Nessie Is Messy – Some Thoughts About the Loch Ness Monster

Let’s get one thing out in the open right off the bat. The Loch Ness Monster (a.k.a. Nessie) is not real. There is not a single shred of verifiable evidence that there is, or ever was, a creature unknown to science paddling around in Loch Ness.

Nor, for that matter, is there any truth to the wild tales concerning any other cryptid. (“Cryptid” being the preferred nomenclature, among devotees of the genre, for animals like Nessie and Bigfoot.) However, a complete lack of evidence doesn’t stop Nessie disciples from claiming they actually have tons of it.

Let’s start with something basic.

What Does Nessie Look Like?

This simple question has flummoxed Nessiephiles (that isn’t a word but it should be) since modern sightings of the Monster kicked off in the early 1930s.

See, if you take a gander at the aggregate eyewitness testimonies, there is nothing even remotely approaching a unified description of Nessie. F. W. Memory described the incongruity all the way back in 1933, in an article published in the Daily Mail:

“Hardly two descriptions tallied, and the monster took on both curious and fantastic shapes – longneck, short neck […] one hump, two humps, even eight humps, and no humps at all! In fact, it rivals the most versatile quick-change artist of the vaudeville stage in the appearances it was able to assume between one viewing and another.”

Today, Nessie is often described as a large creature with a broadly muscled back (you know, like a seal), that moves quickly and sleekly through the water (you know, like a seal). But descriptions still crop up of creatures that look like anything and everything (or, you know, like a seal).

Anyway… Moving on.

Photographic “Evidence”

Over the years literally thousands of pictures have been taken that supposedly depict the Loch Ness Monster. There is one though, the so-called “Surgeon’s Photo,” which stands far, far above the rest. Time Magazine even selected it as one of the 100 most influential photographs of the twentieth century, and – for good or ill – it was definitely that. It was also a hoax.

(The "Surgeon's Photo")

The story goes something like this. A fellow called Marmaduke Wetherell (is that a fantastic name, or what?) claimed, in 1933, that he had found a whole bunch of Nessie’s footprints. Wetherell worked for London’s Daily Mail, and so was quickly able to get the story into print. Almost immediately after it went public, however, the tracks were shown to be fraudulent, and Wetherell was openly mocked in the pages of his own paper.

Incensed that his employer would do such a thing, Wetherell devised some payback. He went to Woolworths, purchased a toy submarine, and gave it to his son-in-law, Christian Spurling, an expert sculptor. Spurling fashioned a head and neck out of clay or something similar, and attached his handiwork to the sub. The pair then proceeded to tow their “monster” around the shore of Loch Ness on a piece of string, taking photographs.

Another co-conspirator, Robert Kenneth Wilson, a British gynecologist and avid practical joker, publicly claimed to have taken the pictures. However, when the Daily Mail bought them for publication, he refused to allow the use of his name, probably out of concern for the continued viability of his medical practice. In any event, Wilson’s refusal led to the picture being dubbed the “Surgeon’s Photo.”

The Daily Mail and a whole slew of other papers published the now famous image beneath headlines trumpeting the unequivocal existence of a creature living in Loch Ness. And it was considered to be solid proof for the next six decades, right up until the 1999 publication of a book called Nessie: The Surgeon’s Photograph Exposed. The authors, Alastair Boyd and David S. Martin, could not be dismissed as snooty, ivory-tower scientists whose only intention was to take a big dump on the Nessie legend. Both men were long-time members of the Loch Ness and Morar Project, an organization devoted to Nessie research.

And yet. despite having the truth smack them in the face like a ball of modeling clay, many Nessie enthusiasts continue to believe in the veracity of the “Surgeon’s Photo.”

Steve Challice’s Photograph

In June of 2020, Steve Challice, of Southampton England, made an enormous spalsh when dropped a new picture into a Nessie subculture that had gone somewhat quiescent. When interviewed by the Daily Record, Challice had this to say:

“In my opinion – and I’m no expert – I think it’s a large fish that got into the Loch from the sea. As to what it is personally, I think it’s a catfish or something like that but a big one. Someone suggested it may be sturgeon. It’s very large as the bit you can see must be at least 8-foot-long and who can tell what amount is below the surface. The water is very dark in Loch Ness so it’s hard to tell.”

It took scientists and observant Twitter users little better than a nanosecond to point out the obvious forgery. 

(The Original Challice Photo. Note How Real It Looks!)

When Steve Challice innocently told people he had photographed a catfish that was roughly seven feet long, he was absolutely telling the truth, apart from one niggling little detail: He hadn’t photographed anything at all. But it does appear that he had done a bit of photoshopping.

Here’s one way the image might have been created:

First, download a picture of a wels catfish. They are seriously big critters, sometimes growing to lengths approaching eight feet and weights in excess of 250 pounds. The specific picture you want is one of a wels that had been caught by Italian fishermen.

(Wels Catfish Caught by Italian Fishermen. Note Circled Area.)

Change the color of the catfish from brownish to pinkish, but leave its fingerprint-like mottling precisely as you find it. Take that image smoosh it onto some water. It doesn’t necessarily even need to be Loch Ness.

(Close-Up of Challice's Nessie. Now Pink. And Smooshed.)

(The Challice Image Combined with the Wels Catfish. Hmmm...)

Finally, attract the attention of the media, and kick back and to wallow in your 15 minutes of fame.

Sadly, and despite the obvious falsity, the picture continues to make Nessiephiles (that still isn’t a word, dammit) absolutely loopy with pleasure. But hey, why let facts interfere with a good myth?

Nessie Is Big Business

One of the main things interfering with majority acceptance of the truth about Nessie is a simple one. Money. Bucket loads of it.

It has been estimated that the “mystery” of the Loch Ness Monster injects almost $56 million into the Scottish economy every year. That's an enormous figure, and thousands of lives depend on its continuation. It is for this reason alone that properly trained and informed scientists, with their annoyingly logic-based questions and requests for testable evidence, are so often dissuaded from plying their trades in and around Loch Ness.

Which brings us to another unfortunate truth. Science the Nessie industry are incompatible. It does a disservice to science, and to humanity at large, to base lives and commercial interests on misconceptions and lies. But since humans have been doing it for thousands of years, Nessie is probably here to stay. If only as a business model.

What does all this have to do with biophilia? Only this: Sometimes, a person’s need for a connection to nature can lead them to places that are very wide their goal.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Additional Reading & Works Cited:

Loxton, Daniel & Donald R. Prothero. Abominable Science! Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids. New York, Columbia University Press, 2013.

Martin, David S. and Alastair Boyd. Nessie: The Surgeon’s Photograph Exposed. Independently published by Martin & Boyd, 1999.

Memory, F. W. “The Monster Is a Seal: Conclusions of the ‘Daily Mail’ Mission,” Daily Mail, London, ca. December 18, 1933 – January 19, 1934.