Author Topic: The truth about the Loch Ness monster (Read 4451 times)

hubag bohol · « **on:** April 06, 2013, 12:36:15 PM »

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

jorgeanna · « **Reply #1 on:** April 07, 2013, 12:30:20 AM »

hahahahaha intawn ming-open pud ko ani kay interested pud ko sa mystery sa loch ness monster

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

Chongki · « **Reply #2 on:** April 07, 2013, 12:42:30 AM »

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #3 on:** April 11, 2013, 09:47:59 AM »

nasud sad ko sa laang. ganahan baya gyod pod ko ni nessie. makalingaw ang iyang history.

The first purported photo of Nessie was published in The Daily Mail on April 21, 1934. CREDIT: The Daily Mail

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #4 on:** April 11, 2013, 09:57:56 AM »

In 1994, The Daily Mail published this account, revealing that the famous photo was an elaborate hoax. CREDIT: The Daily Mail

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

hubag bohol · « **Reply #5 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:04:02 AM »

Whatever...

The more monsters, the merrier...

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #6 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:31:28 AM »

lingaw mo lang... dinhi sa tb lang daan, hehe...

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #7 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:32:48 AM »

The Surgeon's Hoax

The most famous picture of the Loch Ness Monster, a grainy black and white photograph showing a long head and neck emerging from the lake, turned out to be a hoax.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #8 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:33:47 AM »

In 1993, Christian Spurling, stepson of the flamboyant movie maker and big game hunter "Duke" Wetherell, admitted he'd made the "monster" out of some plastic and a clockwork, tinplate, toy submarine. The picture (Often referred to as the "Surgeon's Photograph," because Colonel Robert Kenneth Wilson, a physician, claimed to had taken it by the Loch in April of 1934) had withstood careful scientific examination. Monster fans had speculated that the pictures showed a plesiosaur, while skeptics said it must have been an otter head or tree trunk. Nobody seems to have suspected it was actually a toy submarine.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:35:27 AM »

Tracking Down the Story

According to two Loch Ness researchers, David Martin and Alastair Boyd, in 1993 they'd heard Wetherell's son, Ian, in a 1975 article, had alleged that his father had faked one of the "Nessie" photographs. A couple of things seem to ring true about his statement. First he named Maurice Chambers as a part of the conspiracy. This was the very man Wilson had said he was going to visit the day he took the photo. Also Ian Wetherell had mentioned that some of the photos taken had included the far shoreline in the image.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #10 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:37:59 AM »

Marmaduke Wetherell

Since, with only one exception, every version of the published pictures had the shoreline cropped out, it seemed likely that Ian only knew about it because he'd been there when the photo was taken. Since by then Ian Wetherell was dead, the two men decided to talk to Ian's stepbrother, Christian Spurling. When Martin and Boyd visited him, Spurling, then 93, admitted he'd been approached by Duke Wetherell to build a fake monster.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #11 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:38:30 AM »

Duke Wetherell apparently concocted the plan as revenge upon the London Daily Mail newspaper. In 1933 the Daily Mail had hired Wetherell to find the Loch Ness Monster. Soon after arriving at the lake Wetherell found some strange tracks of a four-toed creature in the soft mud near the water. Wetherell estimated that whatever left the tracks must be twenty feet in length. Plaster casts were taken and sent to the London Museum of Natural History. While the world awaited the Museum's analysis, however, hundreds of monster hunters and tourists showed up at the Loch. Unfortunately after a few weeks the Museum announced that the tracks were not that of an unknown monster, but those of a hippo. Apparently Wetherell himself had been hoaxed. The dried foot used to make the print was probably part of an umbrella stand or ash tray. The Daily Mail was angered at Wetherell and ridiculed and humiliated him.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:39:31 AM »

Wetherell's Revenge

It was soon after this that Spurling, who was a model-maker by trade, was approached by his stepfather to build the "beast." Construction was done with plastic wood over the conning tower of the toy submarine he'd purchased. The neck, estimated by some from the photograph to be over three feet high, actually measured between 8 and 12 inches.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:41:47 AM »

"We'll give them their monster," Duke told his son. Ian Wetherell and his father took the completed contraption and a camera to the Loch and photographed it on a quiet bay, then sank the evidence in the mud at the edge of the lake. The undeveloped film was then passed to Chambers and on to Colonel Wilson, who had them developed. He then sold them photo to the Daily Mail. The conspirators were quite unprepared for the publicity the photo generated and apparently decided not to admit the hoax. The story stayed unknown for over sixty years.

Spurling constructed a fake monster out of a tinplate toy submarine and plastic material.(Copyright Lee Krystek, 2011)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

hubag bohol · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:42:30 AM »

lingaw mo lang... dinhi sa tb lang daan, hehe...

Way monsters diri, oi, milyoners nuon...

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #15 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:45:06 AM »

eh? why, wa ba diay monster nga milyonir?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:45:50 AM »

Not everyone thinks that the photo is a fake. Some have questioned why Martin and Boyd waited to announce the story until Spurling was dead, making it impossible for others to question him. As far as the beast itself goes, not even Boyd thinks that the end of the Surgeon's photo is the end of the Loch Ness Monster. Boyd, who has seen the creature himself, remains a believer.

http://www.unmuseum.org/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

hubag bohol · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:46:32 AM »

eh? why, wa ba diay monster nga milyonir?

Aha! Your words, not mine. Onsikantot, fake baya ang monster...

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:47:48 AM »

wa na koy labot kun fake ang milyonir.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:48:22 AM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf7TVrm9abY#ws
The Man Who Made the Loch Ness Monster

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

hubag bohol · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2013, 10:53:07 AM »

wa na koy labot kun fake ang milyonir.

I rest my case...

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2013, 11:51:43 AM »

Nessie 101: The Loch Ness Creature of Scotland

Where is it

Loch Ness and its monster are both found in northern Scotland

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2013, 11:52:51 AM »

What is it

Loch Ness is part of the Great Glen, an enormous fissure in the earth that just about splits Scotland into two. There are a series of lochs, rivers and canals that link the Atlantic with the North Sea. this is the most eastern of these.

It is the largest freshwater lake in the Britain. It is twenty four miles long and a maximum of one and a half miles wide. Its maximum depth is around 750 feet and its average depth 450 feet. Because the waters are very cold, and also very cloudy it is difficult to see underwater more than a few feet. So there is a lot of murky water in which Nessie could hide.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2013, 11:53:55 AM »

Monster legend

Said to have started with an account of Saint Columba, in 565 A.D rescuing a swimmer from a lake creature. From then on stories of such a creature emerged periodically, but little is actually recorded until the 20th century.

It was only after 1933, when a new road was built along the lake shore and people were first able to visit the area in large numbers, that reports of sightings really took off.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2013, 11:55:37 AM »

Mackays and Campbell 1933

The MacKays owned a pub at Drumnadrochit, and on April 14th saw an "enormous animal" in the Loch. They told the man responsible for controlling salmon fishing in the Loch, an Alex Campbell. Campbell, because of his job, spent a lot of time observing the Loch, and he saw Nessie a number of times.

Campbell put it at 30 feet long and described it as having "a long, tapering neck, about 6 feet long, and a smallish head with a serpentine look about it, and a huge hump behind..."

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2013, 11:58:14 AM »

Hugh Gray photo 1933

The monster was first photographed by a Hugh Gray in 1933. Gray claims "I immediately got my camera ready and snapped the object which was then two to three feet above the surface of the water. I did not see any head, for what I took to be the front parts were under the water, but there was considerable movement from what seemed to be the tail."

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:09:49 PM »

The Surgeon's photo

This photo was the most famous of them all, and was reputedly taken by a surgeon who was a pillar of the establishment, Colonel Robert Wilson.

Christian Spurling later admitted that he had taken part in a hoax. He made the confession on his death bed in 1993 when he was aged 90. His story was that he had helped make a model out of a toy submarine and photographed the model. Spurling claimed that his stepbrother, Ian Wetherell, and Ian's father, Marmaduke ("Duke") Wetherell, had been hired by the Daily Mail to find Nessie. They made their "monster" out of a 14-inch toy submarine and plastic wood. The photo was taken so seriously that they dared not own up to the hoax at the time.

You can take your pick as to whether this confession is proof that the photo is a fake or not.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:15:56 PM »

Seen on land 1934

Arthur Grant, a veterinary student, saw the thing crossing the road as he rode along on his motorbike. His description matched that of a Plesiosaurus - small head, long neck, big body with flippers and a tail. The Plesiosaurus, a relative of the dinosaur, has been thought to be extinct for some 65 million years.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:17:47 PM »

On moving film in 1960

An indistinct moving picture was taken by an an aeronautical engineer, Tim Dinsdale in 1960. The film may not have convinced the world, but Dinsdale gave up his job and spent the next twenty years trying to prove they existed. He saw it twice more, but never got the photographic proof.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #29 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:19:18 PM »

Sonar Sweeps in 1970

The American Academy of Applied Science funded a search by Dr Robert Rines using sonar and automatic cameras. In 1972 one of their cameras photographed, in the murk, what appeared to be a flipper about 6 feet long on just four frames of film.

Various sonar contacts followed, but it was not until 1975 that they got a vague, very blurred image of what might possibly have been the face.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #30 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:22:17 PM »

Submarines

In more recent years mini submarines have tried to find Nessie, without success. In 1987, 20 cruisers methodically swept the Loch with sonar equipment bouncing sound waves from the surface down to the bottom and electronically recording any contacts. Many salmon were found, but no Nessie.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #31 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:27:35 PM »

Conclusion

None of the evidence so far shows proof of Nessie's existence.

On the other hand the waters are big enough and deep enough to hide such a creature.

And there again it is impossible for one to exist, there would have to be a breeding population of say at least 10 to 20.

Certainly no bones or bodies have been found, so the myth lives on.

http://www.scotland-calling.com/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0

islander · « **Reply #32 on:** April 11, 2013, 12:48:24 PM »

nazaag man si godzilla. nangita pod tingali ni nessie ay.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71776.0