People always ask where the new Loch Ness pictures are, but, unfortunately the latest pictures are owned by litigious individuals who are just waiting for someone like me to publish them so that they can sue. This is a really sad situation, but not one I can do anything about.
All the examples we have encountered have been deliberately faked or mistaken identity. See www.Loch-Ness.org for more information and analysis. Many of the older "classic" pictures appear below.
Mr Gray didn't mention that he had seen anything until after he had his photograph developed.
The picture is so indistinct that it really could be anything. Perhaps he was out with his dog, took a photograph of his dog swimming back to him with stick he had thrown in the water, and when it was developed he decided to claim it was the monster. Can you see a Labrador dog in the retouched version below?
Whatever the truth of the matter, it is a fair bet that Hugh Gray's picture has nothing to do with monsters in Loch Ness.
These pictures should be called the Wetherell photographs as they were hoaxed by the big game hunter employed by the Daily Mail newspaper. Colonel Kenneth Wilson, who was supposed to be the photographer was just a stooge. See more analysis on the Loch Ness Information Website. It would be fair to say that the "Surgeon's Photograph" and is probably one of the most recognisable photographic images in the world.
Some commentators and researchers still refuse to accept that the Surgeon's picture was an elaborate hoax, using the second picture, shown below, as justification in that it shows the animal diving.
In fact the second picture was another hoax attempt taken at a completely different time as evidenced by the different water conditions.
This picture has been the icon of the monster-hunters for decades. Its exposure has already affected people's perception of the subject and will no doubt continue to do so.
How the hoax was perpetrated is described in the book NESSIE - The Surgeon's Photograph by David Martin and Alistair Boyd. This can be purchased here. It's a really good read and extremely thorough.
One of the photographs taken by the first organised expedition. Sir Edward Mountain in 1934, with team of unemployed workers took a number of pictures of the monster, possibly because they were on a bonus for a successful shot.
Could this be a killer whale swimming towards the front right of the frame? It is completely unlike every other Loch Ness Monster photograph.
If Loch Ness Monsters behaved like this then they would surely have been seen more often. During the nineteen-seventies, Loch Ness Project member, Ricky Gardiner, lined up the exact point from where the picture was taken. It was found that the objects were in very shallow water.
Richard Frere, a well-known local author who died in 1999, actually watched Lachlan Stuart setting up his Loch Ness monster fake picture. He claimed it was three bales of hay covered with tarpaulin.
The MacNab picture is hugely controversial. Mr MacNab, a bank manager and pillar of the community - although we may not think that so much of his trade today - took this picture in 1956.
The sheer size the monster would have to be to appear this large beside Urquhart Castle tower which is some 50 feet (15m) tall means that, allowing for half underwater, it is impossible.
MacNab mixed up his negatives when providing them to Professor Roy Mackal and, as can be seen the two versions show the monster in the exact same position, but the surroundings change. This may not be too difficult to explain until you learn that the picture below comes from the original negative.
Now you must ask where the tree came from in the bottom left of the image above!
Trapped by the discrepancy, MacNab then said that he had taken pictures with two different cameras ... so why has the monster not moved between the two frames?
After further analysis Mackal showed that both pictures really had to be copies of the same image.
As Mackal delved further into the image provided by MacNab, he noticed other "curious" factors such as the fact that although Urquhart Castle tower is vertical, its reflection leans to the right in the picture.
Cockrell was unsure what he had seen when he took this picture from his small boat. Frankly it could be anything.
Usually called the "Muppet picture". Any guesses why?
I've lived overlooking the loch for over twenty years and had only one sighting ... my wife has had no sightings and yet we have a large picture window which allows us to see many square miles of the surface. Nevertheless, I am approached no end of times by individuals who have spent only a few days here and are convinced they've seen something unusual when, of course, all they have seen is ducks, boat wakes or windrows. These individuals have no idea how daft they sound.
With what can be done with Adobe PhotoDeluxe and PhotoShop today no still photograph or video image can be trusted. A piece of the animal is essential if the matter is going to be proven. Having made these points I am showing my very poor and indistinct pictures here because I know that they are genuine. This does not mean that I expect you, who do not know me, to believe that I am telling the truth. Only I can be certain of that.
Having made the points above I am showing one of the pictures here for posterity. At normal magnification, above you can see nothing except a dark mark on a good photographic print. At higher magnification, left, you may see the object and at the huge magnification I show on the right, the object becomes real ... but a real what?
My sighting was back in 1986. The only value in the pictures is that they reinforced to me the fact that I was certain I had not seen any of the usual phenomena of the loch. It is also difficult to reconcile the blow-up with the possibility of a group of ducks. The pictures may be reproduced as long as credit is given to the Loch Ness Inquirer and a link made to www.loch-ness.org.
My sighting occurred on the morning of the Operation Deepscan trials with five boats, the year before the main event. Unfortunately my cameras with telephoto lenses had been loaned to a project member to take pictures of the exercise for sponsorship purposes so I was left with just a Canon Sureshot fixed focus camera. Just remember this was no modern epic movie seen from corner TV stands for flat screen TVs, but an event in my real life.
The object crossed the loch diagonally for some minutes before suddenly disappearing from view. I scanned the loch with binoculars for some time afterwards and nothing came back to the surface ... no ducks, no logs, no seals, no otters, no monsters. I have always thought that the object was about six feet (2m) long, but, even from the familiar vantage point of my own house, it is difficult to judge size and distance.