• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Do You See The Dog In The Water? (Hugh Gray Nessie Photo; 1933)

It took me ages too see the dog. I can see it now - but without massive clues, not a chance.

I cannot cite a source, but I have a vague recollection of reading of a "south sea island" tribe (or south American?) who were said to be unable to see the European ships just off the coast because they were so unlike anything they had ever seen. Whether this is true or just a good story, I don't know.

I heard this about our Aborigines - but have heard it thoroughly debunked too. It wasn't that they couldn't see them - they just wanted nothing to do with them. Because the sailors looked weird, smelled awful and had nothing on offer that the locals wanted.

It was a case of "ignore and they just might go away".
 
I can't see a dog or an otter.

Or a monster.

I don't think it is a double exposure because the water is not blurred, although that doesn't totally rule it out.

Whatever it is does not seem to be making a great deal of disturbance in the water, so, based on the picture alone, I suggest a half-submerged dead something. Quite small.
 
agree with all of that, except doesnt come across as organic material, overall shape seems too structured, maybe an old decayed dinghy or similar
 
I'm attaching the earliest, clearest version of the Gray photo I could readily find.

I don't think it's an otter, but I think it could well be Gray's Labrador. However, I don't think it's Gray's dog with a stick.

If you look at the photo closely you'll notice a disjunction or discrepancy in the image moving from left to right, as well as duplication of some features. This leads me to suspect it's a double exposure of the dog in the water, with the two exposures occurring while the dog was at different distances from the camera.
Couldn't agree more - duplication in the image is too precise.
 
de-dupe algorithms should be able to correct ... or improve
 
Couldn't agree more - duplication in the image is too precise.
If you 'stand back' from the picture, on the 'far' side of the 'feature' the light and dark stripes across the water, running roughly top-right to bottom-left, reverse on the near side of the 'feature'.
 
In some misremembered, false memory sort of way, I have seen this photo before BUT I remember the dog being much clearer - still a little ambiguous, but once you saw him, clearly a lab-type face. This version, I cannot see it at all. Is there another version of this photo, or am I having a senior moment?
 
In some misremembered, false memory sort of way, I have seen this photo before BUT I remember the dog being much clearer - still a little ambiguous, but once you saw him, clearly a lab-type face. This version, I cannot see it at all. Is there another version of this photo, or am I having a senior moment?
No, there is that version out there, I've seen it too. Whether ir not it's been enhanced though.
 
In some misremembered, false memory sort of way, I have seen this photo before BUT I remember the dog being much clearer - still a little ambiguous, but once you saw him, clearly a lab-type face. This version, I cannot see it at all. Is there another version of this photo, or am I having a senior moment?

I have read widely about the `Loch Ness Monster` and I can assure you that the image provided in the original post is the image featured in all the books that I can think of. The enhanced versions - which somebody kindly posted above - make the image less obviously dog-with-stick like rather than more..

There are one or two mock up versions doing the rounds i.e - someone staging a dog-with-stick-in the- water scene to show the comparison. Perhaps you sre getting mixed up with that?

Or it's a Mandela Effect.
 
When I first saw the photo, I saw a serpentine shape causing a commotion on the water because I was prompted to. Later, I saw a dog with a stick in its mouth because I was prompted to.

Now I can see a blurry dog with a stick but the stick doesn’t look like a stick. It’s much more smooth and eel-like.
 
If it's a dog with a stick, then it's a dog pushing a stick with it's nose. If it were holding it in it's mouth, a great deal of the 'muzzle' would be to the front of the 'stick'.
 
enhanced :
Loch ness pic.jpg


original (i believe) :
hugh gray wide shot.JPG
 
where is the double exposure ?
Look at the right hand end of the "stick" and the image above it. Duplicated shape. Also between the two bright flashes there are two white dots with a near vertical line (a dogs nose?) between. That image is also duplicated above.
 
The dog's right ear, with the light blob at the tip, certainly looks to be duplicated.
 
you mean the "dog" introduced by the "enhancement" ... perhaps it was wearing ear rings
 
you mean the "dog" introduced by the "enhancement" ... perhaps it was wearing ear rings

Well no. I thought the sepia-coloured image that Enolagaia posted was an original, and the dog is quite obvious.
Possibly some versions have been "enhanced" to diminish the canine features and boost the woo factor.

IMG_0536.JPG
 
other way round i think ... from original post article : "the popular version of the Gray image doing the rounds is not the original. In true media fashion, it was retouched to make it more legible to their readers. Rupert Gould says it was retouched in his 1934 book and this is reiterated by Peter Costello in his book "In Search of Lake Monsters" where he lays the blame with the Daily Telegraph for touching it up to emphasize the waterline."
 
Well no. I thought the sepia-coloured image that Enolagaia posted was an original, and the dog is quite obvious.
Possibly some versions have been "enhanced" to diminish the canine features and boost the woo factor.

View attachment 13858
It's not quite obvious to me because I can't see it. If there is a dog swimming in the water why is the water not more disturbed? I will repeat for anyone that thinks I'm 'increasing the woo' that I can't see a monster either. It looks to me like some sort of flotsam.
 
I guess it isn't easy to determine what is original and what is enhanced.
The print above from the Daily Record and Mail is clearly quite old and claims to be an "untouched print".
I wish the print had a date on it, so we could tell whether it predates anything the Telegraph published.
 
Look closely enough and it's obviously a mermaid.
 

Attachments

  • Mermaid.jpg
    Mermaid.jpg
    200.7 KB · Views: 13
  • Untouched.jpg
    Untouched.jpg
    192 KB · Views: 14
Back
Top