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

Natural History Museum zoologist WAS sacked for believing in the Loch Ness monster, newly released documents reveal


The sacking of a leading zoologist from one of Britain's most prestigious museums has remained a mystery for decades.

But newly released documents reveal that Dr Denys Tucker lost his job at the Natural History Museum due to his belief in the existence of the Loch Ness monster.

iu


Dr Tucker began his academic career after serving in the Second World War as a pilot, joining the museum in 1949 as a scientific officer in the department of zoology. He rose up the ranks and became a principal scientific officer in 1957.

However, when Dr Tucker was 39, his career came to an abrupt end. In 1960, he was fired for alleged insubordination, which stunned colleagues and sparked decades of speculation over his beliefs about Loch Ness.

The newly uncovered documents, from the museum's board of trustees, reinforce the view that his dismissal was down to his belief in the creature rather than concerns about his professional behaviour.

The ignominy of the sacking ensured he never worked again in a senior academic post. Months before his exit, he wrote in the New Scientist magazine of his belief that the supposed monster – by then the subject of thousands of alleged sightings – must be a plesiosaur, a reptile thought to have been extinct for 70 million years.

The documents from the board of trustees have now revealed the level of paranoia among senior figures at the museum who feared potential reputational damage if it was perceived to be taking the monster's existence seriously.

A memo issued to staff by the board in 1959 warned: 'The trustees wish it to be known that they do not approve of the spending of official time or official leave on the so-called Loch Ness Phenomenon.' The memo added: 'If, as a result of the activities of members of the staff, the museum is involved in undesirable publicity, [the trustees] will be gravely displeased.'

In the face of ridicule from leading scientists, Dr Tucker even claimed to have seen the monster.

Dr Tucker died in France in 2009, unrepentant in his belief in its existence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ogist-sacked-believing-Loch-Ness-monster.html

maximus otter
 
I once met a man from Scotland, he said his mother still lived in their home overlooking Loch Ness. Her kitchen window faced the Loch, and she claimed to have seen the monster many times, his long neck coming up out of the water, and swimming around. From what this man said, the residents in the area know there is something in the Loch.
Have the residents ever publicly made any statements?
 
I once met a man from Scotland, he said his mother still lived in their home overlooking Loch Ness. Her kitchen window faced the Loch, and she claimed to have seen the monster many times, his long neck coming up out of the water, and swimming around. From what this man said, the residents in the area know there is something in the Loch.
Have the residents ever publicly made any statements?
I once knew a Scotsman who, for a good half hour, explained the lifecycle and habits of the wild, three-legged mountain haggis, the reasons they couldn't be kept in captivity, and how to hunt them. Natural bards, those celts.
 
Its hard enough educating the public on real subjects without pulling pseudoscience into the mix.

Museums, particularly big ones have a scientific duty.
Well, no-one has proven that Nessie doesn't exist...

I think it's worth remembering that all this happened just 20 odd years after the first modern sighting, claimed or otherwise. Scientists really should have open minds, after all some of the subjects they study change and evolve over the years.
 
... Scientists really should have open minds, after all some of the subjects they study change and evolve over the years.

Even these most recent revelations indicate Tucker was promoting a particular position on the LNM issue rather than maintaining an "open mind" on the subject. It seems to me that's the real crux of the matter.
 
Its hard enough educating the public on real subjects without pulling pseudoscience into the mix.

Museums, particularly big ones have a scientific duty.
I am not a biologist nor zoologist and don’t know much about the history of the loch Ness monster. With that being stated, I don’t know what orthodox science thought about it 60 years ago, when Dr. Tucker was writing about the monster, or what the range of orthodox opinion was about it back then. I would assume that academic biologists or zoologists weighing in on this would be a welcome point of view, even if their opinion was later proven wrong.

I think that most people now would think it unlikely that the monster was an aquatic reptile (although the Galapagos Islands have them). I have no idea if this seemed unlikely 60 years ago. I always assumed that a weird, natural phenomenon was responsible for at least some of the sightings, and that it was not all just an invented scheme.

Dr. Tucker paid dearly for his unpopular opinion, and perhaps for his cranky personality. :) The Natural History Museum where he was employed certainly did its scientific duty by firing him.
 
Well, no-one has proven that Nessie doesn't exist...

I think it's worth remembering that all this happened just 20 odd years after the first modern sighting, claimed or otherwise. Scientists really should have open minds, after all some of the subjects they study change and evolve over the years.
True that, and it brings to mind the Sandra Mansi photo of 1977 of a long-necked creature in Lake Champlain in Vermont.
Until her death in 2018, Ms Mansi insisted her photo was genuinely of a prehistoric type animal in the lake.
 

Attachments

  • champ 1.jpg
    champ 1.jpg
    232.1 KB · Views: 26
I think that most people now would think it unlikely that the monster was an aquatic reptile (although the Galapagos Islands have them).


Some people might disagree with that, I've been listening to the 'Terrible Lizards' podcast (Izzy Lawrence and David Hone) and they had a paleontologist (I'm sorry I cannot remember her name off the top of my head) and she was asked what is the best example of a modern marine reptile and she said an Emperor Penguin. That said i don't think that Nessie is an extinct or living Marine Reptile :)
 
I am not a biologist nor zoologist and don’t know much about the history of the loch Ness monster. With that being stated, I don’t know what orthodox science thought about it 60 years ago, when Dr. Tucker was writing about the monster, or what the range of orthodox opinion was about it back then. ...

That's a good point. That timeframe is around the time I began reading everything I could find about the LNM. As I recall, discussion among laypersons was definitely focused on the notion there was a plesiosaur (or equivalent) in the loch. I don't have a clear recollection as to what range of explanations "academia" was entertaining at the time.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I am not a biologist nor zoologist and don’t know much about the history of the loch Ness monster. With that being stated, I don’t know what orthodox science thought about it 60 years ago, when Dr. Tucker was writing about the monster, or what the range of orthodox opinion was about it back then. I would assume that academic biologists or zoologists weighing in on this would be a welcome point of view, even if their opinion was later proven wrong.

I think that most people now would think it unlikely that the monster was an aquatic reptile (although the Galapagos Islands have them). I have no idea if this seemed unlikely 60 years ago. I always assumed that a weird, natural phenomenon was responsible for at least some of the sightings, and that it was not all just an invented scheme.

Dr. Tucker paid dearly for his unpopular opinion, and perhaps for his cranky personality. :) The Natural History Museum where he was employed certainly did its scientific duty by firing him.
I was being sarcastic when I wrote that “The Natural History Museum where he was employed certainly did its scientific duty by firing him.”

It was unclear from the linked news article Maximus Otter posted why exactly the museum fired Dr. Tucker.

If it was because Dr. Tucker was stating, as an official museum representative, that the monster was a plesiosaur, and that the museum directors disagreed with his conjecture, then orthodoxy, not science nor pseudoscience, wins. Orthodoxy is always dependent on time and culture. (At various times, orthodox science thought it was pseudoscience – “wrong” – to think that humans were in North America before 12000 years ago, or that Africans were the intellectual equals of Europeans, or that stones fell from the sky, or that…)

If Dr. Tucker was stating the plesiosaur conjecture, not as a museum rep, but on his own, then the museum may or may not have legal or ethical standing for firing him.

If the museum fired him because he was using museum resources for researching the plesiosaur hypothesis, against the orders of the museum directors, then I think the museum was within its rights to fire him.

Hindsight is so easily, and apparently, 20:20.

I would love it if the monster was a huge plesiosaur, but alas I think this is not the case. I think, in addition to lies, news media hysteria, and mistaken identity (the Forteana trifecta), the remaining causes are large eels. But if only! Oh but if only….. I'd certainly take even a little plesiosaur.
 
I would love it if the monster was a huge plesiosaur, but alas I think this is not the case. I think, in addition to lies, news media hysteria, and mistaken identity (the Forteana trifecta), the remaining causes are large eels. But if only! Oh but if only….. I'd certainly take even a little plesiosaur.
I'd be thrilled with a large, previously unidentified species of eel. Anything, really, for Nessie to show that cryptids represent the unknown rather than just misidentifications, attention seeking and tourist baiting.

However, as I'm sure has been pointed out, our most common notion of Nessie as a plesiosaur is that she holds her head aloft, clear of the water from time to time. We know of no group of serpentine animals that do this. Furthermore, and Dr Tucker would not have known this, this striking image of plesiosaurs holding their heads in the Nessie pose is an archaic one, now discredited. The evidence we have of Nessie being a plesiosaur has become evidence against Nessie being a plesiosaur. Without the cryptozoologist's habit of dismissing differences from their favourite identification with 'after millions of years of evolution' (in which case why choose that identification rather than accept it could be any number of evolved prehistoric beasts, not to mention any beasts we've yet to find in the fossil record), we have no more reason to think Nessie is a plesiosaur than that she's any other animal that she doesn't resemble.
 
Good. We dont need academics messing in this.

There is no evidence for aquatic reptiles in Loch Ness.
I'm alarmed to see such views being propagated - and Liked - on a forum such as this.

I particularly loathe the tabloidesque line about `academics messing in this`

As Amazed pointed out, we aren't in full possession of the facts of the case. All the article says is that he was fired for `insubordination` (!) and this may well have happened as a result of an article he wrote for (and which was published in) the New Scientist about the Loch Ness Monster. I remember reading about this some time ago from pro-Nessie writers - and I assumed that it was a conspiracy theory they'd hatched!

The whole thing does smack though of what we would now call `cancel culture`.

As Amazed points out, our understanding of natural science and of the Loch in particular has moved on somewhat since Dr Tucker's time. Then we couldn't do Sonar sweeps and DNA testing. His view that a remnant plesiosaur was down there was more forgivable in those times than it would be now.

I have read a fair bit on the L.N.M in the past - but have probably forgotten most of it. What I do recall is that the plesiosuar angle was only one early interpretation - later to be superseded by other more probable biological culprits.

What about scientists who have a faith and believe in God or Allah without supplying evidence? Should they be sacked from public posts also? Where does it end?

For what it's worth, I am myself now a complete sceptic on the Loch Ness Monster.
 
I'm alarmed to see such views being propagated - and Liked - on a forum such as this.

I particularly loathe the tabloidesque line about `academics messing in this`
I can't speak for @Kondoru, but my take is this. I've no longer any time or respect for science deniers. After wasting years debating them online, I've realised nothing can be done with them. Yet they continue to proliferate. Scientific institutions need to be focusing on these things now. There is much that science can and has contributed to the Loch Ness phenomenon, and any academic who wishes to weigh in is, of course, welcomed (by forteans, at least, though not by those people who assume that 'science is a turtle that says that it's shell encloses all things', ironically). But the fortean playground is those phenomena which provide little for academia to study, leaving it open to speculation. Things some scientists may deride, we take great pleasure in. I'm fine if scientists wish to involve themselves in strange and rare phenomena if they see a basis on which to build hypotheses and a method of gathering data, but where that data is lacking, can't be reproduced, or is anecdotal, there's really little they can do. They have bigger, grimmer hills on which to die.

What about scientists who have a faith and believe in God or Allah without supplying evidence? Should they be sacked from public posts also? Where does it end?
Don't get me started! But, no, I don't suppose that would be very constructive.
 
Peter: the fact remains that the New Scientist - a respected academic journal - saw fit to publish Dr Tuckers writing. This would imply to me that his views were not considered beyond the pale were within mainstream science that time. So to label him a `science denier` is something of a stretch.

it was the meatheaded tone of Kondoru's post more than anything else which grated. One should never be cavalier or gleeful about someone else's loss of livelihood and position (unless they are some kind of heinous criminal, that is).
 
Last edited:
Peter: the fact remains that the New Scientist - a respected academic journal - saw fit to publish Dr Tuckers writing. This would imply to me that his views were not considered beyond the pale were within mainstream science that time. So to label him a `science denier` is something of a stretch.

it was the meatheaded tone of Kondoru's post more than anything else which grated. One should never be cavalier or gleeful about someone else's loss of livelihood and position (unless they are some kind of heinous criminal, that is).
I'm not labelling Dr Tucker a science denier; he was just a man with an opinion.

I'm just saying science has subjects more amenable to its methods on which to spend its time, and a population which increasingly fails to be convinced by its findings, and it shouldn't spend too much time studying subjects that are inscrutable to scientific theory and study. Dr Tucker made a choice, and more power to him. The Natural History Museum is allowed to make choices, too. Some choice have consequences. Dr Tucker lost his job. In attempting to preserve their reputation as an institution of credibility, the Natural History Museum may also gain a reputation for intolerance of certain kinds of phenomena, which may not be ideal for them. But, that's the choice they made. They may also have lost a valuable employee, unless Dr Tucker was a problem to them in other areas. We don't know.

As for @Kondoru's original comment; perhaps it was a bit of a casual dismissal of a man's trials. It's easily done on the internet. I think I'm a bit desensitized to it.
 
Some people might disagree with that, I've been listening to the 'Terrible Lizards' podcast (Izzy Lawrence and David Hone) and they had a paleontologist (I'm sorry I cannot remember her name off the top of my head) and she was asked what is the best example of a modern marine reptile and she said an Emperor Penguin. That said i don't think that Nessie is an extinct or living Marine Reptile :)
Hmmmm. I would have said sea snake, iguana or sea turtle.
 
I'm sorry I have been churlish.

I'm projecting my own problems onto his; This guy had one of the countries most prestigious positions in museums and he thows it away for this?

I have been warned not to get involved in pseudoscience...but of course I certainly am allowed theoretical, or even fringe studies.

Its a fine line to tread.

Zeke Newbolds comment about Science and Religion is correct. There certainly are many religious folk in science...always have been.

And the NHM have been involved in Cryptozoology; some of their specimens are pretty odd.
 
Loch Ness Monster sightings get one simple thing wrong, say fossil experts
Unless it’s evolved differently. ...

Here are some relevant excerpts from the article ...
Nessie is often depicted as a sort of plesiosaur, with its long neck and head emerging from the water, as seen in the famous ‘surgeon’s photograph’ of 1934.

But now a study of a fossilised elasmosaurus – a type of plesiosaur – has turned the idea upside down; revealing that these prehistoric creatures didn’t hold their heads that way.

Instead, the elasmosaurus held its head below or level with its body, said Paul Scofield, a curator at Canterbury Museum in New Zealand. ...

The theory that the Loch Ness Monster is a living elasmosaurus was promoted by Denys Tucker, once a prominent zoologist at London’s Natural History Museum.

He was fired in 1960, allegedly because of his beliefs, and died unrepentant in France in 2009.

But the new research throws up a contradiction between the Nessie of popular imagination and the real elasmosaurus.

Dr Scofield said: ‘The ‘traditional’ posture shown in many a popular article on Nessie – like a sock puppet – is not something elasmosaurs were in the habit of adopting.

‘The idea of it lifting its head up like a sock puppet is extremely unlikely.’ ...

It’s thought that the prehistoric creature held its head down this way to feed from the seabed. ...

‘It has been hypothesised that they floated on the surface and dredged the seafloor blowing the dirt out through their teeth and leaving just the clams." ...
SOURCE: https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/18/loch...-one-simple-thing-wrong-say-experts-15938569/

Here's another thing to bear in mind in light of the conclusions about elasmosaurus feeding - the shape and depth of the loch would not allow an elasmosaurus floating at or near the surface to reach its head to the loch's lakebed.
 
Here are some relevant excerpts from the article ...

SOURCE: https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/18/loch...-one-simple-thing-wrong-say-experts-15938569/

Here's another thing to bear in mind in light of the conclusions about elasmosaurus feeding - the shape and depth of the loch would not allow an elasmosaurus floating at or near the surface to reach its head to the loch's lakebed.
This all replies on it being a elasmosaurus. What if it isn’t? It could be anything (or nothing).
 
Here are some relevant excerpts from the article ...

SOURCE: https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/18/loch...-one-simple-thing-wrong-say-experts-15938569/

Here's another thing to bear in mind in light of the conclusions about elasmosaurus feeding - the shape and depth of the loch would not allow an elasmosaurus floating at or near the surface to reach its head to the loch's lakebed.

It also relies on them being right about what an Elasmosaurus ate. At the moment they think it may have dredged the sea floor for clams but that's not to say it won't change in a few years. The T-Rex has changed from being a fast moving hunter to a slow moving scavenger to something in between.
 
Back
Top