It was some weeks back that a reader informed me of a previously unreported eyewitness account that had been posted on the Internet. I contacted the witness and discussed the case with him before agreeing to republish the account here. Anyway, to cut a long story short, we go straight to the account as told by one of the two witnesses that day over eleven years ago.
I am writing this under a pseudonym. I am an American working in a field
involving considerable professional scrutiny. The one time I discussed
this, at a family holiday party after a few drinks, I was laughed at
and ribbed for the next few years, so I can only imagine how my present
employers might react!
In March of 2006, I visited Loch Ness with my then girlfriend. It was the last week of the month (either the 28th or 29th). We were at Inverness for business purposes, hers not mine. We decided to visit the famous castle on the water and as we drove from Inverness we saw something in the water.
The time was late afternoon, I would say between four and five. We'd been day drinking which made driving on the other side of the car even more interesting than it already was! It also somewhat compromises the specific details such as precise location and time.
When my girlfriend began exclaiming that "there's something in the water," I laughed and said she was joking. Finally I realised she was being serious and pulled off to a lay by somewhere near the Clansman hotel (I remember because we went in afterwards to the gift shop to tell everyone what we had seen). As soon as I pulled over, my girlfriend was pointing at the water and I saw it.
I can't really judge size on water, its not my speciality, but it was HUGE. It looked like a whale. I would say it was grey like an elephant with a neck that was swinging side to side over the water. That was really what it looked like, an elephant waving its trunk. There was a huge commotion in the water behind it. The thing was just massive. It was swimming back toward Inverness the way we came.
My girlfriend was fumbling to get her camera out of luggage in the back seat before the monster was gone. She was tipsy and we were both shaking. She finally got it out of her bag and took a picture through the car window. We were so shaken up that neither of us thought to roll down the window. She tried to take another snap but her memory card was full, and as she fumbled to delete sightseeing pictures to make more room, it was gone. It just sort of went down while it continued swimming toward Inverness.
In retrospect I wish we had taken photos of the water afterward which was quite disturbed, but it wasn't until I began reading up on the subject that I realised it might have been of value. We took the picture to the gift shop and the lady at the counter told us to go the exhibition centre to show it, but we got cold feet and just went back to the hotel at Inverness and drank some more. When we got back to the States, we put it on the computer and pretty much never looked at it again or even talked about the experience. It was almost like we felt guilty.
My girlfriend and I long ago broke up and I have since married, and the one time I told my wife (it was the holiday party at her family's house), the response was so embarrassing that whenever she jokes about "that time Justin saw Nessie," I just sort of laugh it off.
I just found the picture last week on a CD rom containing files I removed from my ex's computer before I moved out following the breakup. It was in a folder with 90s alternative rock mp3s! I hadn't looked at it in years and while the quality isn't great considering it was just a point and shoot she'd owned for a couple years, it still made my heart skip a beat. Seeing it again caused me a sleepless night because I am sure I saw something that isn't supposed to exist, and over the years I sort of talked myself out of it (too much beer that day, etc). Now its all back again, and I feel a little shaky.
It wasn't a pleasant experience, even though there was no threat of physical harm.
I am not a Loch Ness Monster enthusiast and know as much as the average person. I didn't care about it and certainly wasn't looking for it. Same with my ex. All I have is the photo, taken through the passengers side window (slight camera reflection) showing a dark body and neck low over the water. I am afraid to publicly post it in case I am penalised since I wasn't the photographer and don't own the copyright. Things ended badly and I can't imagine it would be a pleasant conversation if I reached out to her. But I want to share it and don't know how.
The sketch at the top of the article is based on the photograph taken that day as well as some of the witness' recollection of the day. The witness was reticent to put the photograph on the Internet because of the issues mentioned above, but having pointed him to my blog, the research done there and the welcome it gives to witnesses who fear ridicule, he sent me the image on the condition I showed it to no one else and delete it after use.
In March of 2006, I visited Loch Ness with my then girlfriend. It was the last week of the month (either the 28th or 29th). We were at Inverness for business purposes, hers not mine. We decided to visit the famous castle on the water and as we drove from Inverness we saw something in the water.
The time was late afternoon, I would say between four and five. We'd been day drinking which made driving on the other side of the car even more interesting than it already was! It also somewhat compromises the specific details such as precise location and time.
When my girlfriend began exclaiming that "there's something in the water," I laughed and said she was joking. Finally I realised she was being serious and pulled off to a lay by somewhere near the Clansman hotel (I remember because we went in afterwards to the gift shop to tell everyone what we had seen). As soon as I pulled over, my girlfriend was pointing at the water and I saw it.
I can't really judge size on water, its not my speciality, but it was HUGE. It looked like a whale. I would say it was grey like an elephant with a neck that was swinging side to side over the water. That was really what it looked like, an elephant waving its trunk. There was a huge commotion in the water behind it. The thing was just massive. It was swimming back toward Inverness the way we came.
My girlfriend was fumbling to get her camera out of luggage in the back seat before the monster was gone. She was tipsy and we were both shaking. She finally got it out of her bag and took a picture through the car window. We were so shaken up that neither of us thought to roll down the window. She tried to take another snap but her memory card was full, and as she fumbled to delete sightseeing pictures to make more room, it was gone. It just sort of went down while it continued swimming toward Inverness.
In retrospect I wish we had taken photos of the water afterward which was quite disturbed, but it wasn't until I began reading up on the subject that I realised it might have been of value. We took the picture to the gift shop and the lady at the counter told us to go the exhibition centre to show it, but we got cold feet and just went back to the hotel at Inverness and drank some more. When we got back to the States, we put it on the computer and pretty much never looked at it again or even talked about the experience. It was almost like we felt guilty.
My girlfriend and I long ago broke up and I have since married, and the one time I told my wife (it was the holiday party at her family's house), the response was so embarrassing that whenever she jokes about "that time Justin saw Nessie," I just sort of laugh it off.
I just found the picture last week on a CD rom containing files I removed from my ex's computer before I moved out following the breakup. It was in a folder with 90s alternative rock mp3s! I hadn't looked at it in years and while the quality isn't great considering it was just a point and shoot she'd owned for a couple years, it still made my heart skip a beat. Seeing it again caused me a sleepless night because I am sure I saw something that isn't supposed to exist, and over the years I sort of talked myself out of it (too much beer that day, etc). Now its all back again, and I feel a little shaky.
It wasn't a pleasant experience, even though there was no threat of physical harm.
I am not a Loch Ness Monster enthusiast and know as much as the average person. I didn't care about it and certainly wasn't looking for it. Same with my ex. All I have is the photo, taken through the passengers side window (slight camera reflection) showing a dark body and neck low over the water. I am afraid to publicly post it in case I am penalised since I wasn't the photographer and don't own the copyright. Things ended badly and I can't imagine it would be a pleasant conversation if I reached out to her. But I want to share it and don't know how.
The sketch at the top of the article is based on the photograph taken that day as well as some of the witness' recollection of the day. The witness was reticent to put the photograph on the Internet because of the issues mentioned above, but having pointed him to my blog, the research done there and the welcome it gives to witnesses who fear ridicule, he sent me the image on the condition I showed it to no one else and delete it after use.
Based on that photograph, I could make some observations.
I have confirmed the location of the photo as the Clansman Hotel area.
There is no EXIF data with the image, so I cannot confirm the date it was recorded.
I recently went to the loch and took some comparison shots, which I outline below
The object is blurred as if to indicate motion. This is indicated by the fact that the background hills and foreground bushes show no sign of blurring. The presumed neck is more blurred than the bulk of the body, which is consistent with his description of the neck moving from side to side. There is a strong wake behind the object which indicates said motion and also that it is rapid.
The image size is about 320kb, so closer inspection of the object is not possible. Access to the original Mb image would be useful (as well as for the exif data).
Detecting image manipulation would required the original image, but I see no indications of image manipulation.
The camera taking the picture is reflected in the image indicating the car window was rolled up as testified.
I then indulged in some speculations. The only object of comparison would be a dark boat. Most boats are light in colour or multicoloured. Either way, other unorthodox objects need to be considered and eliminated as required - jet skis, speedboats, windsurfers, yachts. None seem to fit the shape of this object unless they assumed some strange contortions.
The object is basically blackish which is curious since I also did a calculation as to the sun's position at the stated time and date. The sun would have been behind the observers and slightly to their right. The conditions look overcast in the picture, so there may not have been much reflection. All this would indicate an intrinsically dark object.
The object is hundreds of yards away so details are confined to gross morphology. A comparison shot which included a Jacobite boat was taken by myself in April and is shown below. The witness photograph was then overlaid onto this picture, aligning the background hill contours as carefully as possible.
I have confirmed the location of the photo as the Clansman Hotel area.
There is no EXIF data with the image, so I cannot confirm the date it was recorded.
I recently went to the loch and took some comparison shots, which I outline below
The object is blurred as if to indicate motion. This is indicated by the fact that the background hills and foreground bushes show no sign of blurring. The presumed neck is more blurred than the bulk of the body, which is consistent with his description of the neck moving from side to side. There is a strong wake behind the object which indicates said motion and also that it is rapid.
The image size is about 320kb, so closer inspection of the object is not possible. Access to the original Mb image would be useful (as well as for the exif data).
Detecting image manipulation would required the original image, but I see no indications of image manipulation.
The camera taking the picture is reflected in the image indicating the car window was rolled up as testified.
I then indulged in some speculations. The only object of comparison would be a dark boat. Most boats are light in colour or multicoloured. Either way, other unorthodox objects need to be considered and eliminated as required - jet skis, speedboats, windsurfers, yachts. None seem to fit the shape of this object unless they assumed some strange contortions.
The object is basically blackish which is curious since I also did a calculation as to the sun's position at the stated time and date. The sun would have been behind the observers and slightly to their right. The conditions look overcast in the picture, so there may not have been much reflection. All this would indicate an intrinsically dark object.
The object is hundreds of yards away so details are confined to gross morphology. A comparison shot which included a Jacobite boat was taken by myself in April and is shown below. The witness photograph was then overlaid onto this picture, aligning the background hill contours as carefully as possible.
This was the best picture and I think shows the Jacobite Warrior cruise
boat. Its beam or width is 8 meters and measuring the relative image sizes of
the two, an estimate of monster size can be made as follows based on measurements I made with a ruler on the computer screen display.
Jacobite Warrior beam/width = 8m
Width on screen = 16mm
Width of object "body" = 8mm maps to 4m (13ft)
Width of whole object = 13mm maps to 6.5m (21ft)
So the "monster" is over 20 feet long including what we presume to be
the neck, which was a little more difficult to estimate due to motion
blur. Again, this is consistent with the witness' description of the object being "huge".
There are some caveats. The "monster" is a bit further out and so is actually bigger in terms of perspective. The boat rear is at a slight angle to us and so the apparent
foreshortening makes its measured length a little less than 8m. These
two observations probably cancel each other out to a certain extent.
Based on this, I
am pretty sure that is not a bird like a swan or cormorant taking off as it disturbs the water with its feet. The object in the picture is
uniformly dark and swans are white. Given the sun was behind the
photographer, I would not expect a white swan to turn out black. I also
note an absence of anything I would call wings in the picture.
Cormorants
are darker, but the "body" in the picture looks larger in proportion to
the "neck" than for cormorants which have quite big necks/heads.
Besides, I again think this object is further out than that. There is a
line below the object which is most likely a boat wake, so we are out
there with the boats.
As an aside, the witness took a considerable bit of flak on another forum when he refused to publish the picture. Part of that would be the usual sceptic disdain, but some of it I suspect was an attempt to goad the witness into publishing, which he resolutely refused to do. Whatever the mix of intentions, witnesses with a story to tell may be deterred from coming forward when they see exchanges such as this. That is very sad.
In conclusion, the photograph is a good one by Loch Ness Monster standards. Obviously, I would like it to be out there for others to examine and form their own opinions. Perhaps that time will come, but for all that, it is a reported sighting of the monster, photo or no photo and that qualifies it for inclusion in the growing list of people who have claimed to have seen the creature since decades past.
This is an excellent find GB and very intriguing to say the least. I have said before on this blog that I was certain of the existence of unknown photographs and even videos of something in the Loch and just talking of it here brought me some slight ridicule. One or two sceptics couldn't see how anybody with an alleged photo or video would be able to resist showing it to the world. Your article more than explains how such a thing would happen. I would also commend you on your integrity regarding this photo by respecting the wishes of the witness involved. You might get one or two more revelations like this if former unknown witnesses are aware of and trust your discretion. I would also like to offer my belated condolences GB.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I am sure there are a few out there.
DeleteI'm confused; all I see in this article is a sketch at the top then a photo of a boat with a wake, but no picture of a supposed creature.
ReplyDeleteThe photo is not available for public viewing because the person does not own the copyright.
Deletebooooooo pics or it didn't happen
DeleteAre you doubting that Roland saw the photo, Matyas? I may not always agree with his conclusions, but if Roland says he has seen the photo I have no doubt it happened...
DeleteHow many secret photographs and videos could exist by now is interesting. Most people would not want to be labelled as crackpots or kooks, the attention may be unwanted for many. The first thing people do often is doubt or criticize.
ReplyDeleteJust look at how mainstream media portrays the LNM.....now imagine social media. That is a lot of verbal abuse in many cases, enough to give much people doubts about going public with anything Nessie.
Yet there could be a clear image out there, someone considering releasing a strong piece of evidence. Let's hope they find this blog.
It wasn't exactly a chance missed, there is a photograph.
ReplyDeleteGood 2 hear of a sighting along with a photograph. Reading the story it sounds very realistic as he admits to having a drink were i think if it was a story made up 2 fool people he would not say they had bin drinking. It sounds an honest story 2 me. Its a pity we could not view the photograph Roland but respect your decision not 2 show it.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the object is blurred during a daytime shot. It would need to have been moving pretty fast. Although without knowing the distance to subject, focal length and aperture, it's impossible to guess. Most objects at a distance from the observer move relatively slowly across a field of view, and therefore be captured as a reasonably sharp object. Can I ask, was all (or most) of the shot in focus? And did it take in a wide vista or was the creature reasonably close up?
ReplyDeleteWould the taking of the picture through glass have any effect regarding the sharpness of the object in question? I have had some success in taking pictures that turn out slightly blurred in places when photographed through glass :-)
DeleteIt's entirely possible for daytime shots to come out blurred if the camera has failed to focus properly on the object in question (easy to do if it's small in the frame) or if it's moving too fast for the camera's selected shutterspeed.
DeleteI think Roland was correct in assuming that the supposed animal was blurred due to motion, since the landscape was in focus. In my experience, the vast majority of 'point and shoot' cameras give very little in the way of semi-automatic or manual modes, and therefore the chances are that this was a fully automatic shot. How the camera chose the speed and aperture is anyone's guess, but if the camera was on an automatic 'landscape' type mode (certainly possible if you're travelling through the Highlands), shutter speed would not be of primary concern. I've never used automatic modes myself, but according to the website Digital Photography School, landscape mode is taken to mean the following:
Delete'This mode is almost the exact opposite of portrait mode in that it sets the camera up with a small aperture (large number) to make sure as much of the scene you’re photographing will be in focus as possible (ie it give you a large depth of field). It’s therefore ideal for capturing shots of wide scenes, particularly those with points of interest at different distances from the camera. At times your camera might also select a slower shutter speed in this mode (to compensate for the small aperture) so you might want to consider a tripod or other method of ensuring your camera is still.'
I fished around for opinions on water disturbance size versus speed and a possible speed for the object is 7-8 knots, which is not actually speedboat velocity. Without knowing the camera setup, not much more can be said.
DeleteIt will degrade the quality, depending on angle of light and window cleanliness. As Roland says, the landscape appears sharp whereas the animal is blurry. This does suggest that the blur is as a result of subject movement. Depending on the factors I outlined above, it could suggest a lot of movement. Without having the numbers it's hard to make a judgement, but motion blur is a factor of the shutter speed dropping below an acceptable value to freeze movement.The fact that the animal appears to be quite blurred (and at a distance) means that it must be moving at a considerable pace. An overcast late afternoon in March would also lead to reasonably low lighting conditions, and given the camera is 'vintage' digital, it maybe wasn't the best. I would love to see the exif data myself. It would then be possible to try to recreate the settings in camera and photograph an object of known speed i.e. a boat, and then possibly ascertain the speed of the animal. I hope this image can see the light of day, and I'm glad it has at least been made open to Roland's professional judgement.
ReplyDeleteI hope your witnesses reconsider their decision to withhold the image - at least let the photo out without their names attached. We do not need another Taylor film scenario...
ReplyDeleteI agree. I hope he reconsiders because if his name is not mentioned i cant see how he would get riducled. It would be great to see it.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same with regards the blur John, but it is possible that the camera on automatic picked a small aperture to get everything in focus. Dull evening in early spring at a high latitude, it might just be enough.
ReplyDeleteI understand the witness's reluctance to publish the picture since the copyright belongs to his ex-girl-friend who took the picture and whom he is no longer on good terms with. Copyright might be financially important if this ends up being one of the iconic Nessie photos and widely reproduced. Moral, try to stay on good terms with your ex!
ReplyDeleteJust release the image already, no name attached will keep this mystery man a mystery but we could see for ourselves what this new photo is all about.
ReplyDeleteChances are it won't generate much interest anyway, it sounds like another blurred distant possible sighting.
If you had not already Seen it Roland I would dismiss this altogether as anything evidence.
Yes, it could just stay within cryptid circles with no harm to the person, but I doubt that would be a big enough assurance.
DeleteThe photo may/could also be reproduced under 'Fare Use'on the internet the link for interpretation.......
Deletehttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
I don't think the object is doing any record animal speeds. I did a reccy of the area back in April (hence the jacobite picture). Presumably, the foliage hsa increased in the last 11 years, though the area in front of the clansman has undergone a bit of a facelift.
ReplyDeleteBut, yes, a lot of the road side is blocked by trees/bushes. A clear view of the loch with no high trees would be required for this photo.
Why did they not publish it at the time? On what planet would two young adults not realise in 2006 that an intriguing picture of the Loch Ness Monster would be of value? Why does he now consider it so? That combined with the cloak and dagger issues surrounding it and the fact he choses not to release it are very suspicious. However, you have been lucky enough to see it. Do you think it's a clincher photo Roland in that it could prove the monster's existence? If so you should do all in your power to push for its release.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to say that this story doesn't have the ring of truth about it. The feeling I get from reading it is that it's a made up story. Someone is trying to generate a mystery within a mystery it appears to me. I've seen this being discussed on another forum and everything about it just doesn't feel right.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems as if that might be the case, although the evidence is in the photo. Who can tell with the scant amount of information? Although I do think Roland has done his best within the constraints set down.
Delete