Roy Johnston took a sequence of eight photographs purporting to be of the Loch Ness Monster in the act of submerging back in August 2002. Naturally, the reaction to the pictures was mixed but they were generally dismissed by those who examined them. Sixteen years later I plan to cover these pictures in one chapter of my forthcoming book on the monster. For the time being, I will assume a neutral position and be a listener as others possibly express their opinions but also perhaps offer data on the event.
To that end, I have a request asking if anyone has the article on these pictures from the News Of The World newspaper dated Sunday 8th September 2002? An enquiry to the British Library suggests it only made it into the Scottish edition and so far I have not found it. I do remember reading the article years back but cannot recall the source now so any help will be appreciated. I am aware of the arguments made by leading researchers and these will be considered in the book as well.
The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com
Pretty sure I've still got the article somewhere Roland, I will have a rummage and see if I can find it.
ReplyDeleteHello Mr Felthan. If you don’t mind me asking, what are your thoughts on these photos? I think they sort of match some eyewitness statements and I’m inclined to believe they’re genuine, but something about them gives me a niggling doubt. I’m not sure if it’s because the object is so thin.
DeleteOkay, Steve, thanks.
DeleteThough I've at best found the authenticity of the pics debatable there's always been one thing that gnaws away at my suspicion - why would he go to such lengths to take not just one but a series of faked pictures? After all, if you are going to try to pass off a fake as genuine, wouldn't the chances of being exposed as fake increase the more pics that are produced? It will be interesting to see the take on this.
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, yes. The more image processsing that occurs, the higher the probability of a mistake being made and being found.
DeleteWe'll Well you only have to release the ones you like.
DeleteThere seems to be plenty about this on the internet but I found an interesting article about these pictures here. Even more suspicious when you see the connections.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lochnessinvestigation.com/gray.html
That website is scientifically flawed and extremely biased. I wouldn’t get my “facts” from there if I were you.
DeleteI am aware of the arguments made at that site. Rest assured those will be covered in the book chapter as well.
DeleteBiased or not, if a small percentage of the information is correct then it doesn't look good for these photos. I know life is complicated, but more twists and turns tend to point to fakery.
DeleteThis is a strange photo.The neck is a lot thinner than most eyewitness accounts. This could even pass for Roy's Tullimonstrum, the head and neck are identical.Perhaps Ted Holiday was on to something after all.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite nice photoshop if it is digital manipulation. There appears to be some shadow in the water and the object looks meshed into the environment regarding lighting. If it's a model floating then the buoyancy device is well integrated - perhaps just below the surface?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion what this is not is a live animal. It has an angular head, a smooth, almost machine tooled "neck" and a general uniform unaturalness found nowhere in nature from my layman's knowledge. There is no tapering on the "neck" which you'd expect and it's almost comically skinny. It also matches none of the thousands of eye witness descriptions except in the loosest sense that it's presumably a head and neck.
Intrigued to see the other photos in the sequence, I'm sure your take will be as fascinating as always GB, but to me this first one is not encouraging as evidence.
According to the article in the Sept 8, 2002 Scotsman the pictures were made by a film camera and were not digital, and the article quotes Lawrence Sear of the Daily Mail as saying that the Daily Mail had collected the negatives and that there did not appear to be any manipulation (of the negatives).
ReplyDeleteThat to me is intriguing; digital photos are easily manipulated. Film? Not so much.
If a phrase oft used, but what does one mean by manipulation of the negatives?
DeletePerhaps it means leaving a photo negative on a bird table in the hope that a plesiosaur-shaped poo will be deposited on it? Joke!
Delete"Manipulation" in this case would mean retouched/physically altered in order for the print(s) to show something that was not originally on the negative i.e. drawing a picture of a head and neck poking out of the water.
DeleteHmmm, no luck so far with my appeal.
ReplyDeleteNo help from Steve Feltham? He said he might have the article, but apparently not. Of course he'd have to find a way of getting it to you if he did (scan it and send it via internet. Or go to a local establishment where he can use such a service. By the way, I wonder if he has A computer and internet service in his converted mobile home? From what Iv'e seen in videos, he lives a pretty spartan life by the loch shore Maybe these web archiving services might help, but you probably already thought about that. Just a hint.
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.org
https://web.archive.org
Steve is on the Internet else he wouldn't have been able to post a comment here.
DeleteOK. Then I guess he couldn't find the article. :(
DeleteI've got Internet here, and the Dores Inn WiFi signal reaches me fine. I emailed a photo of the original daily mail exclusive two page spread, but it turns out Roland is looking for the news of the world article from the following day which I haven't found.
DeleteThanks Steve. Just wasn't sure and wondered about your accessibility to the internet from your present location, or where you might be getting online from. That clears that up! Cheers
Delete'Loch Ness Monster: Missing Evidence' is on in half an hour at 7pm on channel 5.
ReplyDeleteSaw a bit, circus elephants!? Well Roy Johnston did describe it initially as an elephant trunk.
DeleteIt's the AquaPhant..a rheogue Barnum and Bailey circus elephant that shock-evolved to live in the lock feeding on "Oxymussels" unique to the lock.Thus was born the AquaPhant!
DeleteI watched that.I still think the Gordon Holmes video is very interesting, but how anyone thought it could be a seal is beyond me.I have never seen a seal move like that through the water.
ReplyDeleteThis head/neck presents the same problem as the O'Connor photo - exactly where/how does this neck connect to a body?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Dick Raynor's take on this foto i think there is too many problems ..i smell a rat ! But i agree with the holmes video..defo not a seal cos they dont move like that ...Roy
ReplyDeleteInteresting photo. I do believe that this is a photo of an actual object in the water, rather than some sort of image manipulation. However, that doesn't mean that someone didn't go and put something in the loch and take pictures. That being said, everyone assumes that this is suppose to show the head and neck of the Loch Ness beastie. Possibly it is an actual unknown creature, but not its head and neck.
ReplyDeleteI have indeed been thinking not all "necks" reported are actually necks. Spicers' undulating neck looks impossible for a vertebrae neck.
ReplyDeleteJohn that's so true about Adrian. I guess he was a hard-core believer for a good 10 years and he doesn't completely rule Nessie out 100% so it's important to him. But aye, he's aaaaaaalways on the telly!
ReplyDelete