• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates this weekend: Saturday 7th - Sunday 8th June 2025.
    Little to no downtime is expected.

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

Swifty said:
Quite a stretch? .. as in a dog swimming in a loch is unlikely? ..
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Having been owned by a Labrador retriever myself, that's not it. I mean you have to squint pretty hard, use your imagination, and ignore much of the information that actually is in the image in order to see a dog. That's why I likened it to the rodents on Mars we've all been shown in recent years on the nutjob sites. Silly. Just my opinion, of course. And no, I don't see a monster either. It's an ambiguous image. I might get around to hunting up the original story that accompanied it though. As someone up thread pointed out, the picture does not exist in a vacuum and I'm not one for calling people liars just because I don't like their stories.
 
i don't think its a dog but its definitely a double exposure of something, i would guess a lizard
 
Analogue Boy said:
It’s water. But that’s not proof it’s a loch.
Click to expand...

Gray claimed he took the photo in the vicinity of the River Foyers' mouth. The ripple patterns in the water and the dark shadows / reflections apparent toward the upper right of the photo have always made me think the picture makes more sense as a shot of the river rather than the loch.
 
Gray took his photo in November 1933 - one month after the Alex Campbell and friend Nessie sightings claims (reported by Philip Stalker) that arguably kicked off the Nessie commercialization fad that was well underway by the time 1934 arrived.

Campbell retracted the story he told Stalker, but nobody remembers or notes that. Similarly, it's not often mentioned that Campbell would eventually claim circa 18 different Nessie sightings.

As it turns out, the suspicion that naturally arises when someone says they've seen Nessie so many times also applies to Gray.

According to Loxton and Prothero's Abominable Science Gray would eventually tally 6 alleged sightings, of which the November 1933 photo came from the second.

That book also notes that Gray didn't have the film developed for circa 3 weeks after the incident. This seems odd, given that once there was a photo showing something of interest Gray would claim he'd seen an anomaly and quickly photographed it in response. Some accounts insinuate Gray wasn't aware he'd captured an anomaly's image until after the film was developed.

Whether expected or not, the developed photo was in Gray's hands just as the Nessie frenzy was launching.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U...Q6AEwGHoECB4QAQ#v=onepage&q=hugh gray&f=false
 
Cochise said:
As in - it doesn't look like a dog unless you have a powerful imagination. Well, actually I do have a powerful imagination and it still doesn't look like a dog.
Click to expand...

To me it strongly looks like a dog's face holding a branch in its mouth and paddling towards the photographer but the different and extra details provided so far in this thread about the image are compelling. Truth be told, I'd love it if it was proven not to be a dog's face.
 
I don't know WTF it is. And we won't ever know because the data is lost and most likely can't ever be retrieved (err, no pun intended there). But what is solid is that it is not reasonable evidence whatsoever of a "monster". These days, I wonder if a picture or video EVER could be solid evidence.
 
Sharon Hill said:
These days, I wonder if a picture or video EVER could be solid evidence.
Click to expand...

I think that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact, I think it was long gone over the horizon twenty years ago, when digital cameras became readily available consumer items. Of course manipulated photos have been around almost as long as photos have. It's just so much easier to do now.

Back around 1990, a guy from the local newspaper where I lived was telling me all about the new digital equipment his employer had just gotten, and the consequences of such ease of manipulation. He sounded a bit alarmist, but ten years later his predictions were proven true. And now we have YouTube.
 
Austin Popper said:
I think that ship sailed a long time ago. In fact, I think it was long gone over the horizon twenty years ago, when digital cameras became readily available consumer items. Of course manipulated photos have been around almost as long as photos have. It's just so much easier to do now.
Click to expand...
Yet people keep insisting it's "proof" :bf:
Thanks, Internet!
 
Zeke Newbold said:
Nevertheless, the venerable Glasgow Boy - surely Britain's last die hard Nessie believer - has put up a spirited and elaborate defence of the picture as showing something else entirely and the dog image as being a case of paredolia. (Strap yourself in for a long and detailed read).

http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2011/06/hugh-gray-photograph-revisited_26.html
Click to expand...

I revisited Glasgow Boy's blog this morning and it really does smack of desperation!
Superimposing a black dog swimming directly at the camera over the golden retriever swimming at an approximately 45 degree angle left to right and then saying that the features don't line up, was pretty shabby.
Then dismissing the retriever's eye, nose and ear as "simulacra" but adding his own simulated mouth to the image was downright laughable.
We cannot say with 100% certainty that it is a golden retriever with a stick in its mouth, but Occam's razor and all that has to point to that being the most likely explanation.
 
The original untouched print is found in Rupert Gould's book. It is more clearer than the other photographs.

Now if you want to get a better look at what is going on, take the photograph and put in Microsoft paint. You can then invert the image, like I have done here:

Loch Ness photograph.png


The photograph to me shows a small rowing boat. You can see the outline of the dog as well. It could be a dog in the boat, or it could be just an object in the boat. Either way, the image is not evidence of the loch ness monster.

I can definitely understand the dog hypothesis, based on the above. Others say the photograph depicts an otter or swan, I do not see that. I would be interested in any of your thoughts on the above inverted image. Regards.
 
It could be a kayaker doing a rolling manoeuvre.
 
I was once rather taken by the dog & stick but not so much anymore. I'm leaning toward swan. http://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/3/7/boo...-ronald-binnss-the-loch-ness-mystery-reloaded

P.S. Naish is justifiably critical of Roland's stuff. I notice that because not many people blog about this subject, Roland has cornered the search results, unfortunately. People check the internet more than actually well-written books on topics.
 
If I squint long enough I can see that it is clearly The Face On Mars, sitting atop The Thunderbird Photo.
 
Coming to this late - it looks like... a double exposure of er something. Absolutley no sign of anything dog like whatsover however I could believe it's a stick about 4 foot away in a puddle , maybe.
 
It appears its got a fin like a whale and it has what looks like two slats of wood fastened to it, i thought it was a weird surf board
 
Sharon Hill said:
I was once rather taken by the dog & stick but not so much anymore. I'm leaning toward swan. http://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/3/7/boo...-ronald-binnss-the-loch-ness-mystery-reloaded

P.S. Naish is justifiably critical of Roland's stuff. I notice that because not many people blog about this subject, Roland has cornered the search results, unfortunately. People check the internet more than actually well-written books on topics.
Click to expand...

I still can't unsee the dog's head, but tetzoo does make quite a compelling case for the swan - notably the detail around the "ankle".
 
Sharon Hill said:
I was once rather taken by the dog & stick but not so much anymore. I'm leaning toward swan. http://tetzoo.com/blog/2019/3/7/boo...-ronald-binnss-the-loch-ness-mystery-reloaded

P.S. Naish is justifiably critical of Roland's stuff. I notice that because not many people blog about this subject, Roland has cornered the search results, unfortunately. People check the internet more than actually well-written books on topics.
Click to expand...

The key sentence in the analysis for me is "There’s a popular idea among cryptozoologists that one should ignore personality traits and biography and just pay attention to the monster sighting. Alas, no; this is wrong. Those things are absolutely relevant."

Gray owned a golden retriever and had a reputation as something of a practical joker.

O'Connor owned a kayak , which was used in his 1960 Loch Ness "expedition".:

kayak.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top