New Nessie Photo Analysis Proves Sceptics Wrong

I've always had a passing interest in the Loch ness monster stories and was lucky enough to have a few conversations with Peter OConnor, the person who first photographed it and I believe still has it named after him as NessiesaurousOConnorii. He was my father-in-law and when he died I took his original negatives to a friend of mine who runs a big photo processing laboratory. He specialises in wildlife photographs and printing large images for a local zoo. This article is simply to add some facts and background to the many online reports which have limited information available to them. For example, this report follows most of the accepted facts and has tried to be objective, but lacks so much of the untold background. And a good analysis of the image.

While filling in these blanks I've tried to be totally honest and keep things in proportion but clearly, you can make up your own mind up on the things I was told and how I see as Peter's actions and abilities. Either way, I think the whole Loch ness monster hunting period was fascinating and tells us a lot about ourselves e.g. the things we will do for fame and fortune and who and when we will or will not trust others

So to start you must understand a little about Peter OConnor. He grew up in the relatively poor, industrial town of Jarrow. He would never have suited the local factories. His passion was nature and from the age of 13, he kept detail diaries that recorded the numbers and types of birds he saw and even the colour of their eyes etc. He was naturally intelligent and if he'd had an education should really have been a natural history professor. Instead, he ended up running a small pet shop in Dunstable with 5 daughters to support.

This was at this time when Scotland first built the road around Loch Ness and visitors first started to arrive and report sightings of 'the monster'. It was often hot news when I grew up.

Peter thought, as only Peter would; I'll go to Loch Ness to photograph, or probably catch, the 'as yet unrecorded animal' that lives there. He never for one minute thought of it as any type of monster. He did, however, spend what little money the family had on a new canoe and disappeared for a month to Scotland to camp on the lakeside. The whole purpose was to make money from the discovery to feed his family. Something held against him in the later year but fully understandable to many I'm sure.

To explain Peter a little more you should appreciate he was an outdoor, alpha male. He served in the lower ranks of the RAF after the war where he learned to ski, scuba, and mountaineer. Things he enjoyed and followed in civilian life. He often recounted climbing the Matterhorn and his days in mountain rescue. Living rough for a month on the banks of Loch Ness would not have been an issue. But remember, deep down he was also a clever and well-read, naturalist.

On the first few and fairly rare, occasions I met Peter in his home, and as his potential son in law, he sat me down and started to tell me all about his expedition. As though he wanted me to carry on his search. Clearly, I thought he was a bit of a nutcase, but liked his daughter, so never really pushed the subject, even though I was, and still am, fascinated by it. In fact, the whole family, including Peter, took a similar approach. Try to imagine if your father suddenly says he's photographed an alien and gives you the image. What would you think and do? No one outside the family will ever believe you so you'd probably try not to discuss it. Peter knew not to push the point with others, the world had discounted his evidence so he just decided not discuss it with them. Peter completely withdrew from public scrutiny and never challenged the quite false stories about him, e.g he was a fisherman when he was actually a fireman.

Peter had known the relatively famous monster hunter Frank Searle quite well and told me that Frank just got more and more upset when no one would believe him and finally started making things up and going slightly crazy. Clearly, Peter understood this reaction and didn't want the same to happen to him.

From talking to Peter it's quite clear that the expedition to find 'the animal' did not rely on luck, it was not like buying a lottery ticket. Peter knew his wildlife. I can't remember all the details but he had worked out that it would have to be some kind of reptile, probably a decedent of a prehistoric animal, again the details he knew well but certainly passed over my head. He also knew there needed to be a reasonable population, what they would eat, the typical habitats, vegetation, and food sources. He told me there must be enough fish in the Loch long before I heard on the TV that researchers had identified a big shoal of pre-historic Char, living deep in the water. Peter planned the location for his lookout very carefully and believed his best chance was at night because they were more likely to surface in the cold nights. He explained on a couple of occasions how he would canoe on the lake at night, coming back from the pub, and something big and fast would knock the bottom of the canoe as if checking what they were. The friend he traveled with and all of the locals would not go onto the lake at night because of these dangerous contacts. Whether the photograph turns out to be true or not, Peter believed in the animal and felt he had had several contacts with it during his time. He recanted many stories from locals who'd caught things in their nets and had seen the animals many times. He said that everyone who grew up in the area accepted its existence as normal. One of the surprising facts for me is just how many sighting there have been. Until recently it was common to get six reports a year where multiple groups see the same object, at the same time, from different locations. Although I've also seen the many reports that explain this as a natural phenomenon due to the shape of the lakes etc. I was disappointed when I called in at the Loch Ness museum and found far less information about how the animals would live and what they might be, than Peter had told me.

Hopefully, now you have a picture of how the photograph was achieved. It was not a lucky shot but took lots of planning, knowledge and the hunting experience that meant he wore his rubber suit to disguise his smell and knew how to walk carefully through water without making a splash. That's how the photograph was taken, early in the morning on May 27th, 1960, after a month living on the lakeside waiting and watching at night. It was a basic camera with a square, four flash, turning bulb. The flash on the second shot never worked and the animal was gone.

So what about the photograph. It certainly made the front pages across the world. I'm sure Peter loved the fame but probably hated the same questions being asked time and again. As you can probably tell I've not fully researched or read the detailed history of this but clearly a lot of people questioned the photo. Peter would not have liked that. The big issue for him was that he was accused of doctoring the photo. That clearly offended and annoyed him. He says he didn't and while he could probably name the bones of every dinosaur, I doubt he had any idea of how to doctor a photo. However, the result was that he withdrew it from public view and simply locked the negative away. Refusing access to anyone. Until he died of course. I do remember visiting him in the hospital when he clearly had only days to live. I so wanted to ask about what really happened but that's probably because I'm an insensitive engineer type. I would not have been appropriate, sorry.

Of course, you may be thinking that Peter was just a good storyteller. He was. A prankster and wind-up merchant as well. That's why, I expect, a lot of people that knew him would not believe him. However, his friend that traveled with him was more conventional; my mother-in-law told me that more people believed his friend, which backed up Peter's story. I believe his friend had just gone along for the adventure so could probably not have held the pretense for this many years. I've not met him myself and while I understand he did not really see the animal other than a splash moving away. I'm sure he would have known if Peter had made a model, although as a friend, might not have wanted to cross him.

My personal opinion is that there would have been many people who did not take to Peter. He was very clever and self-assured and did not suffer fools at all. I'm sure he could be loud, arrogant and aggressive; although, great company in a rowdy bar and I'm sure if he liked you, a good friend. He did have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about people who thought they were a better class. You have to remember that at that time all of the recognised photos and sightings were from vicars and doctors. Apparently only these people could be trusted, whereas Peter could and would have made sure that others knew he had more knowledge about the natural environment and wildlife than they did. Something that can easily upset people. But on the other hand, no normal person would do what he did. The only other person I've met with a similar aura is the explorer Ranulph Fiennes; Perhaps a posh version of Peter but Ranulph is also not your normal 9-5 bloke and was always happy to take on a crazy challenge.

Some years after Peter's death I was allowed to take the photo to a friend with a big photo lab. Not many of the black and white negative viewers left these days and it was great to have such fantastic ability to zoom in. I was not allowed to let the negative out of my sight or make copies of any kind. I did want the analysis to be honest and tried not to influence him in any way.

The analysis from my friend was as follows. He took a good look at the photo and as I mentioned earlier, was very experienced in studying animals. He said it was a 126 negative that had clearly been doctored. But apparently, this was normal. Newspapers regularly touch up the backgrounds to enhance the image. They had not touched the animal and would not have thought the retouching unusual. If only someone had told Peter this, although I doubt he would have given them long enough to respond. But the animal image looked original. It was difficult to tell much from the body as this could have been made from anything. There are clearly waves to show some sort of movement in the water but this could also be set up. Nothing unusual could be seen to show that it was supported underwater or held up by fishermen's floats. Now looking at the detail in the eyes. We could zoom in on a good sized screen directly in front of us. To clearly see that it was not a good quality camera, even by the standards of the day. But good enough to see some details in the eyes and enough to convince my friend they were real. Eyes have a glassy, wet quality, especially with the reflection of a camera flash bulb. You'd have to be damned good to forge that.

So surely now we can confirm this is a true photograph again and get the professional authenticity of its content by using this modern technology. Unfortunately not. The negative I had was only a copy negative. The original seems to have disappeared. I don't know if Peter knew the negative in his safe was only a copy but it's likely he would not have let the original go out of his sight to the newspapers, so probably had copies made himself. Either way, no independent reviewer will authenticate a copy negative. So we can have no concrete, modern proof unless the master turns up.

The photograph was originally accepted as being good enough to be recognised by the Natural History Museum as an official animal; with Peter's name to it. I believe this is still the case although I'm guessing if you asked anyone there they would deny it. Official opinion appears to be that Nessie does not exist. Much to all of our disappointment, I'm sure. Shortly after the initial acceptance leading figures cast doubt on the authenticity of the picture. The fact that Peter wanted money to publish the picture is one reason but articles say that Maurice Burton found plastic sheets and floats at the site where the photographs were taken. Whatever the truth of this, there was clearly a falling out between Peter and Maurice. Personally, I think Peter was far too clever to leave any evidence. His 'model', if it was, would have been very professional and certainly not made from plastic bags. I would be very surprised if there wasn't some sort of positioning to be the public face of the discovery and Peter, with his sharp tongue and distrust of the higher classes, upset a few people's egos. I never got the impression Peter and Burton were on any sort of friendly terms, although Peter did have a good respect for Dynsdale and his work.

A nice twist to the naming is that Peter Scott did apply to have the animal named after himself, following his underwater scanning photographs. Peter OConnor wrote to him explaining the situation and received a rather curt reply accepting his prior right.

With all of this evidence, you may think that I'm a strong believer in Nessie. I am certainly still open minded but we will need a physical body and DNA evidence before most people, including myself, will accept its existence. I am hopeful that modern underwater drones will be able to scan the lake more accurately as it is a very difficult environment to research properly. Failing that, some of Peter's thoughts about the animals hibernating for long periods may be true and perhaps they only surface and get seen when they have young.

It is a shame there is so little trust in the world but you only have to read a daily newspaper to appreciate how many sad and misguided people there are. In the case of Nessie and UFOs, I personally think the fakers make our everyday lives far more entertaining. Peter certainly thought he'd seen Nessie and I don't doubt he truly believed it was there. However, I would not be giving you all of the facts if I did not mention that in later years Peter was a first-class taxidermist. He produced high-quality work for many museums, published several books on advanced taxidermy and developed the freeze-drying technique to preserve small creatures. One of his specialties was knowing the correct eyes colours for each animal and he worked closely with a glass eye manufacturers to ensure every detail was correct. This was long after his photograph of Nessie but if anyone could have faked the model that well then it would have been Peter. If he'd been a normal person I'd have to 100% believe the photo, but normal people don't know how to live and hunt outside for a month or stuff animals, and part of me would still like to think he 'almost' pulled off the hoax.

I think we should remember Peter OConnor not from the scant reports on the internet but as a talented naturalist who went to extraordinary lengths to get one of the iconic pictures of the century. Or perhaps a first-class taxidermist who wanted to prove he was right to support his family; it could not have been a hoax as he genuinely believed it was there. Either way, he left his mark.

And before you judge him against whatever verdict you decide, please take a moment to consider what you would do or say if you found yourself in a similar position. It's an interesting experiment to tell a complete stranger, or friend, that you've seen the Loch Ness Monster. Just study their reaction and see how they back away in a slightly worried manner. How we decide on the truth may say more about our relationships with others. How others trust and treat us depends on how we treat them and having people we really trust is a valuable gift. The real monster lies within us for not realising how a lack of honesty can easily breed distrust and resentment.

Having known Peter I have great respect for his skills and the lengths he went too to get his shot. But also enough room for doubt that he had the character to pull off a hoax. Only time will tell and if an animal is discovered that looks like the photo then Peter should be given his due credit.

Please note that copyright of the photo remains with the OConnor family (not me) but copyright of the above text remains with Gary Molton. Please link in but don't re-use without asking first. And please appreciate that this is just based on my memory of things told to me over many years.

The amazing new Dancing App will teach you the basic ballroom dancing steps in minutes and score how well you perform. Get the Waltz and Cha Cha now for free.