Abstract
SINCE a note appeared in NATURE regarding the alleged “monster” of Loch Ness (Dec. 16, 1933, p. 921) evidence has accumulated, on one hand, to warn the credulous against the suppositions of unskilled observers, and on the other to point to the identity of the creature which has caused so much commotion in the daily newspapers. In the first place, the writer of these notes has examined, through the kindness of the Associated Press, the original negative, said to be a direct photograph of the Loch Ness “monster”, from which prints appeared in various newspapers about December 6 and 7. Regarding this photograph, it is not necessary to say more than that the object appears not to have been photographed at the distance stated, 200 yards, and that in the writer's opinion the object represents no animal known to science. In the second place, the “spoor” of the animal, about which fantastic tales were spread, has, according to the Morning Post, led the authorities in the British Museum (Natural History) to conclusions decidedly unfavourable to some of the expectations previously aroused. No support was found in this evidence of the ‘monstrousness’ of the monster.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
The Loch Ness “Mystery”. Nature 133, 56 (1934). https://doi.org/10.1038/133056a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/133056a0