Tuesday, 18 December 2018

A New Photograph of Nessie?




Today the Sun newspaper published what is undoubtedly at face value a fascinating photograph allegedly of the Loch Ness Monster taken by a Ricky Phillips on the 13th December. The account runs as follows: 

IT'S one of the UK's greatest unexplained mysteries, with tales of the mythical beast spanning centuries. And now another reported sighting of the Loch Ness monster has been officially recorded after a creature with a "4ft neck" was spotted in the murky waters.

Ricky Phillips, who works as a guide, says he was waiting for his group of tourists to finish their cruise when he noticed the strange sight last Thursday. The 39-year-old says he was sitting at the River Oich as it flows into Loch Ness at Fort Augustus eating some chips when he heard a weird noise. Mr Phillips, who writes history books, said: "It was a grey creature - almost bird like - in a grey stretch of water."


"It's neck was three to four feet long, a head the size of a rugby ball and a ridge across its eyes. I was baffled. The previous Wednesday I had heard a strange noise as I was stood by a cafe at the edge of the loch in Fort Augustus. The noise sounded almost metallic, but like something was blowing air - like Darth Vader. I have swum and sailed with whales and dolphins, seen hundreds of seals, and it sounded like nothing I have ever heard. I spun around and saw something grey, just a side of a body and a flipper.

"Then last Thursday after my tour party went on their cruise I decided to take a walk along the river Oich, mainly to see the old bridge, and was taking a few pictures of the loch and the scenery when I again heard that curious noise. I looked up from my phone and saw a long, straight neck, all completely grey, and a narrow face, which was only about 20ft away and then it turned and disappeared all in a few seconds. I looked down and realised that it was in my picture, so zoomed in and there it was. It actually looks like a giant bird or a peacock in the face, with high ridges above its eyes and what almost looks like a beak.

"I know dinosaurs came from birds and that many had hard lips, almost like a beak - but this is simply what I saw. It seems to have almost a frill on its neck. It is very odd. All I will say is that, if I was going to fake a Nessie, I would certainly have made it look less like a bird and more like... well, more like what we think Nessie looks like!"

The image was today accepted by the Official Loch Ness Monster Sightings Register. The previous sightin was recorded by an American tourist who saw a dark green object protruding 4.5 feet above the water on November 22. According to Google there are 200,000 searches each month for the Loch Ness Monster, which is estimated to be worth £41million to the region.

This is indeed a curious tale where the witness speaks of two sightings less than a week apart accompanied by a strange metallic sound. I must admit I have not heard of such a noise but the picture is consistent enough with the eyewitness database. Sceptics will of course question his good fortune in seeing something twice so quickly and may well tell us that there is no proof from the picture that it was taken at Loch Ness. I am hopeful that Ricky will allow any uncropped picture to be published and clear that up as well as provide reference points to make further estimates.

It may also be said that it is simply a bird like a cormorant, but I do not think those birds have such a thick neck. I am also wondering what the dark patch is to the right? Perhaps just debris, which again will be suggested as the explanation for the object - a tree branch. Anyway, it is best to get the sceptical interpretations out there in the open for discussion and dismissal of all, save perhaps one.

However, the fibre like projections from the "head" are strange as one could interpret them as small branches. I am not committing to such an explanation yet. Meantime, I await that uncropped picture for further deliberation.

UPDATE: I got in contact with Ricky via Facebook and asked him a few questions. The first point is that the Sun article got a few things wrong.  Ricky said "It looks like a bloody Peacock doing the breast stroke!" and he never said it sounded like Darth Vader breathing but jokingly said "it made a noise which sounded like a blowing of air, but metallic, kind of like Darth Vader sneezing!". I am trying to imagine what that sounds like myself.

Ricky asserted that the object was not a bird or a branch but unlike the Sun claiming that he had said he had proof, he is downplaying it more and saying this is what I snapped. As to the larger uncropped image I requested, Ricky said: "My phone is on its last legs and jam-packed with thousands of photos, mostly all Falklands War related, so nothing new seems to be storing. When I zoomed in and saw that as big as I could, I posted it straight to Instagram from the picture itself, so I could keep it.".

This will be a gift to the sceptics as they search for any reason to debunk this picture, but it goes with the territory and it was no surprise when Ricky said "I almost didn't say anything, because in my line of work, you need sincerity and integrity", confirming again that the presence of sceptics is actually a powerful demotivator against going public. I also believe that pictures can be taken with a mobile phone camera even if the memory is full but can be shared onto socila media websites.

The author can be contacted at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com









46 comments:

  1. Somebody called "Unknown" tried to post. You cannot post unless I can see your google profile.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While the uncropped image really needs to be seen, the image presented here has features that are, as far as I am aware, not mentioned in any sighting of Nessie. The white outlining the "eye" in particular would surely have been noticed by some other witnesses. Since we have a fairly good idea of where this "sighting" took place, I'd want to know how deep the water is there. It does look to be fairly deep near Oich, so this may not matter here. Let's see the whole photo!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the lack of an uncropped photo is problematic for this image.

      To me it looks quite rigid and stiff,maybe a hand and arm clothed in a glove and sleeve. Without an uncropped photo scale and location cannot be ascertained.

      Delete
    2. Hmmm, how does one decide an object is rigid and stiff from a still image? Video, yes.

      Delete
    3. Hello G. B.
      I take your point about judging an object looking rigid and stiff from a still image. I was comparing this image to the Mansi photo of Champ which looks sinuous.

      I am not 100% certain on any of this,its all just speculation. Video would help a great deal.

      Delete
  3. Lake ogopogo monster is grey looking anaw interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The species of ogopogo are many colors,grey,green,purple black..different shapes,amphibious,egg laying,man eaters.
      www.sunnyokanagan.com
      Email Andrew Bennett for photos

      Delete
  4. Looks somewhat similar to the Mansi photo of Champ in Lake Champlain...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very interesting. Bird like yet too wide and large to be a cormorant. Does this image have a resemblance to any other nessie photographs ? If any I can only see similarities with the Rines underwater head/torso slightly. Why should a head shot of a nessie look like we all expect? This image is intriguing, and yes let's definitely see the original photograph for scale and location.Although birdlike it is not 100% like a bird. I hope to find out more about this sighting.For once I'm not overly skeptical and consider this account possibly....possibly genuine. It is at least more clear than all other pics for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Article updated having made contact with the witness.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do accept Ricky saw something he could not readily explain, but if I was living there, i would go down to the river Oich to check it out. Someone may come back with a picture of a branch sticking out the water which frustatingly does not look enough like our object but will be accepted by those who seek such things.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Roland. I have send you a underlined image of my theory by e-mail.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reminds me of the lesser known surgeon's photo

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems to be a very clear picture of a bird

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Birds have 6 foot necks and fly underwater?
      Is that the Aquatic Giraffe Yellow Bellied SapSucker( A.G.Y.B.S.)??

      Delete
  11. "...and was taking a few pictures of the loch and the scenery when I again heard that curious noise..." then "My phone is on its last legs and jam-packed with thousands of photos, mostly all Falklands War related, so nothing new seems to be storing..." Not totally doubting the authenticity but this does seem a little strange?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Sun newspaper getting things wrong???? Never!!! Lol

    ReplyDelete
  13. As Petesx points out above, Ricky says he posted the image straight to Instagram as his camera was not storing anything new. So that raises two questions - why was he "taking a few pictures of the loch and the scenery" if he was camera was not storing the photos? Did he post them all to Instagram? If so, we should be able to see what he posted before and after his "Nessie" pic, right? OK, that was 3 questions...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good questions, with various possible answers.

      Delete
    2. I asked Ricky that question. You can snap away pictures, once you view and like them they can be shared on social media without saving to the phone, but it will be lost on the next snap. Mind you, these days you can now save your pics to the manufacturer's cloud with no need for internal storage. Must keep up ...

      Delete
  14. Wasn't there a photo posted here awhile back of a smaller creature closeup that was also birdlike and some dismissed as being a bird?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, here we go...

      http://lochnessmystery.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-photograph-from-loch-ness.html

      Delete
  15. https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/new-video-of-canadas-legendary-ogopogo-lake-monster-surfaces/news-story/c81bf6fd15b59a2e4e3e845c99206584 so check out the still picture mr stark took and chk the face features very similar to the new pic much luv

    ReplyDelete
  16. I couldn't understand why a photo taken on a phone, presumably in colour would look so dark, so I saved the image to my phone and quickly twiddled with the brightness and contrast etc, which revealed a whole lot more information than is available in this 'original'image, not "all completely grey" at all.
    Not sure why someone who's phone isn't saving images is taking photographs with it in the first place, bit like listening to an LP that's not connected to a speaker, but each to his own.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Goes off to take scenic photos yet he cant store them ??? Soz to be pessimistic but ..dodgy story..very dodgy photo...even dodgier newspaper lol !!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Another Rorschach test for Nessie fans. What do you see? A sock puppet, a bird, a floating log? Steve Feltham had the right idea n adjusting brightness and contrast. Maybe somebody with some expertise in digital photo enhancing software can lighten it up and bring out some detail? Maybe hinting at some eyes, nostrils and mouth. Then we might have something.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is this a place where people replace critical faculty with emotional desire...I keep hearing about sceptics, as if the topic is about religious belief. A lot of people describe things...but the physical/photographic evidence is just not there...this latest picture is laughable in the extreme...if this animal does exist, it needs better than the evidence given...and no I m not sceptic...but I am not a zealot either!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are fundamentalists on both sides. Some folks seem to be hell bent on disproving everything, including outstanding eyewitness testimony. Granted, this photo is not very clear as it stands, but as we still don't know what we are dealing with (and I personally think we are dealing with multiple unexplained phenomenon), we have to take evidence as we find it.

      I believe we are dealing with an 'unknown unknown', as opposed to the prevalent view of a 'known unknown', ie. something we can assign our own current logic to (ancient reptile, whale, turtle or other form of modified known animal).

      Delete
    2. Photographed evidence IS there.
      Sonar evidence IS there.
      Witnessed evidence IS there.

      Delete
  20. Tried to post a while ago but I think I was drunk....

    GB have you interviewed the photographer? It's undeniably an interesting photo and story but it all comes down to the veracity of the guy that took the photo. You canny see it twice and hear it breathe without it being the real deal or a fake.

    What's your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leave the drinking to me Kyle. We only need one drunken fool here. Hic LOL At first it was unclear to me as to whether he had actually seen the creature, or only noticed it after reviewing his phone pics. But after rereading the article, seems he did see it, not once, but twice and managed to get the “neck and head “ shot on his phone. Well, that being the case, we only have his word and a dubious pic for the eyes of the beholder.

      Delete
    2. Kyle. Yes, I am in conversation with Ricky and a follow up article should follow having seen and considered the various explanations offered up.

      Delete
    3. This should prove interesting. (sarcasm) ...In a friendly way... Ahem

      Delete
    4. ;) I'll keep my scepticism for the follow up article John. Props to GB for making contact with him. If they lad is gonna stand up and defend his sightings and picture I'll certainly take it seriously.

      Also Merry Christmas everyone!

      Delete
  21. I have a hard time understanding the whole "Phone couldn't store the photo" explanation; when a phone takes a picture that image is stored *somewhere on the phone*. It wouldn't be available to send to a website otherwise...

    ReplyDelete
  22. ____I believe we are dealing with an 'unknown unknown', as opposed to the prevalent view of a 'known unknown', ie. something we can assign our own current logic to (ancient reptile, whale, turtle or other form of modified known animal)._____

    This is the sort of woolly minded Ted Holiday styled hippy thinking that rightly infuriates science minded sceptics.

    Are you suggesting the creature is not a solid, flesh and blood carbon based lifeform but a shape-shifting phenomenom that defies the laws of physics ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a degree in chemistry. I do happen to agree with some of Ted Holiday's directions of travel, but his last book was way out. However, I can see where he was coming from regards lake creatures, and specifically the Irish connection (where very reputable eyewitnesses gave accounts of animals that simply could not exist in the small bodies of water they were seen in). There are many other instances where Ted Holiday's 'logic' actually makes some kind of weird sense.

      To me, these animals are certainly flesh and blood, but maybe they're not from here, and maybe they're not always here. There is a place in physics for other universes. Loch Ness is a joke across our society, partly because of the amount of unreconcilable eyewitness accounts, which is absurd given the strength of some of the testimony. As far as I'm concerned, we have a phenomena to investigate, not an April Fools hoax.

      Delete
    2. Lunacy.
      There is room for many unknown animals in this world.The general tv watching public are idiots so I wouldn't care what they think about Nessie,the waterbull,the water horse,the kelpie,the giant eel.As for unrecognizable,many ARE recognizable and show several unknown animals in Loch Ness.
      The opinion of The IDIOCRAcY is not valid and is a waste of time.
      There ARE unknown animals in Loch Ness and that all I am interested in discovering.

      Delete
  23. "rightly infuriates SCIENCE minded skeptics!"
    Don't you mean SCIENTISM minded skeptics?
    SCIENTISM-A dogmatic religion based on false science
    Paid skeptics are NOT known for real science.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Goodnight and a Merry Christmas to all. GB is snugly in bed dreaming of Ginger bread men and dancing Nessies. I'll turn the lights out close the door behind me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Again we have a single picture, with no context or scale, and the insertion of the phrase, "Unfortunately I was unable . . . " followed by an excuse. Why in the world would you bring a camera to Loch Ness that you knew was unable to save images? Why bring the camera at all?? In any case, as to the 'whooshing' sound cited, I believe Alex Campbell referenced a sound like a horse expelling air, connected with one of his encounters, so there does appear to be some corroboration for the animal making that sound. Whether this sighting is legit however is open to serious debate, pending further details, full picture, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Someone named "Unknown" just submitted a post, please make you blogger profile available to view.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is the image here the same file as what the original would be cropped like the one here?
    If it is there's just about zero information in the object.
    I also thought to myself, when I was looking at those sort of line of bumps along its back, that it looks like when you clone a section and then drag away, you get that repeating looking pattern. Especially when doing it along an edge of something.
    Not saying it is mind you, just had a similar look.

    Haven't posted for a long time

    jon (formerly of long island , ny)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Something else I just noticed. Take a look at the Dipak Ram photo.
    Imagine the left side of the 'creature' is its head with the neck on the rightside. I be damned if it looks almost exactly what the photo above would look like if its head and neck were straightened out and sitting on top of the water

    jon (again)

    ReplyDelete