Saturday, 31 January 2015

Nessie Cartoons Through The Years

I ran an article a while back showing how the general populace and the media perceived the Loch Ness Monster through drawings and satire. I came across some more cartoons recently and have put them on here for comment and display.

Going back to the earliest days of the Nessie phenomenon, the Daily Express published this cartoon on the 14th December 1933, shortly after the first picture of the monster, taken by Hugh Gray, came to the world's attention. Click on the cartoon for a better image. The text of each cartoon is shown under it.


Diver to Nessie, "I can not help you to go, but good advice: stay at the bottom and have fun!"

Whether the artist referred to the Hugh Gray photo to draw his Nessie is arguable, but they do bear some resemblance to each other. The scene of various sceptics and party poopers trying to solve the mystery and consign it to history seems to meet with short shrift by the cartoonist. Whether there was anything in the loch or not, the newspapers wanted the story to run and stuff the naysayers!

The next cartoon is from The Daily Herald, some time in 1933. This is probably the least Nessie-like Nessie I have come across and one wonders where on earth the template for this monster came from. The backdrop to this cartoon was the discussion in Parliament as to what to do with this strange new phenomenon in a remote Scottish loch.


LOCAL RESIDENT: "Ye poor feckless beastie - get oot o' sicht while ye're safe! D'ye no ken the Hoose o' Commons,  Nineteen-thirty-three, has its eye on ye!"

From the Daily Mirror, 5th May 1971. The sign on the left says "Loch Ness Monster, £1,000,000 Reward". In 1971, whisky makers, Cutty Sark, offered an award of one million pounds to anyone who could capture the Loch Ness Monster. However, they began to get cold feet, and so asked Lloyds of London to underwrite the contest. The insurance company initially refused, saying the risk was too great. After being called chickens by the press, Lloyds agreed, on the condition that they got to keep Nessie!


"After all, what's a million quid these days."


The Daily Mail published the next cartoon on 3rd April 1972. It came after the police were unwittingly involved in the interception at the Forth Road Bridge of an alleged dead Nessie being taken out of Scotland. To the police's embarrassment, it turned out to be a dead elephant seal and an April Fool's Joke.


"Ignore it, Hamish McPherson - I'm damned if we'll be taken in again!"


From the Daily Sketch of 11th September 1970. A piece of newspaper lies beside Nessie with the headline, "Sex Potions in Loch to lure Nessie". This was a gift to cartoonists as the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau began to use the ground up reproductive organs of various animals such as eels as bait introduced into the loch. It didn't work.


"Ah warned ye if ye went swimmin' ye'd get covered wi' the stuff!"


On the 11th September 1973, The Sun parodied the arrival a few days earlier of a Japanese expedition to find Nessie. Despite having a miniature submarine at their disposal, the search was an unqualified failure as they headed back two months later having found some non-descript bones and recorded a strange noise.


 "Ah so. Honourable Nessie - unable to resist traditional Japanese bait!"

And to finally bring us up to date, here's one of the many cartoons depicting Nessie's view on the recent Scottish Referendum on independence (Daily Mail, 10th September 2014). More cartoons to follow in a future post.



The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com




56 comments:

  1. Have to say the million pound cartoon is my favourite!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I enjoyed these pages much more when glasgow boy wrote stuff about photos and sightings. The big debates between all sides were what made this website. I used to check here every day. Now not very much at all. Come on gb get the old free speech back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was discussion on a possible boat collision here only 11 days ago and a photo article was put up on the 16th Jan with comments.

      Delete
  3. its not the same without the comments!
    whither Geordie Sceptic, Johan Akvarad, ekm, Dick Raynor et al
    the site will die without comments

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wholeheartedly agree with the above comments. One of the first sites I would check after firing up the computer in the morning and throughout the day was this blog to check for new comments or reply's to comments, it has become an obsession and addiction ( Note to self: Get A life! ) As I've said before, half the fun was reading the comments and getting an insight on what other readers had to say. Some comments were enlightening and thought provoking, some just plain silly and funny, which made for good reading and chuckles! Then again not everybody wishes to comment on certain articles. I've seen some go with nary a comment. Well, you can't please everybody.

    On the whole the articles continue to be interesting. What's wrong with a little fun with cartoons and popular culture on Nessie? Although, GB has tried to be fair by allowing comments on selected articles he deems worthy. One critique though, of the “new format”, I've got to say, is abruptly disallowing comments on certain articles. Perhaps GB is just too busy for the time being to spend to much time on them or feels further comments are no longer necessary, have run their course and would serve no further purpose. Maybe things will change back to what they where in the future to everyone's satisfaction. And that's the way I see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay, I'll turn the comments back on, but those I perceive as trolls are not welcome!

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Pah, is john GBs enforcer ?

      Always knew GB was shooting himself in the foot with the heavy handed editing of comments. Its so damned obvious that we all love the big debates weve seen on here. Kill those off and the buzz of the blog has gone. I hope the site recovers but Im not sure it will. That depends on who GB thinks are trolls. If he continues stopping skeptics like Dick, ekm and geordie from leaving messages then the website wont recover. But im not sure if GB knew what a great site he had when the debates were in full flow and not censored. .it was EASILY the best lake monster site on the IInternet bar none.

      Delete
    4. I don't mind difficult questions, I do mind the same questions cropping up time and again and clogging up other threads of discussions. The other problem was statements being made that were false and ill informed and having to be corrected lest others thought it was gospel truth.

      Anyway, we'll see what happens next.

      Delete
    5. Most of us liked all the comments GB. It appeared to me that it wasnt repetition or wrong facts which upset you cos you let the Nessie supporters post them without challenge. Was obvious what REALLY got you was some very strong skeptical arguments coming through. Agree lets see how itgoes. . ...

      Delete
    6. Well, I think a "common arguments" link will help. Stops the trolls indulging in endless repetition.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Hey if you have a blog saying there are monsters in a lake and you have a comments section you're going to get a few arguments and much repetition from all sides. We've seen repetition ad infinitum from believers on here but thats never chalenged.
      I think it should all be open convo, only personal insults should be removed. Free speech is paramount on subjects like this.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. May i suggest we all study snowdens internet warefare templates? Makes it much easier to spot the trolls and saves time answering them.

      Delete
  5. Hello all. Just to make my position clear - I won't be returning to the debates here unless I see evidence of unbiased moderation. I can assure you that I have had posts witheld when they have not been repetitive or impolite. I've generally had my very best posts not appear - the ones which have made the most convincing arguments against the Loch Ness Monster fantasy.

    So I wish you all well, believers and sceptics alike, but while the censorship rules still operate to silence rational sceptical comments, I'm still outta here.

    As has been said above - you've thrown away a great situation, GB. This was absolutely one of the "go to" sites for Nessie pro and con information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You will not be surprised that I take a different view on these statements. A while back you basically said you were here to persuade others to your cause. Now I ask myself, why should this pro-Nessie blog, which I have spent years building up, be subverted into a sceptics' recruitment agency?

      Not exactly a symbiotic relationship is it? More parastical I would say. What is the conclusion? I won't let your agenda subvert the main and opposing purpose of this website. It's more your motives than inane, inaccuruate and repetitious debate that trumps the matter for me.

      You have your own discussion forum now. Go and perform your predations there.

      It's no surprise the Zombie Plesiosaur Society banned you.

      Delete
    2. Well I have to salute you for finally admitting your motives for selective censorship, GB. At least it's now out in the open - you were dismayed by people being convinced by the sceptical arguments put forward. Ok, fair enough. Gone are the days when you professed to relish taking on and defeating weak sceptical arguments, hey?

      Delete
    3. You shouldn't put words in my mouth, GS. I made no comment about that. I said why should a pro-Nessie blog accept such attempts to be used in such a way. Do you agree it should?


      Delete
    4. You know my view, I have stated it a few times now. I will restate it now.

      The Internet is open to pretty much the entire world. If someone googles Loch Ness, they are very likely to stumble upon your blog. It ranks high on search results. The blog (in my opinion) presents a great deal of hearsay and unproven data, and packages it in such a way as to present a stronger case for the monster than there really is in modern times. For the uninitiated, your blog could really convince people that giant prehistoric animals swim the waters, climb the shores and cross roads into the woods and back.

      As someone who genuinely cares about facts, honesty, science and open discussion, I really don't believe it's ethically acceptable to present these pages (with your declared agenda to support the monster concept rather than objective appraisal) without also presenting differing conclusions, or at least allowing sceptics to do so in the comments section. Glasgow Boy, think about it - the entire world can read these pages, including young, impressionable people - is it really ok to just present the pro monster argument week after week? We surely have a responsibility to allow the facts, or at least different interpretations of them, to be available for readers! It's no use using the excuse of other sceptical websites to justify this level of bias; people are here and reading all this, they are not on those sites! Eradication of alternative viewpoints makes it appear like a cult is being created, where followers must adhere to the big fella's thoughts . Surely not healthy at all?

      Delete
    5. Anyway that's enough from me. I'm going back into retirement while the current protocol exists.

      Enjoy, one and all.

      Delete
    6. The trouble is what you call "objective appraisal" is questionable. I call if "rewriting history" where people's statements about what they claim to see in Loch Ness are a priori dismissed out of hand and rewritten to conform to the sceptical charter.

      Statements witnesses make are cut out, watered down and resized until they fit the preferred explanations of the critic.

      If you think that is way more "objective" than what this blog attempts, you have another coming!

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. I couldn't agree more with your last sentence John. Let them be free to see all sides and make up their minds.

      I have the right to return any time I choose, thanks. If GB publishes my posts or not, that's his choice. The most bizarre thing of all I've seen on here is the role you've taken on as site policeman and GB's right hand man. You've even thanked people for regarding GB's blog as a "go to" site, as though it's some kind of joint venture! If credit is due then surely Glasgow Boy is the one who should receive it and say thank you if he chooses? Where is your blog, John?

      So yes, I will return now and then to this site. If I want to be a boomerang that's my choice not yours John. What I will not get drawn into however, is specific arguments about Mrs McIslay seeing a 30ft beast frollicking 20 yards from her for an hour, then helping her carry her shopping home in 1936. This is be because I get censored during the debates. If that looks like it's changing I may again try to join in, we'll see.

      Delete
    10. I can't understand this level of vitriol against one person. Gs makes his or her points politely and methodically. What's the problem with it all? I come her for fun and to have my thoughts geed up. I welcome it all. I can't help thinking one or two people are making the webmaster believe sceptics are so hard to deal with they need to be banned.

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. As stated, I won't debate sighting reports under current rules, but I will come back to defend myself against ranting, personal attacks from you. I think you may need anger management or a course of yoga/meditation. Someone else seems to recognise this too. In fact looking at a lower post, you even seemed to recognise this yourself a day or so ago.

      Feeling rage is like taking poison and expecting your enemy to die from it. Just chill out a bit John.

      Delete
    13. By the way, I don't believe I have even one "follower". Seriously. I have received emails from a modest number of sceptics and believers, but I would never call any of them followers. Sceptics tend to be people who do not wish to follow one person. Believers clearly are not my followers, are they? Interestingly two believers who feature in the comments section of GB's blog have received my Bright wave photo article, agreed with what I wrote and asked to remain anonymous (don't worry chaps, no names!).
      I think you'll find many of the defenders of free speech on here actually are believers. I'm sure many of them don't care much for my posts. But what they do care for is the need to see all kinds of responses to GB's articles.

      Not in a million years would I ever want a pro-Nessie poster to be censored or banned from any website anywhere. The thought kind of disgusts me a bit. I even wholeheartedly support John's right to rant about me.

      Delete
    14. Sceptical enquirers are welcome.

      Sceptical zealots are not.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. They didn't ban geordie, they didn't let him join because he uses a fake name

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Read the comments addressing his/her membership.



      Delete
  7. I was not allowed to join. You make it sound like I misbehaved and got banned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To clarify, Geordie Sceptic was banned from joining as opposed to banned subsequent to joining. Or as he puts is "blocked from joining".

      Delete
  8. Hi Glasgow Boy. I still read the blog as regularly as ever. The comments sections started out really well, but it appeared to me that a handful of posters began to spoil them (which presumably meant more work for you in having to moderate). Like bullies in a playground, some people sadly began to enjoy winding up their fellow posters and being as provocative, disruptive and rudely dismissive as possible, rather than engaging in light-hearted speculation and discussion about a mystery that's so dear to many. Sadly, every corner of the 'net attracts such people - where there is discussion, there will invariably appear people who want to poison the friendly atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I never saw any skeptic being offensive on here, but hey ho.

      One thing it's important to remember: if, as appears to be the plan, this blog becomes wrapped up in a cosy cocoon of Nessie love, there will be an enhancement of the illusion of a monster. However, that illusion will never bring you the video or corpse you so crave. The monster will still remain as fictitious as ever, I'm afraid.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I think you accidentally hit the nail on the head John. "will still remain a mystery". If it were a real animal you would be anticipating formal identification at any moment. A mystery is all this thing will ever be and we all know it.

      Delete
    4. Yes, sure, a mystery. A mystery by definition is something unknown or unexplained. “and we all know it” that means you and other skeptics. To me and other Nessie believers and in the context I'm speaking about, is an unknown animal, that is a mystery, that awaits explanation. Not by accident did I state that.

      Delete
  9. This latest exchange does the monster cause no good at all i am sad to say. I am convinced there is something to ponder, based on the evidence gathered so far. But I want to see everything. I'm a curious customer. Keep showing me the evidence but pleeeease also keep showing me the counter arguments

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, unfortunately, people have agendas. I once had a discussion with a noted Loch Ness Monster researcher from the previous decade. He told of the vitriol and egotism that goes on in Loch Ness research. Not very nice, but that's human nature, You would think something like the "Loch Ness Monster" would rank low in life's priorities.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, I've noticed that GB. And this is amongst people on the same team, never mind the skeptics. It's been going on since the heyday of LNM research in the 60s. I see that a lot between the ufologists and other areas of the paranormal. They can only agree to disagree. Friendships and alliances are destroyed. But, that's the nature of the beast, no pun intended. Like you said, it's humane nature.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can we not get back to talking about the real subject instead of arguments about banning comments and motivations behind posts??? Seems ridiculous to me. Lets just get talking about the evidence again. All of us from all angles!!!
    I have heard rumors of a new photo from January, do you have that to post up yet?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think one particular believer needs to get his blood pressure checked. There is way too much anger going on in his posts. It's not at all good to get worked up that much about this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  13. Nothing like some nice cartoons to lighten the atmos, eh? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ok can we move on now cheers!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Note to Dick Raynor.

    "used" does not imply "produced"

    "didn't work" - so you're saying as a sceptic it did?!

    subs - it was at their "disposal" (which does not imply "used"), they just had to pay the going price!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea what you're on about but I feel sure J Alvarado will agree with it :)

      Delete
    2. That's okay, don't want to give misrepresentations the oxygen of publicity.

      Delete
    3. Dick Raynor has nearly 50 years of research experience at Loch Ness. Far more than any Nessie hunter. Doesn't even he deserve a right to reply here? What's going on, Roland?

      Delete
    4. Erm, of course he can reply.

      Delete
  16. What's the story with the Dick Raynor comments?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I am sure you'll find them if you look around hard enough. :)

      Delete