriguing idea is that we actually do have TWO photos, one superimposed on the other. Dick Raynor thinks the Gray photo is a double exposure, whereas I think it's a single exposure of two objects side by side. I believe the latter because I think the waves in two exposures would be so out of phase you couldn't distinguish individual waves, but Dick says otherwise, and unlike me he IS a real photography expert.

      Those cameras were prone to take accidental double exposures -- used to happen to me all the time.

      But take your pick. The Gray photo is either two of the same object in one picture, or one object caught twice in a double exposure. Either way the question remains, what is it? In my deconstruction of the photo I isolate the front object from the second. Later I adjust the vertical to horizontal proportions to compensate for the elevation Gray was at when he took the picture (http://thelochnessgiantsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-beast-with-two-backs-part-ii.html). Gray may actually have been even higher, and that still has to be determined, but he certainly wasn't any lower. If he was higher, the result will be even flatter (so much for any lingering buoyancy issues).

      And if that isn't a salamander, then I don't know what is.

  27. Well only you can see a salamander ! Its like you say, if you look hard enough you can see anything. You say if thats not a salamander then u dont know what is, but a lot of people will say if thats not a dog with a stick i dont know what is! Me ? I think its neither. Is there any proof its actually in loch ness ?

  28. No, there's not even any proof it's on Planet Earth. In fact, I think it was taken by Early Moon Explorers in the 19th Century.

    Seriously, it is unlikely anyone will ever really know what Gray's picture was or what he actually saw that day. Unless on the off chance someone actually finds -- alive or the remains of -- a large lizard of some sort in Loch Ness. Personally, I have no problem believing such an animal did exist, and may still exist. There's a lot more amazing things on this planet than that, many of which have not been accepted by "modern science".

  29. Nope, no way to verify the location from the photo itself, or rather from what we have left of it. Every version has been cropped in some way, even the good Heron-Allen print, so with no shoreline in the image we cannot objectively verify the location. But there's also no reason to suspect Hugh Gray lied about the location, or had any reason to do so. He was interviewed by many researchers over the years, and no inconsistencies ever turned up in his account. I know he took Ted Holiday to the spot, and perhaps Dinsdale as well (but I'd have to check on that). Dick Raynor has shared photos with me from the estimated location spot, and we know what camera was used, we have a good guess at the aspect ratio of the uncropped original, and it would be somewhat difficult (but not impossible, in my opinion) to get that shot without any of the far or near shores appearing in the picture. Or a bit of shore may have been in the original but lost to cropping. The exact angle from which the photo was taken still needs to be calculated. I've done a little more work on this but it's unfinished and saved for another day.

    My personal opinion is that if we ever caught a type specimen and stretched it out in the same pose, we'd all go yes that's what was in the Gray photo all along. But mind you that's just my personal opinion. I think Gray took the picture where and when he said he did.