At the time I concluded my post by saying:
"Again, we need to see the other pictures and ask some more questions."
Because since I could not contact the witness, I could not take it further. Some suggested it was rubbish floating in from the Fort Augustus end of the loch which is fair enough but Rip Hepple in his latest Nessletter (more of that below) thought the object looked familiar to a photo he had once seen of a log. I dug around and found this picture in a 1977 book on Nessie.
Does this prove Mr. Jobes saw nothing more than a log? The witness himself said in the Daily Mail report:
'To be honest I know the difference between a piece of wood or a particular animal"
So it is the photo versus the photo-taker here (once again). The other thing cited against William Jobes was the allegation that he saw the same object in the same area again the next day. If so, the argument swings towards the log and away from Nessie.
However, to me the object looks a bit too "hump-like" to be a typical branch or trunk, though that does not prelude other pieces of human or natural debris.
Anyway, I always believe in the right of reply here. After all, key facts in a case have been known to be misreported or unreported in media articles before. So, if William Jobes stumbles upon this article and has something to say, send me a comment.
P.S.
Rip Hepple runs the Nessletter newsletter which has been running for nearly forty years now. I subscribe to it and so do other Loch Ness researchers. Rip brings decades of experience to the subject since his LNI days and was watching the loch when I was in my daipers. The Internet may bring information closer to you, but not necessarily experience and that is why I subscribe to Rip's newsletter. You should too if you have an interest in the Loch Ness Monster.
£3 or $10 to subscribe:
R.R.Hepple
7 Huntshieldford
St John's Chapel
Weardale
Co Durham
DL13 1RQ
United Kingdom
£3 or $10 to subscribe:
R.R.Hepple
7 Huntshieldford
St John's Chapel
Weardale
Co Durham
DL13 1RQ
United Kingdom
After 40 years Mr Jobes is still using a still camera to record Nessie? Looks like an EOS 40D or similar, but even they take 3 frames per second, so where are the rest of the photos? Another person who preferred taking stills photos to shooting movies was Frank Searle and we all know his reason.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Jobes faked anything but video is better (assuming one can stop shaking in which case it is worse!)
DeleteI would also like to see any other photos.
The image looks like something straight out of Frank Searles scrapbook. Very dubious. Im with Rip. Log or flotsam at best. A series or sequence of images really helps support all recorded sighting...sadly missing again. Nice blog though !
DeleteCost of camera is a factor here, and even HD video is a mere 2mp, so not very enlargeable at all. If a 40d was what he could afford, then it was. And if he couldn't afford to buy a newer camera with video capabilities, then he couldn't. I'm not sure of your argument here.
DeleteIt is a pity that Mr Jobes has not published all his frames as that makes you ask why. In 2007 Mr Linden Adams photographed something on Windermere with a very similar camera - a Canon EOS 30D - and has very helpfully made all his material available to researchers by placing it on various websites and blogs like
ReplyDeletehttp://lindenadamsphotography.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/bownessie-lake-windermeres-new-species.html
Regarding the shaking, those Canon models have image stabilisation so no excuse there.
Some of the lenses have stabilisation, not the camera bodies. Even recently, I owned an unstabilised long lens, which was about half the price of the stabilised version.
Delete