It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


First photo of Nessie? - Nov, 12, 1933

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:59 PM

On November 12, 1933, Gray was reportedly walking home from church with a simple box camera in hand. He spotted an “object of considerable dimensions, rising two or three feet above the water, dark gray in color with smooth and glistening skin.”

Gray took five snapshots of the animate shape, but was later discouraged that four of the photos had not developed properly. However, the fifth picture depicted an unusual shape in the water. Still, many felt that Gray’s image did little to prove the existence of a lake creature, that it was too vague. Others have remained open-minded that Gray, indeed, captured the first image of Nessie.

I think I can see what looks like water and a long thin shaped "creature" on the surface.

There's not a ton of details that I can take from the photo, but I would say the head of the "creature" is on the right side of the image, while the back end of the "creature" would be on the left.

Here's a link to a bigger image of the same picture.

Image of a Labrodor Retreiver?

I didnt notice this until reading this page, but then I did.

Hugh Gray's picture of a dog?

On November 12, 1933, Hugh Gray took a picture of something rising out of the water. Word of it spread like wildfire as the picture was printed in newspapers around the globe. However, you can see the resemblance of a labrador retriever carrying a stick in its mouth towards the camera. Nevertheless, over the next year, there were over 50 reported sightings of Nessie.

What do you think the photo is of?
Could it be a photo of Nessie?
Is it possible that a seperate picture of a dog somehow got mixed with this photo which caused the dog to appear?
Is there even a picture of a dog there or is just a coincidence?
Is it an outright hoax?


[edit on 25-8-2010 by FoxMulder91]

Mod Edit: Place external text tags.

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2010/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:12 PM
To me, it could be anything. I would in no way say that this looks like the infamous "Nessie". It very well could be Nessie, though this picture proves nothing, to me at least.


posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:03 PM
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that ancient prehistoric ocean life does exists but in small numbers. Just look at the Celacamp which was first caught I believe back in 1935 in South Africa and then a life one was video taped under water 15 years ago. That image could easily be a very large eel that was moving on the water at the time of the pic.

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:56 PM
I've seen this picture many times, and I could never figure it out.
Not only I've never seen dog there, but I couldn't even see how it's suppossed to be anything, supernatural or not. The left side, kind of looked like a whale's tail to me, but I couldn't imagine what would the whale had to do, to look like that on the picture.
But now that you mentioned the dog, it starts to resemble one more and more.
I'm not familiar with the way camera worked back in 1933, but I'm pretty sure they didn't have great ability to zoom. And suppossed dog is on the first plan here, so I'm assuming that one Hugh Gray either took a picture of the dog, and found it so unclear that decided to hoax everyone into thinking it's Loch Ness Monster, or there was a problem with the film or development, and two pictures got mixed up together.

top topics

log in